DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are drawn to “…a dielectric film…” that is part of the mirror system; however, claim 1 already requires “…a mirror system comprising…a dielectric layer…”. It appears that the “dielectric layer” of claim 1 and the “dielectric film” of claims 4 and 5 are mapped to the same feature and the application will be examined as such.
The Examiner suggests cancelling claims 4 and 5.
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) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mistele (EP2017898A1) in view of Wang et al. (US Pub. 2019/0386174) and Liu et al. (US Pub. 2024/0128403).
Regarding independent claim 1, Mistele teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor device (Fig. 6; para. 0031+), comprising:
a top contact (7) (para. 0031);
a conductive carrier (1, 2) including a conductive substrate (1) (para. 0031, 0038);
a mirror system (3, 4, 5) comprising (para. 0031)
a reflective metal layer (5) disposed on the conductive carrier substrate (para. 0037); and
a dielectric layer (3) disposed on the reflective metal layer, the dielectric layer having a plurality of contact holes (4) with sidewalls defined in the dielectric layer (Fig. 6; para. 0037); and
an infrared (IR) light emitting film (21), the IR light emitting film disposed between the top contact and the mirror system, and the mirror system disposed between the IR light emitting film and the conductive carrier substrate (Fig. 6; para.0031, 0030 – the wavelength range disclosed is within the IR range).
Mistele teaches wherein the conductive carrier includes a GaAs conductive carrier substrate instead of the claimed metallic molybdenum conductive carrier substrate.
Wang teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor device (Fig. 2; para. 0061+) comprising a conductive carrier (14) including a metallic molybdenum conductive carrier substrate (para. 0061 – molybdenum is a conductive metal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to predictably substitute the GaAs conductive carrier substrate of Mistele with the metallic molybdenum conductive carrier of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success because both are known options of conductive carrier substrates. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is considered prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07).
Mistele is silent with respect to wherein the contact holes have sloped sidewalls.
Liu teaches that contact holes with sloped sidewalls are known in the art (Fig. 3: contact holes for contacts (9, 10) are shown as being sloped). Liu further teaches that sloped sidewalls provide the advantages of improved coverage for the subsequent electrode layer and increased contact area between the electrode and the sidewall thereby providing improved adhesion (para. 0122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the contact holes of Mistele such that they included sloped sidewalls as taught by Liu to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of providing the same advantages of improved coverage and improved adhesion as taught by Liu.
Re claim 2, Mistele teaches an upper surface (6) disposed between the top contact and the IR light emitting film facing the top contact (Fig. 6; para. 0041).
Re claim 3, Mistele teaches wherein the IR light emitting film includes a lateral surface (31 or 33) (Fig. 6; para. 0041).
Re claim 4, Mistele teaches wherein the mirror system includes a dielectric film (3) (Fig. 6; para. 0037) (Refer also the 112 rej. for interpretation of this claim).
Re claim 5, Mistele teaches wherein the dielectric film is deposited upon an upper surface (32) (para. 0037) (Refer also the 112 rej. for interpretation of this claim).
Re claim 6, Mistele teaches wherein the mirror system is formed by etching contact openings (4) and deposition of contacts (5) (para. 0037).
Re claim 7, Mistele teaches wherein the IR light emitting film is included in a substrate layer (para. 0016 – where “substrate layer” refers to the confinement or cladding layers).
Re claim 8, Mistele in view of Wang teaches wherein the metallic molybdenum conductive carrier substrate is bonded to the substrate layer (Mistele para. 0039).
Re claim 9, Mistele teaches further comprising a solder layer (AuSn) for bonding the metallic molybdenum conductive carrier substrate to the substrate layer (para. 0038).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mistele (EP2017898A1) in view of Wang et al. (US Pub. 2019/0386174) and Liu et al. (US Pub. 2024/0128403) and further in view of Takagi (JP2016195187A).
Re claim 10, Mistele is silent with respect to wherein the top contact comprises a plurality of electrodes.
Takagi teaches and optoelectronic semiconductor device (Fig. 1A) wherein the top contact (15) comprises a plurality of electrodes (para. 0046-0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the top electrode of Mistele such that it comprised a plurality of electrodes as taught by Takagi for the purpose of; for example, improving current spreading/reducing current crowding.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
The Objection to the Drawings has been withdrawn in light of the newly submitted Drawings.
The previous rejection of Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn; however, the current amendments resulted in claims 4 and 5 to be rejected under this statute as described in the above rejection.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues Mistele does not disclose or suggest the claimed “metallic molybdenum conductive carrier substrate”. While the Examiner agrees that Mistele does not disclose this feature, the Examiner notes that Mistele was not relied upon to teach this feature.
Applicant argues Mistele does not teach sloped sidewalls. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the feature of sloped sidewalls 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 relating to sloped sidewalls. That is, newly cited reference Liu is used to teach and make obvious sloped sidewalls as described in the above rejection.
Applicant argues Mistele does not teach or suggest an infrared light emitting film. This is not found persuasive because Mistele teaches the light-emitting film to be at about 870nm to 890nm wavelength (para. 0030), which is within the infrared range (the infrared wavelength range is approximately 700nm to 1mm).
Applicant argues Wang does not teach a metallic molybdenum conductive carrier substrate. The Examiner disagrees. Paragraph 0061 teaches many different kinds of substrates are known to exist including a molybdenum substrate (molybdenum is a conductive metal); that is, if the substrate is molybdenum then it is a metallic molybdenum conductive carrier substrate. The fact that Wang teaches other possibilities such as semiconductor materials such as silicon or germanium (semiconducting is still broadly considered to be conducting) or insulating is not relevant.
Mistele teaches the carrier substrate to be conducting. Wang teaches other types of conducting substrates are known to exist including metallic molybdenum conductive carrier substrates. Substituting one type of conducting substrate with another type of conducting substrate is considered obvious as described in the above rejection. Likewise, it is the combination of Mistele and Wang that teaches “a mirror system comprising a reflective metal layer disposed on the metallic molybdenum conductive carrier substrate”.
Applicant argues Wang does not teach sloped sidewalls. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the feature of sloped sidewalls 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 relating to sloped sidewalls. That is, newly cited reference Liu is used to teach and make obvious sloped sidewalls as described above.
Applicant argues Wang does not disclose, suggest, or even contemplate an IR light-emitting film. The Examiner replies that whether or not this is true is inconsequential because Wang was not relied upon to teach this feature.
Applicant argues it would not have been obvious to combine Mistele with Wang to arrive at the claimed invention. Applicant appears to argue that because Wang only teaches molybdenum as a possible substrate along with other substrate types that may even be non-conducting; that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would not find it obvious to substitute the carrier substrate of Mistele with a similar carrier substrate disclosed by Wang.
The Examiner disagrees. Mistele teaches the carrier substrate to be conducting and specifically discloses GaAs. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that other conducting substrates could be used with a reasonable expectation of success. Wang teaches that other conductive substrates are known in the art, such as silicon or germanium (both semiconductors like GaAs) or molybdenum (a conductive metal). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to predictably substitute the GaAs conductive carrier substrate of Mistele with the metallic molybdenum conductive carrier of Wang with a reasonable expectation of success because both are known options of conductive carrier substrates. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for an intended use is considered prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.07). The fact that Wang also discloses that non-conducting ceramic substrates are known to exist is not relevant as the primary reference requires a suitable substrate to be conducting; thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered non-conducting substrates to be suitable and would not have considered them to be suitable for its intended use.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408)918-7532. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899