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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “22a” has been used to designate both a first unit and a third unit in fig. 10 (see [0063] of the US PGPUB of the instant application, US 20240113262 A1, where Applicant describes three light-emitting units as 22a-22c). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The abstract of the instant application has 204 words, which needs to be less than 150 words.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 cites “the plurality of conductive structure” in line 10 which should read “the plurality of conductive structures” to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 2, 6-8, 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20230077761 A1; hereinafter “Chang”) in view of Kim et al. (US 20170108173 A1; hereinafter “Kim”).
In re claim 1, Chang discloses in figs. 13-15, a light-emitting device, comprising:
a semiconductor stack 20, comprising a first semiconductor layer 21, an active region 22 and a second semiconductor layer 23 (¶34);
a first contact electrode 41 and a second contact electrode 42 formed on the semiconductor stack 20 (¶40),
wherein the first contact electrode 41 comprises a first contact part (e.g., a first through hole 31 exposes a part of the first contact electrode 41; hereinafter “CNT1”) formed on the first semiconductor layer 21 and the second contact electrode 42 comprises a second contact part 42a (e.g., a second through hole 32 exposes a part 42a of the second contact electrode 42) formed on the second semiconductor layer 23 (¶40, 53);
an insulating stack 30 formed on the semiconductor stack 20, comprising an opening 32 on the second contact part (¶53); and
a first electrode pad 43 and a second electrode pad 44 formed on the insulating stack 30, wherein the second electrode pad 44 filled in the opening 32 and connecting the second contact part (CNT2) (¶53);
wherein the second electrode pad 44 comprises an upper surface, and the upper surface comprises a platform area (e.g., the left and right peripheral areas of the upper surface of the second electrode pad 44 which are raised compared to a central depressed area; hereinafter “AP”) and a depression area (e.g., a central depressed area of the upper surface of the second electrode pad 44; hereinafter “AD”) on the second contact part 42;
wherein the platform area (AP) has a maximum height relative to other areas of the upper surface;
wherein an area of a projection of the platform area (AP) on a horizontal plane is A1, and
a sum of areas of the projections of the platform area (AP) and the depression area (AD) on the horizontal plane is A2, and a ratio of A1/A2 ranges from 50%-80% (see note below).
Note: Chang discloses, a width of the bottom opening of the through hole 32 is K4 and K4 is ranging from 5 μm to 40 μm and a width of the second contact electrode 42 is K6 and K6 is at least 5 μm greater than K4. For example, if K4 is 5 μm, then K6 is more than 10 μm (¶53-56).
As shown figs. 3 and 9, the total area A2 (AP+AD) is more than K6 and the depression area (AD) is less than K4. Therefore, a ratio of A1/A2 would be at least 50% or more, which overlaps the claimed range of 50%-80%.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
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 teachings of Chang to form a second contact electrode pad with a raised platform area and a depressed area such that a ration of the platform area and the total area has a ratio of 50% to 80% as claimed. One would have been motivated to do so as Kim discloses by having pad electrode with step-like structure increases the contact area and thereby preventing peeling of the pad electrodes (¶115 of Kim).
In re claim 2, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15,
wherein the semiconductor stack 20 comprises a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges (fig. 2 annotated below);
wherein the second contact electrode 42 further comprises a second finger part 42b connecting to the second contact part 42a and extend along one of the long edges E1 (¶40);
wherein the second finger part 42b is disposed non-parallel with the long edge E1 (fig. 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 6, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in fig. 9 (note: based on ¶65 and 69, the third embodiment shown in figs. 13-15 have similar features as figs. 1-9 except that, in the third embodiment, the light-emitting device further includes a current block layer 60),
wherein an acute angle β is formed between an upper surface of the second contact part 42a and a sidewall 321 of the insulating stack 30 at the opening 32, and
the acute angle β is between 30 degrees and 80 degrees (e.g., 70 degrees; ¶57).
In re claim 7, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15, wherein the first contact part CNT1 (i.e., the part of the first contact electrode 41 exposed by the through hole 31) is formed at a corner of the first semiconductor layer 21;
wherein the first electrode pad 43 comprises a protruding portion protruding toward the corner and covers the first contact part CNT1 (see figs. 1-2).
