DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Specie III of Category I and Species I of Category II in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that, firstly, the election restriction requirement fails to show or allege the existence of species that are independent and distinct, and secondly, the demarcation between species is arbitrary, without regard to common aspects between Species. This is not found persuasive because, regarding the first argument, the examiner clearly show the in the Restriction Requirement the independent and/or distinct features of each species, which would require employing different search strategies or search queries. And regarding the second argument, it would be obvious for a person ordinally skilled in the art to understand that different device structures and different materials would require different search strategies or search queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2023 and 12/10/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (WO 2016/032193 A1; see machine translation in the foreign document of WO 2016/032193 A1 of the IDS submitted on 12/10/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teach a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (light emitting element; Figs. 4-9, line 730) comprising: an active LED structure (120; Fig. 6; lines 739-740) comprising an n-type layer (121; Fig. 6, lines 770-772), a p-type layer (125; Fig. 6, lines 770-772), and an active layer (123; Fig. 6, line 774) between the n-type layer (121) and the p-type layer (125); a current spreading layer (133; Fig. 6, line 860) on the p-type layer (125); and a contact layer (131; Fig. 6, lines 859-860) between the current spreading layer (133) and the p-type layer (125), the contact layer (131) comprising a transition metal oxide (ZnO, Zn is a transition metal as evident from paragraph [0056] of Caballero, US 20040108509; line 875).
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the contact layer (131) comprises a thickness in a range from 1 nanometer (nm) to 100 nm (10-1000 Å, i.e. 1-100 nm; line 884, “Å” is missing in the machine translation but shown in the original Korea specification).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. teach a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (light emitting element; Figs. 4-9, line 730) comprising: an active LED structure (120; Fig. 6; lines 739-740) comprising an n-type layer (121; Fig. 6, lines 770-772), a p-type layer (125; Fig. 6, lines 770-772), and an active layer (123; Fig. 6, line 774) between the n-type layer (121) and the p-type layer (125); a current spreading layer (133; Fig. 6, line 860) forming a plurality of discontinuous current spreading layer regions (regions of 133; see Fig. 6) on the p-type layer (125); and a contact layer (131; Fig. 6, lines 859-860) between the current spreading layer (133) and the p-type layer (125).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 15, wherein the contact layer (131) forms a plurality of discontinuous contact layer regions (regions of 131; see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 15, wherein the contact layer (131) comprises a transition metal oxide (ZnO, Zn is a transition metal as evident from paragraph [0056] of Caballero, US 20040108509; line 875).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claims 1, 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Song (US 20070040162 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the transition metal oxide (ZnO).
Lee et al. do not teach the transition metal oxide comprises molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting device, Song teaches the transition metal oxide (the transition metal oxide to form the current spread layer; [0061]) comprises molybdenum oxide ([0061]).
Lee et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Lee et al. are using ZnO for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (a lower current dispersing layer 131; Fig. 6, line 875) rather than molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Song teaches using molybdenum oxide for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (current spread layer 460b; Fig. 4, [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ZnO and molybdenum oxide are known equivalents for providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (ZnO) for another known equivalent element (molybdenum oxide) resulting in the predictable result of providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the current spreading layer (133) comprises indium tin oxide (ITO, lines 894-896).
Lee et al. do not teach the transition metal oxide comprises molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting device, Song teaches the transition metal oxide (the transition metal oxide to form the current spread layer; [0061]) comprises molybdenum oxide ([0061]).
Lee et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Lee et al. are using ZnO for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (a lower current dispersing layer 131; Fig. 6, line 875) rather than molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Song teaches using molybdenum oxide for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (current spread layer 460b; Fig. 4, [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ZnO and molybdenum oxide are known equivalents for providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (ZnO) for another known equivalent element (molybdenum oxide) resulting in the predictable result of providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the contact layer (131) comprises a work function (the work function of ZnO; line 875).
Lee et al. do not teach a work function in a range from 6 electron volts (eV) to 10 eV.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting device, Song teaches a work function (the work function of the transition metal oxide to form the current spread layer, e.g. molybdenum oxide; [0061]) in a range from 6 electron volts (eV) to 10 eV (molybdenum oxide has a work function of 6.0 eV as evident the paragraph [0020] of Yamamoto et al., US 20100244049 A1).
Lee et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Lee et al. are using ZnO for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (a lower current dispersing layer 131; Fig. 6, line 875) rather than molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Song teaches using molybdenum oxide for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (current spread layer 460b; Fig. 4, [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ZnO and molybdenum oxide are known equivalents for providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (ZnO) for another known equivalent element (molybdenum oxide) resulting in the predictable result of providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 18, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 17, wherein the transition metal oxide (ZnO).
