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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4,6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (PG Pub 2018/0108812 A1) and Pang et al (PG Pub 2010/0155115 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a light-emitting device, comprising: a light-emitting structure (100, fig. 1a); an electrode structure provided on the light-emitting structure; and a die-bonding structure (174), at least a portion of which covers a surface of the electrode structure facing away from the light-emitting structure, wherein the electrode structure comprises: an electrode layer (136, paragraph [0034]) provided on the light-emitting structure; and a barrier layer (140, paragraph [0034]) provided on a side of the electrode layer facing away from the light-emitting structure, the barrier layer being made of a conductive material, wherein the light-emitting device further comprises an insulation layer (152_2, paragraph [0057]) covering the electrode layer, the insulation layer being provided with an opening exposing the electrode layer, wherein the electrode structure further comprises: a conductive filler (134, paragraph [0034]) filling the opening and being in contact with the electrode layer; and a conductive bridging layer (142, paragraph [0034]) provided on a surface of the insulation layer facing away from the light-emitting structure and being in contact with a surface of the conductive filler facing away from the light-emitting structure, the barrier layer being provided on a surface of the conductive bridging layer facing away from the light- emitting structure, and wherein the conductive filler does not (fig. 1a) extend out of the opening in the insulation layer.
Jung does not teach wherein the die-bonding structure comprises a doping material for inhibiting generation of an intermetallic compound.
In the same field of endeavor, Pang teaches a die-bonding structure (110/114, fig. 1) comprises a doping material (paragraph [0018]) for inhibiting generation of an intermetallic compound (paragraph [0013]), for the benefit of improving reliability (paragraph [0014]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the die-bonding structure to comprise a doping material for inhibiting generation of an intermetallic compound, for the benefit of improving reliability.
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the die-bonding structure comprises: a solder layer (174, paragraph [0089]) covering the surface of the electrode structure facing away from the light- emitting structure.
Pang teaches the doping material being doped in the solder layer (110/114, paragraph [0018] and abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Pang teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the doping material comprises at least one of nickel (paragraph [0018]), ferric oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, or zirconium dioxide.
Regarding claim 4, Jung does not teach a solder in the solder layer comprises at least one of tin, tin-silver alloy, tin-silver-copper alloy, indium-tin alloy, or tin-copper alloy.
Pang teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 2, wherein a solder in the solder layer comprises at least one of tin (paragraph [0013]), tin-silver alloy, tin-silver-copper alloy, indium-tin alloy, or tin-copper alloy, for the benefit of improving reliability by adding dopants in the tin-containing solder (paragraph [0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Jung teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 5, wherein the barrier layer is made of at least one of nickel, platinum, or gold (142, paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Jung teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 8, wherein the surface of the conductive filler facing away from the light-emitting structure is flush with the surface of the insulation layer facing away from the light-emitting structure; or the surface of the conductive filler facing away from the light-emitting structure is lower than (fig. 1a) the surface of the insulation layer facing away from the light-emitting structure.
Claim(s) 1,10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (PG Pub 2018/0108812 A1) and Chu et al (PG Pub 2022/0077100 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a light-emitting device, comprising: a light-emitting structure (100, fig. 1a); an electrode structure provided on the light-emitting structure; and a die-bonding structure (174), at least a portion of which covers a surface of the electrode structure facing away from the light-emitting structure, wherein the electrode structure comprises: an electrode layer (136, paragraph [0034]) provided on the light-emitting structure; and a barrier layer (140, paragraph [0034]) provided on a side of the electrode layer facing away from the light-emitting structure, the barrier layer being made of a conductive material, wherein the light-emitting device further comprises an insulation layer (152_2, paragraph [0057]) covering the electrode layer, the insulation layer being provided with an opening exposing the electrode layer, wherein the electrode structure further comprises: a conductive filler (134, paragraph [0034]) filling the opening and being in contact with the electrode layer; and a conductive bridging layer (142, paragraph [0034]) provided on a surface of the insulation layer facing away from the light-emitting structure and being in contact with a surface of the conductive filler facing away from the light-emitting structure, the barrier layer being provided on a surface of the conductive bridging layer facing away from the light- emitting structure, and wherein the conductive filler does not (fig. 1a) extend out of the opening in the insulation layer.
Jung does not teach wherein the die-bonding structure comprises a doping material for inhibiting generation of an intermetallic compound.
In the same field of endeavor, Chu teaches a die-bonding structure (130, figs. 1 and 2) comprises a doping material (ceramic particles, paragraph [0074] and claim 22) for inhibiting generation of an intermetallic compound (paragraph [0104]), for the benefit of improving reliability by reducing stress (paragraphs [0002][0004]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the die-bonding structure to comprise a doping material for inhibiting generation of an intermetallic compound, for the benefit of improving reliability.