In re claim 8, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 7.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15, wherein the protruding portion 43 completely covers the first contact part CNT1 and is at least 1 µm beyond an edge of the first contact part (¶62).
In re claim 10, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15, wherein the platform area (AP) comprises a curved surface (no specific degree of curvature has been claimed to distinguish over Chang’s step-like non-flat surface of the platform area of the second electrode pad 44).
In re claim 20, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 1-9, a display device, comprising a plurality of pixels (e.g., RGB), wherein one of the plurality of pixels comprises the light-emitting device according to claim 1 (¶81).
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (US 20180212123 A1; hereinafter “Chang’123”)
In re claim 3, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first contact electrode further comprises a first finger part connecting to the first contacting part and disposed along another one of the long edges, and a distance between the second finger part and the first finger part increases as the second finger part extends away from the second contact part.
In the same field of endeavor, Chang’123 discloses a light-emitting device 2 (fig. 6 as copied below) wherein
a first contact electrode 20 further comprises a first finger part 202 connecting to a first contacting part 201 and disposed along another one of the long edges E1 (¶22, 24; “the first finger electrode 202 extends along the second edge E2 and the first edge E1”; ¶24), and
a distance between a second finger part 302 and the first finger part 202 increases as the second finger part 302 extends away from a second contact part 301 (¶64).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first contact electrode with a first finger and optimize the distance between the first finger part and the second finger part in Chang/Kim as taught by Chang’123 and arrived at the claimed invention in order to build an optimized electrode structure that is needed for improving brightness, optical field uniformity and lowering an operating voltage of the LED a light-emitting device (¶4 of Chang’123).
PNG
media_image2.png
431
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 11, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15, the second contact electrode 42 further comprises a second finger part 42b connecting to the second contact part 42a (¶40);
wherein the semiconductor stack 20 comprises a pair of long edges and a pair of short edges (fig. 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
679
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chang as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the first contact electrode further comprises a first finger part connecting to the first contact part and wherein a distance between the first finger part and the second finger part is greater than 0.75 times of the short edge.
In the same field of endeavor, Chang’123 discloses a light-emitting device 2 (fig. 6) wherein a first contact electrode 20 further comprises a first finger part 202 connecting to the first contact part 201 and wherein a distance d2 between the first finger part 202 and a second finger part 302 of a second electrode 30 (¶22) is greater than 0.5 times of the short edge E2 (“the distance d2 is greater than a half of a length of the second edge E2”; ¶64).
It is evident that Chang’123 recognizes that optimization of the distance between the first finger part and the second finger part is a result effective variable since varying it affects uniformity of current spreading and improvement in brightness of the light emitting diodes (¶2,4).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance between the first finger part and the second finger part in Chang/Kim as taught by Chang’123 and arrived at the claimed value of 0.75 times of the short edge in order to build an optimized electrode structure that is needed for improving brightness, optical field uniformity and lowering an operating voltage of the LED a light-emitting device (¶4 of Chang’123).
MPEP §2144.05-II (A) states "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Furthermore, MPEP §2144.05-II (B) describes that it is considered to be prima facie obvious when there is a motivation to optimize result-effective variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Check et al. (US 20230037469 A1; hereinafter “Check”) and Chang et al. (US 20220278252 A1; hereinafter “Chang’252”).
In re claim 4, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15,
further comprising a current blocking structure 60 formed under the first contact electrode and/or the second contact electrode 42 (¶70), and
the current blocking structure 60 comprises an insulating layer (¶71).
Chang as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose the current blocking structure comprises a plurality of insulating layers with different refractive indices alternately stacked;
wherein a sidewall of the current blocking structure comprises a plurality of sub-sidewalls having different slopes.
In the same field of endeavor, Check discloses in fig. 1, a light emitting device 10, wherein a current blocking structure 26 (current spreading layer 26 is functionally indistinguishable to a current blocking layer) comprises a plurality of insulating layers with different refractive indices alternately stacked (“In certain embodiments, the first reflective layer 26 may include multiple alternating layers of different dielectric materials, e.g., alternating layers of SiO.sub.2 and SiN that symmetrically repeat or are asymmetrically arranged”; ¶45).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the current blocking structure of Chang/Kim comprising a plurality of insulating layers with different refractive indices alternately stacked in order to operate LEDs at the highest light emission efficiency and build improved LEDs and solid-state lighting devices having desirable illumination characteristics (¶2-5 of Check).
