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 .
Response to Amendment(s)
The Amendment, filed on 9/9/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Claim(s) 13-19 are withdrawn due to being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/29/2023. These drawings are considered acceptable by Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 9/9/2026 have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive by Examiner.
A. In response to Applicant's arguments that the prior art of record does not disclose the claimed invention, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner maintains that Jagt et al., does indeed teach 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).
Examiner considers the specificity of the top surface of the LED chip to be broad since the claim language does not mandate a first electrode to be directly contacting a top surface (indirect connection is permissive with current claim language). Furthermore, a top-surface may still be considered to be any portion that is anywhere “top” of an LED chip, even including top-side surfaces thereof.
Examiner recommends incorporating greater specificity with the structural components of the claim language.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of the claims is deemed proper.
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) as previously cited by Examiner.
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) as previously cited.
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) as previously cited.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment does not overcome the current prior art of record, therefore:
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 R. 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