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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
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) 2-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikezawa (US 20080251799) in view of Lee (US 20170018679) and further in view of Donofrio (US 20090283787).
Regarding claim 2, Ikezawa discloses that a light emitting device, comprising:
a support substrate 20 (Fig. 2, para. 0021, note: a sapphire substrate);
a plurality of light emitters 300- 100 (Fig. 2-3) disposed on the support substrate 20, each of the light emitters including:
a first type layer 21-22;
a second type layer disposed on the first type layer 24; and
a third type layer disposed on the second type layer 25-26 (Fig. 2-3);
a contiguous polymer layer 40 disposed between adjacent light emitters of the plurality of light emitters 300-100, wherein the contiguous polymer layer 40 has partially removed regions 41-46 to expose an upper surface of each of the light emitters.
Ikezawa fails to teach that a plurality of light transparent insulators, each of which is disposed over a respective one of the plurality of light emitters and each of the light transparent insulators is disposed in a region corresponding to each respective one of the partially removed regions, and a top surface of each of the light transparent insulators is higher than a top surface of each respective one of the light emitters, each respective one of the light emitters being disposed between the support substrate and the corresponding light transparent insulator a lowest surface of each of the light transparent insulators being higher than a bottom surface of the first type layer of each respective one of the light emitters.
Lee suggests that a plurality of light insulators 300-100, each of which is disposed over a respective one of the plurality of light emitters 300 and each of the light insulators 450 is disposed in a region corresponding to each respective one of the partially removed regions 450, and a top surface of each of the light insulators 450 is higher than a top surface of each respective one of the light emitters 410, each respective one of the light emitters being disposed between the support substrate USB and the corresponding light insulator 450 a lowest surface of each of the light insulators 450 being higher than a bottom surface of the first type layer of each respective one of the light emitters (Fig. 4, note: a insulation includes silicon dioxide or other electrically insulating material).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
1069
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Ikezawa with a plurality of light insulators, each of which is disposed over a respective one of the plurality of light emitters and each of the light insulators is disposed in a region corresponding to each respective one of the partially removed regions, and a top surface of each of the light insulators is higher than a top surface of each respective one of the light emitters, each respective one of the light emitters being disposed between the support substrate and the corresponding light insulator a lowest surface of each of the light transparent insulators being higher than a bottom surface of the first type layer of each respective one of the light emitters with as taught by Lee in order to provide a varied shape of a contact electrode 450 and enhance increasing contact area (S4) by provide different shape or contact electrode and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Ikezawa & Lee fail to teach that the insulating layer is a light transparent insulating layer.
However, Donofrio suggests that transparent insulator 140 (para. 0021, Lee suggests an insulating material is silicon dioxide and Donofrio suggests that silicon dioxide is a transparent insulating material) can be used as an insulator liner (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Ikezawa & Lee with a transparent insulator as taught by Donofrio in order to enhance light extraction by using transparent insulator and also, the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one know element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Reclaim 3, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that the contiguous polymer layer (IKezawa, note: contiguous polymer is not material specified and IKezawa discloses insulating layer 40 as considering a continuous polymer) reflects light emitted from the light transparent insulators (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim 4, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that a viewing angle of light reflected by the contiguous polymer layer is different from a viewing angle of light emitted from the light transparent insulators (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio disclose a viewing angle of light reflected by the contiguous polymer layer is expected due to a different material).
Reclaim 5, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that each of the light emitters further includes: a first electrode electrically connected to the first type layer; and a second electrode electrically connected to the third type layer, and the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned corresponding to the partially removed regions (IKezawa, Fig. 3A).
Reclaim 6, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that the light emitters are positioned corresponding to the partially removed regions (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim , IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that each of the light transparent insulators has a pattern for increasing extraction efficiency of light generated from the second type layer (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim 8, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that the light emitters are arranged in an n×m arrangement, in which n and m are natural numbers (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Regarding claim 9, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that a light emitting device, comprising:
a support substrate 20;
a plurality of light emitters 300-100 disposed on the support substrate 20, each of the light emitters including:
a first type layer including gallium 22;
a second type layer disposed on the first type layer and including gallium;
a third type layer 25-26 disposed on the second type layer and including gallium (IKezawa. Fig. 3);
a first electrode electrically 41-46 connected to the first type layer 22 (Fig. 2-3A); and
a second electrode 42-46 electrically connected to the second type layer;
a plurality of light transparent insulators (Lee in view of Donofrio, note: Lee suggests different shape on contact electrodes with insulating layer on the contact electrodes and Donofrio suggest that a silicon dioxide is a transparent insulating material with different shape of contact electrodes), each of which is disposed on a respective one of the second type layers of each of the plurality of light emitters; and
a contiguous polymer layer 40 (IKezawa, Fig. 3A) disposed between adjacent light emitters of the plurality of light emitters 300-100, wherein the contiguous polymer layer 40 has partially removed 41-46 regions to expose an upper surface of each of the light emitters (IKezawa, Fig. 3A), the first electrode 41 and the second electrode are disposed corresponding to the partially removed regions, and a top surface of each of the light transparent insulators (Donofrio, para. 0021) is higher than a top surface of each respective one of the light emitters, each respective one of the light emitters being disposed between the support substrate and the corresponding light transparent insulator, a lowest surface of each of the light transparent insulators being higher than a bottom surface of the first type layer of each respective one of the light emitters (IKezawa in view of Lee and further in view of Donofrio).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
1069
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reclaim 10, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that the contiguous polymer layer reflects light emitted from the light transparent insulators (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio, note: a polymer 40 in IKezawa and a transparent insulating layer of Lee & Donofrio, can be different material).
Reclaim 11, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that a viewing angle of light reflected by the contiguous polymer layer is different from a viewing angle of light emitted from the light transparent insulators (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim 12, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that the light emitters are positioned corresponding to the partially removed regions (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim 13, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that each of the light transparent insulators are positioned in a region corresponding to each respective one of the partially removed regions (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim 14, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that the light emitters are arranged in an nxm arrangement, in which n and m are natural numbers (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Regarding claim 15, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that a light emitting device, comprising: a support substrate; a plurality of light emitters disposed on the support substrate, each of the light emitters including: a first semiconductor layer; and a second semiconductor layer disposed on the first semiconductor layer; a plurality of light transparent insulators, each of which is disposed on the second semiconductor layer of each respective one of the plurality of light emitters; and a contiguous polymer layer disposed between adjacent light emitters of the light emitters, wherein the contiguous polymer layer has partially removed regions to expose an upper surface of each of the light emitters, each of the light emitters are disposed in a region corresponding to each respective one of the partially removed regions, and a top surface of the each of the light transparent insulators is higher than a top surface of each respective one of the light emitters, each respective one of the light emitters being disposed between the support substrate and the corresponding light transparent insulator, a lowest surface of each of the light transparent insulators being higher than a bottom surface of the first type layer of each respective one of the light emitters (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio, and see rejections above for details).
Reclaim 16, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that the contiguous polymer layer reflects light emitted from the light transparent insulators (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim 17, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that a viewing angle of light reflected by the contiguous polymer layer is different from a viewing angle of light emitted from the light transparent insulators (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim 18, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that the light transparent insulators are positioned in a region corresponding to each respective one of the partially removed regions. (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim 19, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that each of the light emitters further includes: a first electrode electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer; and a second electrode electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer, the first electrode and the second electrode are positioned corresponding to the partially removed regions (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Reclaim 20, IKezawa, Lee, & Donofrio disclose that the light emitters are arranged in an n×m arrangement, in which n and m are natural numbers (IKezawa, Lee, and further in view of Donofrio).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899