Regarding claim 10, Jung teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the die-bonding structure comprises: a solder layer (174, paragraph [0089]) covering a surface of the electrode structure facing away from the light-emitting structure.
Chu teaches a liquid film (flux 132, fig. 1, paragraph [0071]) covering the solder layer (110) and made of a soldering flux (paragraph [0071]), the doping material being doped in the liquid film (figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11, Jung teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 10, wherein the electrode structure comprises two electrode structures, the solder layer comprises two solder layers (172 and 174, fig. 1a); the two solder layers (fig. 1a) are arranged on surfaces of the two electrode structures in a one-to-one correspondence
Kim in view of Chu teaches the liquid film comprises two liquid films (360, fig. 11, paragraph [0101] of Chu) arranged at intervals; the two solder layers (330 of Chu) are arranged on surfaces of the two electrode structures in a one-to- one correspondence, and the two liquid films cover the two solder layers in a one-to-one correspondence (fig. 11 of Chu); and the doping material comprises at least one of nickel, ferric oxide, silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide (claim 22 of Chu), or zirconium dioxide.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (PG Pub 2018/0108812 A1) and Chu et al (PG Pub 2022/0077100 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Koike et al (PG Pub 2009/0256166 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Jung teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 10, wherein the electrode structure comprises two electrode structures, the solder layer comprises two solder layers (172 and 174, paragraph [0089], fig. 1a); the two solder layers are arranged on surfaces of the two electrode structures in a one-to-one correspondence (fig. 1a).
Jung also teaches a film covers the two solder layers (molding 190, fig. 1a).
Jung does not teach the doping material in molding comprises an insulating material.
In the same field of endeavor, Koike teaches a liquid film (epoxy resin 16a, fig. 32, paragraph [0210]) comprises one liquid film and the liquid film covers the two solder layers (41A and 41B); and the doping material comprises an insulating material (TiO2, paragraph [0230]), for the benefit of increasing light extraction (paragraph [0229]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the liquid film to comprise one liquid film and the liquid film covered the two solder layers; and the doping material comprises an insulating material, for the benefit of increasing light extraction
Regarding claim 13, Koike teaches the doping material comprises at least one of silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide (16b, fig. 1a, TiO2, paragraph [0230]), or zirconium dioxide.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (PG Pub 2018/0108812 A1) and Chu et al (PG Pub 2022/0077100 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hwang (PG Pub 2016/0133807 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Jung does not teach a substrate provided with at least one group of pads; and the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the light- emitting device is soldered to the pads on the substrate through the die-bonding structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches a substrate (600, fig. 20) provided with at least one group of pads (610, paragraph [0140]); and a light- emitting device (500) is soldered to the pads on the substrate through the die-bonding structure, for the benefit of integrating plural light-emitting devices (6011, fig. 25) on a single substrate (6012) to create a lighting device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a substrate provided with at least one group of pads; and the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the light- emitting device was soldered to the pads on the substrate through the die-bonding structure, for the benefit of integrating plural light-emitting devices to form a lighting device.
Regarding claim 15, the previous combination remains as applied in claim 1.
Jung does not teach a preparation method of a light-emitting module, comprising: providing a substrate, which is provided with at least one group of pads; and soldering the light-emitting device according to claim 1 to the pads on the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, Hwang teaches a preparation method of a light-emitting module, comprising: providing a substrate (600, fig. 20), which is provided with at least one group of pads (610/620); and soldering a light-emitting device (500) according to the pads on the substrate, for the benefit of integrating plural light-emitting devices (6011, fig. 25) on a single substrate (6012) to create a lighting device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that a preparation method of a light-emitting module, comprising: providing a substrate, which was provided with at least one group of pads; and soldering the light-emitting device according to claim 1 to the pads on the substrate, for the benefit of integrating plural light-emitting devices on a single substrate to create a lighting device.
Hwang does not teach the soldering is through the die-bonding structure with a heat soldering process.
Chu teaches the soldering is through the die-bonding structure with a heat soldering process by melting the bonding structure for the known benefit of securing bondage (paragraphs [0034][0105]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to solder through the die-bonding structure with a heat soldering process for the known benefit of securing bondage.
Regarding claim 16, Chu teaches the preparation method of the light-emitting module according to claim 15, wherein the heat soldering process comprises a hot-pressure soldering process, a reflow soldering process for the known benefit of securing bondage (paragraph [0105]), or a laser soldering process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4,6,9-16 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm 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, 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights