Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges “the teaching of Yuh would lead those skilled in the art to prioritize use of low-work-function metals such as those mentioned in the parenthesis above”. The applicant has not provided evidence for their allegation of “ to prioritize use of low-work-function metals”. MPEP 716.01(c) II discloses “[a]rguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” Moreover, Yuh clearly discloses the use of palladium, which has a work function above 5eV, as noted in the rejection. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The applicant alleges “both of Horio and Kinoshita cannot cure the deficiencies of Yuh” but does not disclose why Horio and Kinoshita cannot cure the deficiencies of Yuh. MPEP 716.01(c) II discloses “[a]rguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” Therefore, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The applicant alleges “Tanaka fails to teach that the second conductive film (22) may contain aluminum.” In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The applicant alleges “in Tanaka, the p-side electrode pad (6), which is in contact with the second conductive film (22), is apparently different from an n-type electrode That is to say, the p-side electrode pad (6) with the TiN layer (72) designed to prevent oxygen migration, together with the oxide-based second conductive film (22), do not provide a teaching or suggestion that would lead to a reasonable predictability for the technical features of the claimed invention”. The examiner disagrees. The TiN would perform as a diffusion barrier. The applicant has not provided evidence that the TiN would not perform as a diffusion barrier in the current combination. Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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) 1-3, 6-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuh et al. (2011/0193122) in view of Horio et al. (US 2005/0211989), Kinoshita et al. (US 20190229237) and Tanaka et al. (US 2012/0213242).
Yuh et al. discloses a light-emitting laminated structure (940) (fig. 11) that has a first surface (top of 941)(fig. 11) and a second surface (bottom of 941)(fig. 11) opposite to said first surface, and that includes a first semiconductor layer having a first electrical conductivity and containing aluminum (941, n-type AlGaN)[0054], a second semiconductor layer having a second electrical conductivity that is different from said first electrical conductivity(943, p-type AlGaN)[0056], and an active layer (942)[0055] disposed between said first semiconductor layer and said second semiconductor layer, said active layer generating light via electron-hole recombination, a first contact electrode (970) disposed on said first surface and forming an ohmic contact with said light-emitting laminated structure(fig. 11), wherein said first contact electrode includes a first metal material [palladium, 0058] that has a work function not less than 5 eV and that is in contact with said first surface that is in contact with said first surface wherein said first semiconductor layer (941) is doped with an n-type dopant [0054], and provides electrons to said active layer (inherent, same structure will have the same results).
Yuh et al. fails to disclose an insulating layer disposed on said light-emitting laminated structure and covering said light-emitting laminated structure and said first contact electrode.
Horio et al. disclose an insulating layer (17)[0050] disposed on said light-emitting laminated structure and covering a light-emitting laminated structure (4,5,6) and a first contact electrode (10,20)(fig. 1A).
The combination of Cho and Horio et al. would result in the insulating layer over the a light-emitting laminated structure and a first contact electrode.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming an insulating layer over part of the electrode), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, because the insulation layer would protect the LED and the electrode [Horio et al., 0050].
Yuh et al. and Horio et al. fails disclose said light-emitting laminated structure emits light having a wavelength of less than 400 nm.
Kinoshita et al. disclose aluminum in said first semiconductor layer is present in an amount greater than 20 atom% based on 100 atom% of said first semiconductor layer (50%) [0017, n-type AlXGa1-XN (0.5≤X<1)]. The examiner submits the n-type AlXGa1-XN (0.5≤X<1) would have an emission peak wavelength of less than 400nm (210-350nm)[0025].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (changing the composition of the AlGaN layer [Kinoshita. 0002]), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the changing the composition would allow one to select a peak wavelength [Kinoshita. 0002]).
Yuh et al. Horio et al. and Kinoshita et al. disclose in the invention above.
Yuh et al., Horio et al. and Kinoshita et al. fail disclose said first contact electrode further includes a metal nitride.
Tanaka et al. disclose contact electrode further includes a metal nitride (TiN)[0214].
Yuh et al. Horio et al. Kinoshita et al. and Tanaka et al. would result in metal nitride being the first contact electrode.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a metal nitride as a contact), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the metal nitride would act as a diffusion barrier and maintain strong adherence during a heat treatment [Tanaka et al., 0214]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuh et al. (2011/0193122) in view of Horio et al. (US 2005/0211989), Kinoshita et al. (US 20190229237) and Tanaka et al. (US 2012/0213242) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bedell et al. (US 2018/0277707).
Yuh et al. Horio et al. Kinoshita et al. and Tanaka et al. disclose in the invention above.
Yuh et al. Horio et al. Kinoshita et al. and Tanaka et al. fail disclose said first metal material and said second metal material are mixed with each other and are distributed on said first area.
Bedell et al. first metal material and a second metal material are mixed with each other.
The combination of Cho et al. and Horio et al. and Bedell et al. would result in the mixture (alloy) is distributed on said first area [0036, alloy of platinum and aluminum].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (alloying the two metals), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the alloy would form an electrical contact).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuh et al. (2011/0193122) in view of Horio et al. (US 2005/0211989), Kinoshita et al. (US 20190229237) and Tanaka et al. (US 2012/0213242) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2005/0279990).
Yuh et al. Horio et al. Kinoshita et al. and Tanaka et al. disclose in the invention above.
Yuh et al. Horio et al. Kinoshita et al. and Tanaka et al. fail disclose a first electrode pad and a second electrode pad, said insulating layer including two through holes, said first electrode pad and said second electrode pad being disposed on said insulating layer and respectively extending through said two through holes, so that said first electrode pad is electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer via said first contact electrode, and said second electrode pad is electrically connected to said second semiconductor layer.
Kang et al. disclose a first electrode pad (430) and a second electrode pad (430)(fig. 2H), an insulating layer (422, 426) including two through holes (428)(figure 2G) , said first electrode pad and said second electrode pad being disposed on said insulating layer and respectively extending through said two through holes (fig. 2H), so that said first electrode pad is electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer via said first contact electrode, and said second electrode pad is electrically connected to said second semiconductor layer (fig 2H).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using an insulation layer with contact holes and contact pads), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the pad would electrically connect to the LED).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuh et al. (2011/0193122) in view of Horio et al. (US 2005/0211989), Kinoshita et al. (US 20190229237) and Tanaka et al. (US 2012/0213242) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of More et al. (US 2022/0216327).
Yuh et al. Horio et al. Kinoshita et al. and Tanaka et al. disclose in the invention above.
Yuh et al. Horio et al. Kinoshita et al. and Tanaka et al. fail disclose the metal nitride is AlTi2N (titanium aluminum nitride. Paragraph [0039] of the specification ).
More et al. disclose a titanium aluminum nitride diffusion barrier layer [0040]. (Paragraph [0034] of the applicant’s specification describes AlTi2N as titanium aluminum nitride. Therefore, the titanium aluminum nitride would read on AlTi2N.)
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using a metal nitride as a contact), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. the titanium aluminum nitride would act as a diffusion barrier [More et al., 0040].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights