DETAILED ACTION
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
In response to a Restriction Requirement filed on 10/22/2025, the Applicant elected with traverse Group I (claims 1-15) in a reply filed on 12/22/2025. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of all claims together places no undue burden on the examiner.
This is not found persuasive, because Group I, claims 1-15, is drawn to an optoelectronic semiconductor component; and Group II, claims 16-17, is drawn to a method for producing an optoelectronic semiconductor component. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. Group II requires special technical features of a method for producing an electronic semiconductor component in specific sequence of providing a carrier with a semiconductor body and together with a molded body on the carrier, then arranging a prefabricated optical shield on the molded body, and the arranging the optical shield is preceded by arranging a dam structure next to the semiconductor body. These features are not required or detailed in Group I. Therefore, the two groups lack unity of invention because the groups lack theses corresponding special technical features.
For the reasons above, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Currently, claims 1-15 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 07/12/2023 and 04/11/2024. The IDS have been considered.
Specification
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.
The following title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version) Optoelectronic Semiconductor Component Including Dam Structure
(Clean Version) Optoelectronic Semiconductor Component Including Dam Structure
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Independent claim 1 is indefinite, because the limitation “the direction of the semiconductor body” in lines 10-11 is not mentioned before. There is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 8 is indefinite, because the limitation “at least one side surface is planar” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether such side surface is a side surface of the optoelectronic semiconductor component or of the elements of the optoelectronic semiconductor component. The limitation will be interpreted as one side surface of the optoelectronic semiconductor component for the purpose of examination.
Note the dependent claims 2-15 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0064634 A1 to Eichenberg et al. (“Eichenberg”) in view of US 2010/0078664 A1 to Helbing.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
374
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Eichenberg in Figs. 1A-1B and Annotated Fig. 1A teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor component 1 (Figs. 1A-1B & ¶ 37, optoelectronic component 1), comprising:
a semiconductor body 22 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 38, semiconductor light source 22 consists of a III-V semiconductor material) having an optically active region 22 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 38, semiconductor light source 22 emits light) configured for emitting,
a carrier 3 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 37 carrier substrate 3),
a molded body 8 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 45, injection-molded body 8), and
a prefabricated optical shield 11 (Fig. 1A, ¶ 45 & ¶ 47 disclose diaphragm part 11 is prefabricated for having anchoring portions 13 to achieve better attaching with the molded body 8) comprising a support structure 13 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 47, protuberances 13 of the part 11 that supports an upper portion of the part 11) and a diaphragm DF (Annotated Fig. 1 & ¶ 45, a collective DF of an upper portion the part 11 and projection 14 of the part 11), wherein:
the semiconductor body 22 and the molded body 8 are arranged on a front side (Fig. 1A, upper side) of the carrier 3,
the molded body 8 at least partly surrounds the semiconductor body 22 in a lateral direction (Fig. 1A),
the optical shield 11 is arranged on a side (Fig. 1A, upper side) of the molded body 8 facing away from the carrier 3 (Fig. 1A) and projects beyond the molded body 8 in the lateral direction in the direction of the semiconductor body 22 (Fig. 1A, the projection 14 of the part 11 projects beyond the body 8 in the lateral direction in the direction of the semiconductor body 22),
the diaphragm DF has an opening op (Annotated Fig. 1A) aligned with the optically active region 22.
However, Eichenberg does not explicitly disclose a dam structure is arranged next to the semiconductor body in the lateral direction, and at least partly surrounds the semiconductor body.
Helbing recognizes a need for obtaining a desired radiation pattern of an LED device (¶ 36). Helbing satisfies the need by providing a dam structure 206/208 (Fig. 2 & ¶ 36, dam material 206/208) arranged next to a semiconductor body 202 (¶ 36 & ¶ 4, LED chip 202 includes a semiconductor material) in a lateral direction (Fig. 2), and at least partly surrounds the semiconductor body 202 (Fig. 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the semiconductor body taught by Eichenberg with the dam structure taught by Helbing, so as to obtain a desired radiation pattern of an LED device (Helbing: ¶ 36).
Regarding claim 2, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A further teaches the optical shield 11 comprises a protective layer 10 (Fig. 1A & ¶ 42, potting compound 10 protects the chip 2 and connection wires 6 against external environmental moisture or dust) arranged on a side of the optical shield 11 facing away from the molded body 8 (Fig. 1A, the layer 10 is arranged on inner sides of the optical shield 11, which face away from the outer sides and the surfaces of the molded body 8 contacting the shield 11).
Regarding claim 3, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A further teaches the protective layer 10 mechanically connects the optical shield 11 to the molded body 8 (Fig. 1A, the protective layer 10 helps secure connection between the shield 11 and the molded body 8).
Regarding claim 5, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A further teaches the optical shield 11 is incorporated into the molded body 8 in a vertical direction (Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A further teaches the carrier 3, the molded body 8 and the optical shield 11 form a housing (see Fig. 1A) for the optoelectronic semiconductor component 1.
Regarding claim 8, Eichenberg in Figs. 1A-1B further teaches at least one side surface is planar (Figs. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 12, Eichenberg in Annotated Fig. 1A further teaches the diaphragm DF is formed with copper (¶ 49 & ¶ 45, the diaphragm 11 comprising the projection 14 includes copper).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Eichenberg and Helbing does not explicitly disclose the diaphragm has an extent in a vertical direction of at least 50 μm and at most 500 μm, or of at least 100 μm and at most 250 μm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the diaphragm has an extent in a vertical direction of at least 50 μm and at most 500 μm, or of at least 100 μm and at most 250 μm within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit 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. (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)).
Regarding claim 15, Eichenberg in Annotated Fig. 1A further teaches a diameter of the opening op changes with a distance with respect to the semiconductor body 8 (Annotated Fig. 1A, the diameter of opening op of the diaphragm DF changes between the inner edge 12 and the extending end of the projection 14).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichenberg and Helbing, and further in view of US 2002/0171365 A1 to Morgan et al. (“Morgan”).
Regarding claim 4, Eichenberg in Fig. 1A teaches the protective layer 10 includes silicone or epoxy (¶ 43). Eichenberg further discloses the protective layer is an encapsulation (¶ 42-¶ 43 & ¶ 48).
However, the combination Eichenberg and Helbing does not explicitly disclose the protective layer/encapsulation is formed with a polysiloxane.
Morgan teaches that an encapsulate for a light source can be made from silicones, epoxies, or polysiloxanes (¶ 150). In other words, Morgan recognizes that silicone, epoxy, and polysiloxane are functional equivalent as being able to function as encapsulates.
According to Section 2144.06.II, "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). The Section 2144.06.II further states that "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute silicone or epoxy taught by Eichenberg with another functionally-equivalent polysiloxane taught by Morgan.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 6, 9-11 and 14 are rejected, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 6, wherein the dam structure touches a side of the optical shield facing the carrier.
Claim 9 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 9, wherein the support structure is multipartite and comprises a first support element and a second support element.
Claims 10-11 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 9.
Claim 14 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 14, wherein the diaphragm, on a side facing away from the carrier, has a projection above the support structure in a vertical direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2010/0025707 A1 to Groetsch
US 6,075,237 A to Ciccarelli
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817