Lee et al. do not teach the transition metal oxide comprises at least one of molybdenum oxide, tungsten oxide and vanadium oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting device, Song teaches the transition metal oxide (the transition metal oxide to form the current spread layer; [0061]) comprises at least one of molybdenum oxide, tungsten oxide and vanadium oxide (molybdenum oxide; [0061])
Lee et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Lee et al. are using ZnO for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (a lower current dispersing layer 131; Fig. 6, line 875) rather than molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Song teaches using molybdenum oxide for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (current spread layer 460b; Fig. 4, [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ZnO and molybdenum oxide are known equivalents for providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (ZnO) for another known equivalent element (molybdenum oxide) resulting in the predictable result of providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 19, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 15, wherein the contact layer (131) comprises a work function (the work function of ZnO; line 875).
Lee et al. do not teach a work function in a range from 6 electron volts (eV) to 10 eV.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting device, Song teaches a work function (the work function of the transition metal oxide to form the current spread layer, e.g. molybdenum oxide; [0061]) in a range from 6 electron volts (eV) to 10 eV (molybdenum oxide has a work function of 6.0 eV as evident the paragraph [0020] of Yamamoto et al., US 20100244049 A1).
Lee et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Lee et al. are using ZnO for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (a lower current dispersing layer 131; Fig. 6, line 875) rather than molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Song teaches using molybdenum oxide for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (current spread layer 460b; Fig. 4, [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ZnO and molybdenum oxide are known equivalents for providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (ZnO) for another known equivalent element (molybdenum oxide) resulting in the predictable result of providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (KSR rationales B).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. as applied to claims 1 and 15 above.
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 1, further comprising: a dielectric reflector layer (170 comprising 173 which is reflective; Fig. 8, lines 933-934, 1131-1132) on the p-type layer (125); a conductive layer (183; Fig. 8, lines 1030-1032) on the dielectric reflector layer (170, on the sidewall of 170); and a plurality of interconnects (first connecting electrode 161; Fig. 8, lines 1033-1034) that extend through the dielectric reflector layer (170) to form a plurality of electrically conductive paths (the electrically conductive paths) between the conductive layer (183) and the current spreading layer (133; see Fig. 8).
Lin et al. do not teach a/the conductive layer (183) is a/the metal reflector layer, and interconnects (161) are reflective layer interconnects.
Lin et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the material of the conductive layer (183) and the material of interconnects (161). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the conductive layer 183 and interconnects 161 made of copper, since it was known in the art that the copper is one of the most common materials to form the conductive layer and interconnects. As the copper is a reflective material (line 72 of Lin), using the copper as the material of the conductive layer (183) and the material of interconnects (161) would make the conductive layer (183) being a metal reflector layer, and the interconnects (161) being reflective layer interconnects.
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 7, wherein the plurality of electrically conductive paths (the electrically conductive paths) comprises a portion of the contact layer (131) between the p-type layer (125) and each interconnect (161) of the plurality of interconnects (161; see Fig. 8).
Lin et al. do not teach each interconnect (161) of the plurality of interconnects (161) is each reflective layer interconnect of the plurality of reflective layer interconnects (emphasis added).
Lin et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the material of interconnects (161). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the interconnects 161 made of copper, since it was known in the art that the copper is one of the most common materials to form the interconnects. As the copper is a reflective material (line 72 of Lin), using the copper as the material of interconnects (161) would make the interconnects (161) being reflective layer interconnects.
Regarding claim 20, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 15, further comprising: a dielectric reflector layer (170 comprising 173 which is reflective; Fig. 8, lines 933-934, 1131-1132) on the current spreading layer (133; see Fig. 8); a conductive layer (183; Fig. 8, lines 1030-1032) on the dielectric reflector layer (170); and a plurality of interconnects (first connecting electrode 161; Fig. 8, lines 1033-1034) that extend through the dielectric reflector layer (170) to form a plurality of electrically conductive paths (the electrically conductive paths between 183 and 133) between the conductive layer (183) and the plurality of discontinuous current spreading layer regions (133; see Figs. 5 and 8).
Lin et al. do not teach a/the conductive layer (183) is a/the metal reflector layer, and interconnects (161) are reflective layer interconnects.