Chang as modified by Kim and Check does not expressly disclose wherein a sidewall of the current blocking structure comprises a plurality of sub-sidewalls having different slopes.
In the same field of endeavor, Chang’252 discloses in figs. 1A-1B, a light emitting device, wherein a sidewall of a current blocking structure 600 comprises a plurality of sub-sidewalls having different slopes (e.g., a sidewall of the current blocking structure 600 which has an interface with the transparent conducting layer 700 has a plurality of sub-sidewalls having different slopes) (¶27).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the current blocking structure of Chang/Kim having a sidewall with a plurality of sub-sidewalls having different slopes to increase reflection of light and reduce light loss, and thus to increase light extraction efficiency (¶26 of Chang’252).
In re claim 5, Chang as modified by Kim, Check and Chang’252 discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 4.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15,
wherein the insulating stack 30 comprises a plurality of insulating layers 33b with different refractive indices alternately stacked (¶45-46), and a thickness of the insulating stack 30 is greater than a thickness of the current blocking structure 60 (as shown in fig. 15, a bottom surface of the insulating stack 30 and a bottom surface of the current blocking structure 60 are on a same plane. However, an upper surface of the insulating stack 30 is higher than an upper surface of the current blocking structure 60).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20210098649 A1; hereinafter “Park”).
In re claim 9, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15, the device further comprising a plurality of the second contact parts 42b, 42b.
Chang as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose a plurality of the first contact parts and wherein a distance between two adjacent of the first contact parts is greater than a distance between two adjacent of the second contact parts.
In the same field of endeavor, Park discloses in figs. 1-4, a light-emitting device comprising a plurality of the first contact parts 132, 133 (¶52) and wherein a distance between two adjacent of the first contact parts 132, 133 is greater than a distance between two adjacent of second contact parts 142, 143 (¶54) (fig. 4 shows a distance between two adjacent of the first contact parts 132, 133 is greater than a distance between two adjacent of second contact parts 142, 143).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first and second contact electrodes of Chang/Kim with plurality of contact parts and having a relative disposition of the contact parts. One would have been motivated to do as Park teaches this LED structures will keep the operating voltages of a plurality of light-emitting portions constant, thereby improving optical efficiency. Further, the number of wire bonding processes can be reduced during the manufacture of a package. In addition, resistance between a plurality of chips can be reduced (¶23-25 of Park).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 20190214514 A1; hereinafter “Hong”).
In re claim 12, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15, further comprising a transparent conductive layer 50 formed on the second semiconductor layer 23 (¶65);
wherein the first semiconductor layer 21 comprises an upper surface not covered by the active region 22 and the second semiconductor layer 23.
Chang as modified by Kim doesn’t expressly disclose wherein the semiconductor stack comprises a continuous sidewall extending from the second semiconductor layer to a bottom of the first semiconductor layer in a cross-sectional view.
In the same field of endeavor, Hong discloses in fig. 18, a light-emitting device wherein a semiconductor stack 320 (¶215) comprises a continuous sidewall (i.e., a leftmost sidewall onto which a first insulating layer 332 is formed) extending from the second semiconductor layer 326 to a bottom of the first semiconductor layer 322 in a cross-sectional view (¶217).
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 step-like left sidewall of the insulating layer 30 of Chang to form a continuous sidewall as taught by Hong in order to form plurality of LEDs having peripheral areas having a cross-sectional shape more protruding than the central areas and manufacture a semiconductor element with improved reaction sensitivity (¶243, 38 of Hong).
Chang as modified by Kim and Hong does not expressly disclose wherein a gap between an edge of the transparent conductive layer and an edge of the second semiconductor layer near the upper surface of the first semiconductor is smaller than a gap between the edge of the transparent conductive layer and the edge of the second semiconductor layer near the continuous sidewall in a top view.
