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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/8/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/29/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, including claim(s) 1-12, 20, filed on 4/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
(i) the two inventions are not independent and distinct
This is not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction after distinctness has been demonstrated, must show by appropriate explanation that the following condition is held: their separate classification. This shows that each distinct subject has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for the inventive effort, hence also a separate field of search (See MPEP § 808.02 A).
Manufacturing, especially via the process of smoothing, is distinct over a device claim that does not discloses any smoothing process.
Consequently, in the instant case, neither a showing of undue burden, nor that the claims are both independent and distinct is required to support a restriction requirement. Furthermore, the separate statutory classification of invention, and the different fields of search are indicia of an undue burden (See MPEP 808.02 and MPEP 803(B)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) 8-10 are 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(s) 8-10 recites the limitation "the wire grid polarization layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of expediting prosecution, Examiner recommends modifying “the wire grid polarization layer” to -- the wire grid polarization structure -- as stated originally in Claim 1.
America Invents Act
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-6, 11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jagt et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0175117 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jagt et al., teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) package, comprising: a submount (3, submount, ¶ [0074]-¶ [0078]; see at least Figs. 1-3); an LED chip (2, flip chip LED) on the submount (3); a first electrode (1st electrode of 1) that delivers current to a top surface of the LED chip (2); and a wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a, a wire-grid polarizing structure on the phosphor surface, ¶ [0121]), electrically coupled to the first electrode (1st electrode), that is on the top surface of the LED chip (2), wherein the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a) is configured so that unpolarized light generated by the LED chip (2) is received by the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a) and polarized light exits the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a).
Regarding Claim 2, Jagt et al., teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a) is configured to be a current spreading layer (per the polarized wiring structure).
Regarding Claim 3, Jagt et al., teaches the LED package of claim 1, further comprising a second electrode (2nd electrode, as depicted in Fig. 1) that delivers current to the top surface of the LED chip (2), wherein the first electrode (1st electrode) is electrically coupled to a first portion of the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a), and the second electrode (2nd electrode) is electrically coupled to a second portion of the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a).
Regarding Claim 4, Jagt et al., teaches the LED package of claim 3, wherein wires of the first portion of the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a) and wires of the second portion of the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a) are interdigitated (via grid formation).
Regarding Claim 5, Jagt et al., teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a) preferentially transmits light emitted from the LED chip (2) that is polarized along a first direction relative to light polarized along other directions, wherein the first direction is based on an orientation of the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a).
Regarding Claim 6, Jagt et al., teaches the LED package of claim 1, wherein the first electrode (1st electrode) is electrically coupled to the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a) via a wire bond (bond, ¶ [0160]).
Regarding Claim 11, Jagt et al., teaches the LED package of claim 1, further comprising a passivation layer (7, coating) covering the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a).
Regarding Claim 20, Jagt et al., teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) device, comprising: an LED chip (2); a first electrode (1st electrode) that delivers current to a top surface of the LED chip (2); and a wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a), electrically coupled to the first electrode (1st electrode), that is on the top surface of the LED chip (2), wherein the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a) is configured so that unpolarized light generated by the LED chip (2) is received by the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a) and polarized light exits the wire grid polarization structure (on top of 4a).
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jagt et al., in view of Slater, Jr. et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0123164 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Jagt et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Jagt et al., is silent regarding an adhesion layer that includes at least one of chrome or titanium for bonding.
In the same field of endeavor, Slater, Jr. et al., teaches an LED chip (100) by an adhesion layer that is formed of at least one of chrome or titanium (“an optional adhesion layer, comprising, for example, titanium, also may be provided between barrier layer 1746 and bonding region 1748,” ¶ [0099]) in order to improve the structural stability of the LED chip via greater adhesion and bonding properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the adhesion layer, as disclosed by Slater, Jr et al., in the LED chip of Jagt et al., in order to improve the structural stability of the LED chip via greater adhesion and bonding properties.
It should be noted that the superimposition of the above references would intrinsically result in the wire grid polarization structure to be bonded to the top surface of the LED chip by added adhesion layer.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to using adhesion layer as a matter of choice. Applicant(s) has not disclosed that the materials is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected or significant result, or are otherwise critical and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another configuration (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
3. Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jagt et al., in view Hokari et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0082750 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 8-10, Jagt et al., teaches the invention set forth above (see rejection in the corresponding claim(s) above). Jagt et al., is silent regarding the composition of the wire grid polarization structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Hokari et al., teaches that wires of the wire grid polarization layer comprise at least two of aluminum, silver, or gold, wherein a ratio of the metals (mixture of two, ¶ [0038]) in order to create adequate polarization via the metal composition content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the adhesion layer, as disclosed by Hokari et al., in the LED chip of Jagt et al., in order to create adequate polarization via the metal composition content.
It should be noted that a ratio of the metals would be predetermined based on a polarization selectivity or wavelength selection, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) in order to fine tune the best polarization thereof.
4. Claim(s) 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jagt et al.
Regarding Claim 12, Jagt et al., teaches the claimed invention (see rejection in the claim above) except for the specific limitation of the wire grid polarization structure having a cross-sectional diameter less than 1 micron.
However, Examiner reasonably contemplates that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the wire grid polarization structure to have a cross-sectional diameter less than 1 micron, since optimization of workable ranges is considered within the skill of the art as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would entertain the idea of providing the wire grid polarization structure having a cross-sectional diameter less than 1 micron in order to fabricate an LED that is reduced in sizing, thereby reducing manufacturing cost as well as improving marketability overall.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0277887 teaches an LED chip that includes a wire grid polarization structure.
Examiner's Note
The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner H. Featherly whose telephone number is 571-272-8654. The examiner can normally be reached on M-. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Greece can be reached on 571-272-3711.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-272-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/H. Featherly/
Examiner Featherly
Art Unit 2875 Patent Examiner
/JAMES R GREECE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights