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 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. US 2014/0124807 A1. Kuo discloses (see, for example, FIG. 1A) a light-emitting diode 1 comprising a semiconductor epitaxial structure including a first semiconductor layer 11, active layer 12, second semiconductor layer 13, and an electrode structure 62. In FIG. 2, Kuo further discloses the electrode structure 62 wherein the electrode structure includes an ohmic contact layered unit 73, and a wire bonding layered unit including at least one stress buffer portion 75/76/74, and a pad portion 71, said at least one stress buffer portion including a first stress buffer layer 74, first electrode metal layer 76, and a second stress buffer layer 75. Kuo does not expressly disclose each of said first and second stress buffer layers having a hardness greater than that of said pad portion; however, Kuo discloses (see, for example, paragraph [0016]) the first and second stress buffer layers 74/75 may be metals such as Ti/Pt as opposed to the pad portion 71 wherein Kuo discloses (see, for example, paragraph [0015]) the pad portion may be Au. It was well known in the art that Ti/Pt are harder materials than a soft metal like Au. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have each of said first and second stress buffer layers having a hardness greater than that of said pad portion in order to protect the pad portion and/or prevent interdiffusion between the pad portion and first electrode metal layer, and further provide structural support within the light-emitting diode.
Regarding the limitation “wherein a total thickness of said at least one stress buffer portion is 0.05 to 0.5 times a total thickness of said wire bonding layered unit.”, Kuo discloses (see, for example, paragraph [0015]) the thickness of the conductive layer (i.e. middle portion of the stress buffer portion) 76 being 0.1 to 10 times the thickness of the pad portion 71, which is 1000 A to 42000 A. Therefore, when the pad portion 71 has a thickness of 42000 A, the thickness of the conductive layer 76 includes 4200 A to 420000 A. In paragraph [0016], Kuo discloses layers 75 and 74 includes thicknesses from 500-1500 A and 250-750 A (cumulatively 750-2250 A), and therefore, the stress buffer portion, which comprises layers 75/76/74, includes a thickness of 5700 A (for example, layer 75 is 750 A, layer 76 is 4200 A, layer 74 is 750 A). The total thickness of the wire bonding layered unit includes the pad portion 71 having a thickness of 42000 A and the stress buffer portion 75/76/74 having a thickness of 5700 A so that the total thickness of the wire bonding layered unit is 47700 A. 5700 A (thickness of stress buffer) divided by 47700 A (thickness of wire bonding layered unit) is .119, which falls within the range stated in the applicant’s claim 1. Further, the total thickness is a result effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize for minimizing size while maintaining mechanical stability according to the preferences of the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to have a total thickness of said at least one stress buffer portion is 0.05 to 0.5 times a total thickness of said wire bonding layered unit in order to minimize size while maintaining mechanical stability, 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 the limitation “semiconductor epitaxial structure”, see, for example, paragraph [0012] wherein Kuo discloses the semiconductor epitaxial structure being made by epitaxy method.
Regarding the limitation “ohmic contact layered unit”, see for example, paragraph [0016] wherein Kuo discloses the ohmic contact layered unit 73 may be Cr, which is an ohmic material.
Regarding claim 2, see, for example, see, for example, paragraph [0016] wherein Kuo discloses the first and second stress buffer layers 74/75 may be metals such as Ti/Pt, which inherently have hardness greater than metals disclosed in paragraph [0015] wherein Kuo discloses the first electrode metal layer 76 may be Cu, etc.
Regarding claim 3, see, for example, FIG. 3A wherein Kuo discloses another light-emitting diode comprising a first electrode metal layer 761, and pad portion 762, and in paragraph [0018] wherein Kuo discloses the first electrode metal layer 761 and pad portion 762 are made of the same material.
Regarding claim 4, see, for example, see, for example, paragraph [0016] wherein Kuo discloses the first and second stress buffer layers 74/75 may be the same metals such as Ti/Pt.
Regarding claim 5, see, for example, see, for example, paragraph [0016] wherein Kuo discloses the first and second stress buffer layers 74/75 may be the same thickness.
Regarding claim 6, see, for example, paragraph [0016] wherein Kuo discloses multiple metals that may comprise the first stress buffer layer 74 and second stress buffer layer 75.