However, Chang discloses a projection of the transparent conductive layer 50 on the upper surface of the second semiconductor layer 23 of the semiconductor structure 20 has an outer periphery spaced apart a distance (D5) from an edge of the upper surface of the second semiconductor layer 23 of the semiconductor structure 20, and the distance (D5) may be greater than 1 μm and less than 10 μm. The distance (D5) can be determined according to actual needs. For example, the distance (D5) may range from 1.5 μm to 4 μm, or from 4 μm to 7 μm. A smaller distance (D5) may reduce the driving voltage of the light-emitting device. A larger distance (D5) may prevent an electrostatic breakdown at an edge of the light-emitting device (¶68). Chang further discloses the transparent conductive layer 50 is formed on the second semiconductor layer 23 to cover most of the upper surface (e.g., at least 80% of the upper surface) of the second semiconductor layer 23 (¶66).
It is evident that Chang recognizes that optimization of the gap, D5 between an edge of the transparent conductive layer 50 and an edge of the second semiconductor layer 23 near the upper surface of the first semiconductor 21 is a result effective variable since varying it affects the tradeoff between the driving voltage of the light-emitting device and an electrostatic breakdown at an edge of the light-emitting device (¶68). As the transparent layer covers at least 80% of the upper surface, optimizing D5 will impact the gap between the edge of the transparent conductive layer 50 and the edge of the second semiconductor layer 23 near the continuous sidewall in a top view.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the gap D5 relative to the gap on the other side of the transparent conductive layer and make D5 smaller than the other gap as taught by Chang to maintain a balance between the driving voltage of the light-emitting device and an electrostatic breakdown at an edge of the light-emitting device and meet actual needs of the LEDs (¶68). One would have been motivated to do so as Chang recognizes that optimization of the gap D5 is a known result effective variable as explained above.
MPEP §2144.05-II (A) states "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Furthermore, MPEP §2144.05-II (B) describes that it is considered to be prima facie obvious when there is a motivation to optimize result-effective variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiu et al. (US 20200243598 A1; hereinafter “Chiu”).
In re claim 14, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15, a substrate 10 (¶26), a current blocking structure 60 (¶71).
Chang as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose the light-emitting device further comprising:
a plurality of conductive structures;
wherein the semiconductor stack comprises a first unit and a second unit separately formed on the substrate;
wherein the first contact part and the first electrode pad are formed on the first semiconductor layer of the first unit, and the second contact part and the second electrode pad are formed on the second semiconductor layer of the second unit;
wherein the plurality of conductive structure is separately disposed near two opposite sides of light-emitting device and electrically connects the first unit and the second unit; and
wherein the current blocking structure comprises a single element formed between the first unit and the second unit and below the plurality of conductive structures.
In the same field of endeavor, Chiu discloses a light emitting device (figs. 1-2) comprising:
a plurality of conductive structures 60 (¶35);
wherein a semiconductor stack 12 comprises a first unit 22a and a second unit 22b separately formed on a substrate 10 (¶30, 35);
wherein a first contact part and a first electrode pad 202 (a bottom portion of the electrode layer 202 has been interpreted as a first contact part and an upper portion as first electrode pad) are formed on a first semiconductor layer 121 of the first unit 22a, and
a second contact part and a second electrode pad 302 (a bottom portion of the electrode layer 302 has been interpreted as a second contact part and an upper portion as second electrode pad) are formed on a second semiconductor layer 122 of the second unit 22b;
wherein the plurality of conductive structure 60 is separately disposed near two opposite sides of light-emitting device (e.g., on the right side of 22a and on the left side of 22b) and electrically connects the first unit 22a and the second unit 22b; and
wherein a current blocking structure 23 comprises a single element (¶31, 38) formed between the first unit 22a and the second unit 22b and below the plurality of conductive structures 60.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Chiu into the device of Chang/Kim and form a light-emitting device with two units to improve light-emitting efficiency (¶2, 7-8 of Chiu).
In re claim 15, Chang as modified by Kim and Chiu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 14.
Chiu further discloses in figs. 1-2, wherein the current blocking structure 23 comprises two edges respectively aligned with the two opposite sides S2, S2.
In re claim 16, Chang as modified by Kim and Chiu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 14.
Chiu further discloses in figs. 1-2, the light-emitting device further comprising a trench 36 between the first unit 22a and the second unit 22b (¶36), and
wherein a bottom of the trench 36 comprises an upper surface of the substrate 10;
wherein the current blocking structure 23 covers the bottom of the trench 36.