Lin et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the material of the conductive layer (183) and the material of interconnects (161). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the conductive layer 183 and interconnects 161 made of copper, since it was known in the art that the copper is one of the most common materials to form the conductive layer and interconnects. As the copper is a reflective material (line 72 of Lin), using the copper as the material of the conductive layer (183) and the material of interconnects (161) would make the conductive layer (183) being a metal reflector layer, and the interconnects (161) being reflective layer interconnects.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2016/032193 A1; see machine translation in the foreign document of WO 2016/032193 A1 of the IDS submitted on 12/10/2024) in view of Song (US 20070040162 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. teach a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (light emitting element; Figs. 4-9, line 730) comprising: an active LED structure (120; Fig. 6; lines 739-740) comprising an n-type layer (121; Fig. 6, lines 770-772), a p-type layer (125; Fig. 6, lines 770-772), and an active layer (123; Fig. 6, line 774) between the n-type layer (121) and the p-type layer (125); a current spreading layer (133; Fig. 6, line 860) on the p-type layer (125); and a contact layer (131; Fig. 6, lines 859-860) between the current spreading layer (133) and the p-type layer (125), the contact layer (131) comprising a work function (the work function of ZnO; line 875).
Lee et al. do not teach a work function that is in a range from 6 electron volts (eV) to 10 eV.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting device, Song teaches a work function (the work function of the transition metal oxide to form the current spread layer, e.g. molybdenum oxide; [0061]) that is in a range from 6 electron volts (eV) to 10 eV (molybdenum oxide has a work function of 6.0 eV as evident the paragraph [0020] of Yamamoto et al., US 20100244049 A1).
Lee et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Lee et al. are using ZnO for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (a lower current dispersing layer 131; Fig. 6, line 875) rather than molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Song teaches using molybdenum oxide for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (current spread layer 460b; Fig. 4, [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ZnO and molybdenum oxide are known equivalents for providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (ZnO) for another known equivalent element (molybdenum oxide) resulting in the predictable result of providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 11, wherein the contact layer (131).
Lee et al. do not teach the contact layer comprises at least one of molybdenum oxide, tungsten oxide, and vanadium oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting device, Song teaches the contact layer (460b, the transparent contact layer to form a contact layer on the semiconducting p-nitride layer 460a; Fig. 4, [0060-0061]) comprises at least one of molybdenum oxide, tungsten oxide, and vanadium oxide (molybdenum oxide; [0061]).
Lee et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Lee et al. are using ZnO for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (a lower current dispersing layer 131; Fig. 6, line 875) rather than molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Song teaches using molybdenum oxide for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (current spread layer 460b; Fig. 4, [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ZnO and molybdenum oxide are known equivalents for providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (ZnO) for another known equivalent element (molybdenum oxide) resulting in the predictable result of providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 11, wherein the current spreading layer (133) comprises indium tin oxide (ITO, lines 894-896).
Lee et al. do not teach the contact layer comprises molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting device, Song teaches the contact layer (460b, the transparent contact layer to form a contact layer on the semiconducting p-nitride layer 460a; Fig. 4, [0060-0061]) comprises molybdenum oxide ([0061]).
Lee et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Lee et al. are using ZnO for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (a lower current dispersing layer 131; Fig. 6, line 875) rather than molybdenum oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Song teaches using molybdenum oxide for the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (current spread layer 460b; Fig. 4, [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ZnO and molybdenum oxide are known equivalents for providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (ZnO) for another known equivalent element (molybdenum oxide) resulting in the predictable result of providing the material of a current spread/dissipation layer (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. teach the LED chip of claim 11, further comprising: a dielectric reflector layer (170 comprising 173 which is reflective; Fig. 8, lines 933-934, 1131-1132) on the current spreading layer (133; see Fig. 8); a conductive layer (183; Fig. 8, lines 1030-1032) on the dielectric reflector layer (170); and a plurality of interconnects (first connecting electrode 161; Fig. 8, lines 1033-1034) that extend through the dielectric reflector layer (170) to form a plurality of electrically conductive paths (the electrically conductive paths between 183 and 133) between the conductive layer (183) and a plurality of discontinuous regions of the current spreading layer (133; see Figs. 5 and 8).
Lin et al. do not teach a/the conductive layer (183) is a/the metal reflector layer, and interconnects (161) are reflective layer interconnects.
Lin et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the material of the conductive layer (183) and the material of interconnects (161). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the conductive layer 183 and interconnects 161 made of copper, since it was known in the art that the copper is one of the most common materials to form the conductive layer and interconnects. As the copper is a reflective material (line 72 of Lin), using the copper as the material of the conductive layer (183) and the material of interconnects (161) would make the conductive layer (183) being a metal reflector layer, and the interconnects (161) being reflective layer interconnects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSIN YI HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 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, Zandra V Smith can be reached on 571-272-2429. 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.
/HSIN YI HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 5/4/2026
Prosecution Insights