DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 thru 12, and 15 thru 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. US 2010/0277887 A1 in view of CN 205595365 U. Su discloses (see, for example, FIG. 1, and 2) a semiconductor light-emitting device 100 comprising a semiconductor light-emitting stack 104, light-emitting surface 105, and an insulating light-transmissive layer 124/122/110 wherein the insulating light-transmissive layer includes a base 122/110, and graded index structure 124. In FIG. 2, Su discloses a first film 127, and second film 125. In paragraph [0031], Su discloses the first film 127 having a refractive index of 2-3, and the second film 125 having a refractive index of 1.4-1.9. In paragraph [0029], Su discloses the base 110 having a refractive index of 1-1.5. Su does not clearly disclose the semiconductor light-emitting stack including an active layer. However, it was well known in the art that light-emitting devices have stacks that include an active layer. For example, CN 205595365 U discloses (see, for example, figure 2) a semiconductor light-emitting device comprising a semiconductor light-emitting stack including an active layer 3, and insulating light-transmissive layer 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the semiconductor light-emitting stack including an active layer in order to convert electrical energy in a light emitting device, and generate light as is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 2, see, for example, paragraph [0031] wherein Su states the first film having a refractive index being 2-3, and the second film having a refractive index as high as 1.9.
Regarding claims 3, and 16, see, for example, figure 2 wherein CN 205595365 U discloses a transparent conductive layer 5 being transparent conductive materials such as indium tin oxide and aluminum-doped ZnO which have refractive indexes typically greater than 1.8. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said transparent conductive layer having a second refractive index that is greater than each of said refractive index of said first film and said refractive index of said second film in order to evenly distribute current across the active area of the light-emitting device, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, see, for example, paragraph [0031] wherein Su discloses glass, which is nitrogen-free.
Regarding claim 5, see, for example, paragraph [0031] wherein Su states the refractive index being 1-1.5; further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said first refractive index being less than 1.5 in order to improve light efficiency, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 17, Su in view of CN 205595365 U does not clearly disclose said base having a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 80 nm; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the thickness ranging from 10 nm to 80 nm in order to have adequate support for the overlying layers while transmitting light outside of the light-emitting device.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a third refractive index ranging from 1.8 to 1.95 in order to reflect more light for light efficiency, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 8-9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a first film being a nitrogen-containing film, silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride in order to have an insulative, transparent film that transmits light efficiently, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a fourth refractive index ranging from 1.6 to 1.75 in order to reflect more light for light efficiency, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, see, for example, paragraph [0031] wherein Su states Al2O3.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 18, see, for example, FIG. 1 wherein Su discloses a sealing resin 108.
Regarding claim 19, Su et al. US 2010/0277887 A1 in view of CN 205595365 U does not clearly disclose a refractive index which is higher than that of said sealing resin; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a refractive index which is higher than that of said sealing resin in order to optimize the refractive index difference for improving the light extraction efficiency, and minimize overall degradation of the sealing resin.
Claim(s) 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. US 2010/0277887 A1 in view of CN 205595365 U as applied to claims 1-12, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Hsieh et al. US 2008/0308832 A1. Su et al. US 2010/0277887 A1 in view of CN 205595365 U does not clearly disclose the first film being made of silicon nitride, said second film being made of a material selected from silicon oxynitride and aluminum oxide. However, Hsieh discloses (see, for example, paragraph [0024]) a light emitting device comprising a first film 131 and a second film 132. In paragraph [0024], Hsieh discloses the first film 131 may include SiNx, etc. and the second film 132 may include SiON, Al2O3, etc. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first film being made of silicon nitride, said second film being made of a material selected from silicon oxynitride and aluminum oxide in order to improve light efficiency according to the preferences of the user, and
since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 14, Su et al. US 2010/0277887 A1 in view of CN 205595365 U does not clearly disclose AlxIn1-xGaN, wherein 0≤x≤1; however, Hsieh discloses (see, for example, paragraph [0022]) AlGaInP, AlGaAs, AlGaInN, or other ternary or quaternary III-V group compound semiconductor materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have AlxIn1-xGaN, wherein 0≤x≤1 in order to use a material with a wide bandgap for greater light efficiency, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, Su et al. US 2010/0277887 A1 in view of CN 205595365 U does not clearly disclose an outermost film of said at least two films, which is in a position most remote from said base, has a refractive index which is higher than that of said sealing resin; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an outermost film of said at least two films, which is in a position most remote from said base, has a refractive index which is higher than that of said sealing resin in order to optimize the refractive index difference for improving the light extraction efficiency, and minimize overall degradation of the sealing resin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Eugene Lee
October 29, 2025
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815