Regarding the limitation “a length of the current blocking structure is substantially the same as a length of the trench”: it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a length of the current blocking structure is substantially the same as a length of the trench on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a length of the current blocking structure is substantially the same as a length of the trench in order to block current from directly injecting into the semiconductor stack (¶38 of Chiu).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20210305456 A1; hereinafter “Chen”).
In re claim 19, Chang as modified by Kim discloses light-emitting module, comprising:
a carrier (Chang: a circuit board; ¶80);
the light-emitting device according to claim 1;
wherein the first electrode pad (Chang: 43) and the second electrode pad (Chang: 44) are connected to the carrier by a reflow soldering (Chang: ¶80).
Chang as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose
a plurality of bonding pads on the carrier;
a conductive bonding layer; and
wherein the first electrode pad and the second electrode pad are connected to the plurality of bonding pads by the conductive bonding layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses in fig. 6A, a light-emitting module 1000, comprising:
a plurality of bonding pads 601a, 601b on a carrier 600;
a conductive bonding layer 602a, 602b; and
wherein a first electrode pad 108 and a second electrode pad 109 are connected to the plurality of bonding pads 601a, 601b by the conductive bonding layer 602a, 602b.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the first and second electrodes pads of Chang/Kim with the carrier by the bonding layers and bonding pads as taught by Chen in order to connect the LEDs on a carrier with low resistance bonding layers (¶40 of Chen).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In re claim 13, Chang as modified by Kim discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Chang further discloses in figs. 13-15, a substrate 10 (¶26), the second contact electrode 42 further comprises a plurality of second finger parts 42b, 42b (¶40).
Chang as modified by Kim does not disclose the device further comprising:
a conductive structure;
wherein the first contact electrode further comprises a plurality of first finger parts;
wherein the semiconductor stack comprises a first unit, a second unit and a third unit separately formed on the substrate;
wherein the first contact part and the first electrode pad are formed on the first semiconductor layer of the first unit, and the second contact part and the second electrode pad are formed on the second semiconductor layer of the third unit;
wherein the conductive structure is formed between and electrically connects the first unit, the second unit and the third unit;
wherein one of the plurality of second finger parts is formed on the second unit and comprises an arc bypassing a central area of the light-emitting device and a central area of the second unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Chiu discloses in figs. 1-2, a light emitting device comprising:
a conductive structure 60 (¶35);
wherein a semiconductor stack 12 comprises a first unit 22a, a second unit 22d and a third unit 22e separately formed on a substrate 10 (¶30, 35);
However, the combination of Chang, Kim and Chiu, does not expressly disclose wherein the first contact electrode further comprises a plurality of first finger parts; wherein the first contact part and the first electrode pad are formed on the first semiconductor layer of the first unit, and the second contact part and the second electrode pad are formed on the second semiconductor layer of the third unit;
wherein the conductive structure is formed between and electrically connects the first unit, the second unit and the third unit;
wherein one of the plurality of second finger parts is formed on the second unit and comprises an arc bypassing a central area of the light-emitting device and a central area of the second unit.
Therefore, claim 13 is indicated allowable in the entirety of all the limitations cited in claims 1 and 13.
In re claim 17, Chang as modified by Kim and Chiu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 14.
Chang further discloses the second contact electrode 42 further comprises a second finger part 42b connecting to a second contact part 42a (¶40).
Chiu further discloses in figs. 1-2, the light-emitting device further comprising:
a trench 36 between the first unit 22a and the second unit 22b (¶36), and
wherein a bottom of the trench 36 comprises an upper surface of the substrate 10;
a number of the second contact parts (e.g., different parts of 302 on the second unit 22b) on the second unit 22b are respectively more than one;
wherein the first contact electrode 202 further comprises a first finger part (e.g., an elongated portion of 202 on the unit 22a as shown in fig. 1) connecting to a first contact part and the second contact electrode 302 further comprises a second finger part (e.g., a lower leg of 302 on the unit 22b as shown in fig. 1) connecting to one of the second contact parts.
Closest prior art of record, alone or in combination, doesn’t teach wherein a number of the first contact parts on the first unit more than one; wherein in a top view, the first contact parts on the first unit and the second contact parts on the second unit are substantially symmetric with respect to the trench.
Therefore, claim 17 is indicated allowable in the entirety of all the limitations cited in claims 1, 14 and 17.
Claim 18 is indicated allowable based on its dependency on claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm EST.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893