Regarding claim 7, see, for example, paragraph [0016] wherein Kuo discloses the first and second stress buffer layers 74/75 may each include thicknesses being inside a wide range. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first stress buffer layer having a thickness different from that of said second stress buffer layer in order to protect the metal layers in a compact space according to the preferences of the user, 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 8, see, for example, paragraph [0016] wherein Kuo discloses the second stress buffer layer 75 may comprise a plurality of first metal layers and a plurality of second metal layers wherein these plurality of first and/or second metal layers may comprise the second electrode metal layer and third stress buffer layer. Further, in FIG. 3A, Kuo discloses a second electrode metal layer 762 disposed on a second stress buffer layer 77, and third stress buffer layer 75.
Regarding claim 9, see, for example, FIG. 3A, and paragraph [0016] wherein Kuo discloses said stress buffer layer 75 may be harder material such as Ti/Pt than the pad portion 71 and second electrode metal layer 762, which may include Au, Cu, etc.
Regarding claim 10, see, for example, FIG. 4 wherein Kuo discloses multiple stress buffer portions, and multiple transition portions 761/762/763, in paragraph [[018], Kuo discloses the same material.
Regarding claim 11, Kuo does not clearly disclose a total thickness of said stress buffer portion is 0.05 to 0.5 times a total thickness of said wire bonding layered unit; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a total thickness of said stress buffer portion is 0.05 to 0.5 times a total thickness of said wire bonding layered unit in order to have an adequate thickness that protects the first electrode metal layer while minimizing size, 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 12, Kuo does not clearly disclose said first electrode metal layer has a thickness of 1 to 20 times a thickness of said first stress barrier layer; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said first electrode metal layer has a thickness of 1 to 20 times a thickness of said first stress barrier layer in order to maintain adequate electrical conductivity in the light-emitting diode, 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 13, see, for example, paragraph [0016] wherein Kuo discloses said first and second stress buffer layers 74/75 independently having a thickness ranging from 300 A to 2000A.
Regarding claim 14, see, for example, paragraph [0016]) wherein Kuo discloses the first and second stress buffer layers 74/75 may be metals such as Ti, Cr, W, etc.
Regarding claim 15, see, for example, paragraph [0015] wherein Kuo discloses the pad portion 71 may be Au.
Regarding claim 16, see, for example, paragraph [0016]) wherein Kuo does not clearly disclose said wire bonding layered unit of said electrode structures has a thickness of 0.55 to 0.97 times a total thickness of said electrode structures; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said wire bonding layered unit of said electrode structures has a thickness of 0.55 to 0.97 times a total thickness of said electrode structures in order to provide adequate bonding area, and protect the rest of the light-emitting diode, 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 17, see, for example, paragraph [0016]) wherein Kuo does not clearly disclose said wire bonding layered unit has a thickness ranging from 10000 Å to 40000 Å; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said wire bonding layered unit has a thickness ranging from 10000 Å to 40000 Å in order to provide adequate bonding area, and protect the rest of the light-emitting diode, 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 18, see, for example, paragraph [0016]) wherein Kuo does not clearly disclose said ohmic contact layered unit has a thickness ranging from 500 Å to 2000 Å; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said ohmic contact layered unit has a thickness ranging from 500 Å to 2000 Å in order to have an adequate area for providing connection to the semiconductor epitaxial structure, 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 19, see, for example, paragraph [0016]) wherein Kuo does not clearly disclose said light-emitting diode is configured to emit a light having a wavelength ranging from 550 nm to 950 nm; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said light-emitting diode being configured to emit a light having a wavelength ranging from 550 nm to 950 nm in order to emit a light of a specific wavelength according to the preferences of the user.
Regarding claim 20, see, for example, the abstract wherein Kuo discloses a light-emitting device.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicant’s argument on page 6 of the amendment filed on 11/7/25, the Examiner generally agrees with applicant’s calculation; however, the Examiner does not agree that the pad portion 71 is set at 1000 A as stated on the second to last line of page 6 of the amendment. As stated on the first two lines of page 6 of the amendment filed 11/7/25, and paragraph [0015] of Kuo, Kuo discloses the pad portion 71 includes a thickness from 1000 A to 42000 A, and further discloses the thickness of the conductive layer 76 being 0.1. to 10 times the thickness of the pad portion 71. With these two thicknesses, the pad portion 71 includes a thickness, for example, of 42000 A, and the conductive layer 76 includes a thickness of 4200 A when it is .1 times the thickness of the pad portion 71. The stress buffer portion, which comprises layers 75/76/74, is 5700 A, and the total thickness of the wire bonding layered unit 71/75/76/74 is 47700 A.
5700 A divided by 47700 A is .119, which falls within the range stated in the applicant’s claim 1 (“wherein a total thickness of said at least one stress buffer portion is 0.05 to 0.5 times a total thickness of said wire bonding layered unit.”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
December 7, 2025
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815