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 Amendment
Applicant’s cancellation of claims 13 – 22 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s addition of claim 23 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification and abstract correct typographical and other issues that were present. The objections to the specification and abstract are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 12 to change the term “terminal expansion” to “thermal expansion” is acknowledged. The 112 rejection of claim 12 is withdrawn.
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.
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the light emission surface" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 23 does not introduce a light emission surface and the independent claim that claim 23 depends on, claim 1, does not introduce or include a light emission surface. It is unclear what surface of the device is the light emission surface, as the independent claim 1 and claim 23 do not introduce a light emission surface or where the surface is located or what part of the device includes the light emission surface. As it is unclear what surface is the light emission surface, claim 23 is rejected as being indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner is interpreting the light emission surface to be a top surface of the semiconductor layered body.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 11, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190259926 A1 hereinafter Musashi in further view of US 20140153262 A1 hereinafter Ohta.
For claim 1, Musashi teaches a light-emitting device comprising: a light-emitting element comprising a semiconductor layered body (Musashi, fig. 7 numeral 111; Par. [0093]), a pair of electrodes provided on a lower surface of the semiconductor layered body (fig. 7 numeral 112A and 114A); a covering member containing a light-reflective material having a plate shape (fig. 7 numeral 150A; Par. [0152]), containing silica (Par. [0078 – 0080] describes the light-reflective material being formed and including silicon dioxide, the chemical name for silica), and also containing an alkaline metal (Par. [0079 – 0080] describes the resin used to form the light-reflective material including alkaline metals such as potassium). Musashi also teaches the light-reflective covering member covering the light-emitting element such that lower surfaces of the electrodes are exposed from the light-reflective covering member (fig. 10 numeral 112A and 114A show the electrodes exposed from the light-reflective covering and the electrodes are located on the lower surface of the semiconductor body 111). Musashi is silent regarding the light-reflective material having a particle size in a range of 0.6 to 43 µm and that the average aspect ratio of the light-reflective material is 10 or greater.
Ohta teaches a light emitting device (Ohta, fig. 3) with a light-reflective material (fig. 3 numeral 212) having a plate shape, silica, and an alkali metal, and covering the light emitting element (Par. [0058]; Par. [0047]; Par. [0078]; Table 3 page 8) and wherein the light-reflective material has a mean particle size in a range of 0.6 µm to 43 µm (Par. [0088 – 0089]; Par. [0110 – 0111]), and the light-reflective material has an average aspect ratio that is 10 or greater (Par. [0045 – 0046]; Par. [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the particle size and aspect ratio in Ohta with the light-reflective member in Musashi in order to increase the reflectance of the light-reflective member (Ohta, Par. [0006]; Par. [0035]).
For claim 2, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 1. Ohta also teaches the light-reflective material being boron nitride (Ohta, Par. [0047]); and a mean particle size of the light-reflective material is in a range of 6 µm to 43 µm (Par. [0019]; Par. [0037 – 0041]). Musashi also teaches the use of boron nitride in the light-reflective material (Musashi, Par. [0079]).
For claim 3, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 1. Ohta also teaches the light-reflective material being alumina (Par. [0041]); and a mean particle size of the light-reflective material is in a range of 0.6 µm to 10 µm (Par. [0037 – 0041]).
For claim 4, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 1. Ohta also teaches a content ratio of the silica and the light-reflective material is in a range of 1:4 to 1:1 by weight (Ohta, Table 2 and Table 3 shows various percentages of silica and light-reflective material including Example 1 of table 3 having 46% alumina and table 2 including compositions by weight of silica ranging between 40.5 – 66.6%. This gives ratios between 1:1 and 1:4 by weight).
For claim 5, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 1. Ohta also teaches the alkali metal including potassium or sodium (Ohta, table 2 G1 gives compounds including potassium and sodium).
For claim 6, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 1. Ohta also teaches the covering member containing a scattering material (Ohta, Par. [0004 – 0006]; Par. [0110]).
For claim 7, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 6. Musashi and Ohta do not explicitly state the mean particle size of the scattering material is less than the mean particle size of the light-reflective material. . However, Ohta does teach a range of particle sizes (Ohta, Par. [0037 – 0047]) and that the various particle materials have 50% particle sizes between 0.5 and 3 µm (Par. [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention that the reflective material and refractive material in Musashi and Ohta can comprise embodiments in which the scattering material has a mean particle size less than the mean particle size of the light-reflective material, as Ohta allows for multiple sizes of particles for the materials used depending on the desired outcome of the device (Par. [0037 – 0047]; Par. [0088]). One would be driven to change the size of the reflective and refractive material to optimize the stability of the device (Ohta, Par. [0053]), prevent the formation of voids in the device (Ohta, Par. [0056]), and adjust the aspect ratio of the device (Ohta, Par. [0049]).
For claim 8, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 6. Ohta also teaches the scattering material mainly including zirconia or titania (Ohta, Par. [0109 – 0110]).
For claim 9, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 1. Musashi also teaches a light-transmitting member that is disposed on the light-emitting element (Musashi, fig. 10 numeral 140U), one or more surface of the light-transmitting member are exposed from the covering member (fig. 10 shows surface 140a exposed from the covering member 150A), and the one or more surfaces of the light-transmitting member exposed from the covering member comprise a light-emission surface (Par. [0122]; Par. [0088]).
For claim 11, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 1. Musashi also teaches the light-emitting element capable of emitting ultraviolet light (Musashi, Par. [0093]).
For claim 23, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 1. Musashi also teaches the electrodes are on the lower surface of the semiconductor layered body facing away from the light-emission surface (a top surface of the semiconductor layered body), and that these lower electrode surfaces serve as external connection points for the device (Musashi, fig. 10 numeral 112A and 114A; Par. [0093]; Par. [0125]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190259926 A1 hereinafter Musashi in view of US 20140153262 A1 hereinafter Ohta and in further view of US 20170033267 A1 hereinafter Tamaki.
For claim 10, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 9. Musashi and Ohta do not explicitly state that the light-transmitting member contains an inorganic material.
Tamaki teaches a light-emitting device (Tamaki, fig. 1B) with a light-transmitting member (fig. 1B numeral 30). The light-transmitting member is made out of inorganic material (Par. [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the inorganic light-transmissive member in Tamaki with the light-emitting element in Musashi and Ohta in order to increase heat resistance of the device (Tamaki, Par. [0058]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190259926 A1 hereinafter Musashi in view of US 20140153262 A1 hereinafter Ohta and in further view of US 6027791 A hereinafter Higashi.
For claim 12, Musashi and Ohta teach all of claim 1. Musashi and Ohta are silent regarding the covering member having a coefficient of thermal expansion in a range of 0.5 ppm/°C to 5 ppm/°C in a temperature range of 40°C to 300°C. Ohta does teach the covering member being comprised of alkaline glass including boron silicate glass (Ohta, Par. [0051] teaches the use of glass containing Silicon Boron tri-Oxide as shown by the formula SiO2 B2O3).
Higashi teaches a semiconductor device (Higashi, fig. 1) with a covering member (fig. 1 numeral 1) that can contain boron silicate glass with a coefficient of thermal expansion in a range of 0.5 ppm/°C to 5 ppm/°C in a temperature range of 40°C to 300°C (Col. 7 ln 40 – 57; Table 1 teaches boron silicate glass having a coefficient of thermal expansion between 0.5 ppm/°C to 5 ppm/°C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the immediate invention to combine the coefficient of thermal expansion in Higashi with the covering member in Musashi and Ohta in order to control the stress in the device and prevent distortion (Higashi, Col. 9 ln 33 – 57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 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.
/J.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815