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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (US 20210057602).
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses that a light-emitting device, comprising:
a substrate 90;
a first semiconductor layer 80 and a semiconductor platform 70 & 60 disposed on the first semiconductor layer, wherein the semiconductor platform comprises a second semiconductor layer 60 and an active layer 70 between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer (Fig. 14);
a plurality of openings NC1 passing through the semiconductor platform to expose a portion of the first semiconductor layer (Fig. 13-14);
a plurality of first electrodes NC1 located on the exposed portions of the first semiconductor layer 80 in the plurality of openings and not covering the semiconductor platform (Fig. 13-14);
a second electrode 42 on the second semiconductor layer and not covering the first electrode NC1 (Fig. 13-14);
a plurality of first electrode pads 21 located on the first electrodes and not covering any portion of the semiconductor platform 60 & 70; and a second electrode pad 22 located on the semiconductor platform and not covering any portion of the first electrodes NC1 (Fig. 4).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, & 11-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20210057602) in view of Kunoh et al. (US 20210217942).
Reclaim 2, Jang fails to specify that in a top view, the second electrode pad comprises a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions on the semiconductor platform.
However, Kunoh suggests that in a top view, the second electrode pad 1060 comprises a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions on the semiconductor platform (Fig. 1A & 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Jang with in a top view, the second electrode pad comprises a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions on the semiconductor platform as taught by in a top view, the second electrode pad comprises a plurality of concave portions and a plurality of convex portions on the semiconductor platform in order to enhance variation of pad shapes for the adhesion (para. 0169) and also, the claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one know element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Reclaim 3, Jang & Kunoh disclose that one of the plurality of first electrode pads is disposed between two adjacent of the plurality of convex portions of the second electrode pad (Jang’s Fig. 13-14 or Kunoh’s Fig. 1A-B).
Reclaim 4, Jang & Kunoh disclose that one of the plurality of first electrode pads and one of the plurality of convex portions of the second electrode pad respectively comprises an end, the light-emitting device comprises an edge, and the end of the one of the plurality of convex portions of the second electrode pad is closer to the edge of the light- emitting device than the end of the one of the plurality of first electrode pads (Jang in view of Kunoh).
Reclaim 6, Jang & Kunoh disclose that the plurality of first electrode pads 1080 has a total area, and the second electrode pad 1060 (more numbers of the second electrode pads) has an area greater than the total area of the plurality of first electrode pads (Kunoh’ Fig. 1A-B)
Reclaim 11, Jang & Kunoh disclose that a first diagonal and a second diagonal, wherein each of the plurality of first electrodes comprises a first extension electrode, a first diagonal distance between two of the first extension electrodes on the first diagonal is less than a second diagonal distance between two of the first extension electrodes on the second diagonal (Jang’s Fig. 13-14 in view of Kuno’s Fig. 1A-B).
Reclaim 12, Jang & Kunoh disclose that a first side and a second side connected with the first side, wherein one of the plurality of first electrode pads is adjacent to the first side and the second side, the one of the plurality of first electrode pads is separated from the first side by a first distance and is separated from the second side by a second distance, and the second distance is greater than the first distance (Jang’s Fig. 13-14 in view of Kuno’s Fig. 1A-B).
Reclaim 13, Jang & Kunoh disclose that the second electrode pad is separated from the first side by a first spacing and separated from the second side by a second spacing, and the second spacing is less than the second distance (Jang’s Fig. 13-14 in view of Kuno’s Fig. 1A-B).
Reclaim 14, Jang & Kunoh disclose that the first spacing is equal to or greater than the second spacing (Jang’s Fig. 13-14 in view of Kuno’s Fig. 1A-B).
Reclaim 15, Jang & Kunoh disclose that one of the plurality of first electrode pads and one of the plurality of first electrodes respectively has an area, and the area of the one of the plurality of first electrode pads accounts for a first ratio of that of the one of the plurality of first electrodes, and wherein the second electrode pad and the second electrode respectively has an area, and the area of the second electrode pad accounts for a second ratio of that of the second electrode, wherein the first ratio is greater than the second ratio (Jang’s Fig. 13-14 in view of Kuno’s Fig. 1A-B).
Regarding claim 16, Jang & Kunoh disclose that a light-emitting apparatus comprising:
a light-emitting device comprising:
a substrate 90;
a first semiconductor layer 80 and a semiconductor platform 70 & 60 disposed on the first semiconductor layer 80, wherein the semiconductor platform comprises a second semiconductor layer 70 and an active layer between the first semiconductor layer 80 and the second semiconductor layer 60 (Fig. 4);
an opening passing through the semiconductor platform to expose a portion of the first semiconductor layer NC1;
a first electrode NC1 located on the exposed portion of the first semiconductor layer in the opening and not covering the semiconductor platform; a second electrode on the second semiconductor layer and not covering the first semiconductor layer in the opening;
a first electrode pad 21 located on the first electrode and not covering any portion of the semiconductor platform 70 & 60 (Jang’s Fig. 13-14 and Kunoh’s Fig. 1A-B); and
a second electrode pad 22 located on the semiconductor platform and not covering any portion of the first electrode NC1, wherein a first surface of the first electrode pad NC1 is higher than a second surface of the second electrode pad 42 (Jang, Fig. 4).
Reclaim 17, Jang & Kunoh disclose that a mounting substrate 10 located below the light-emitting device, wherein the mounting substrate further comprises a first conductor portion 11 connecting to the first electrode pad and a second conductor portion 12 connecting to the second electrode pad (Jang’s Fig. 4).
Reclaim 18, Jang & Kunoh disclose that the first conductor portion comprises a first conductor extension and the second conductor portion comprises a first concave portion surrounding the first conductor extension (Jang’s Fig. 13).
Reclaim 19, Jang & Kunoh disclose that the second electrode pad 22 comprises a second concave portion and a second convex portion on the semiconductor platform, and the second conductor portion comprises a first convex portion corresponding to the second convex portion of the second electrode pad (Fig. 4, Jang).
Reclaim 20, Jang & Kunoh fail to specify that that a step difference between the first surface and the second surface is less than 2 µm.
However, notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization.
Before effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a certain step difference between the first surface and the second surface, because it would have been to obtain a certain step difference between the first surface to achieve to minimize magnetic interference and maximize electric connectivity.
Regarding claim 21, Jang & Kunoh disclose that a light-emitting device, having a first side and comprising:
a first semiconductor layer 80 and a semiconductor platform 60 & 70 disposed on the first semiconductor layer 80, wherein the semiconductor platform comprises a second semiconductor layer 60 and an active layer 70between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer;
an opening passing through the semiconductor platform to expose a portion of the first semiconductor layer NC1;
a first electrode NC1 located on the exposed potion of the first semiconductor layer 80; and
a second electrode pad 12 located on the second semiconductor layer and not covering any portion of the first electrode and comprising a convex portion, wherein the convex portion is closer to the first side than the first electrode (Fig. 4, Jang’s a shape of element 12).
Reclaim 22, Jang & Kunoh disclose that a plurality of first electrode pads 21 located on the plurality of first electrodes.
Reclaim 23, Jang & Kunoh disclose that the first electrode is located on the exposed portion of the first semiconductor layer in the opening and not overlapped with any portion of the semiconductor platform in a vertical direction (Jang, Fig. 4 & 13-14).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20210057602) in view of Sung (US 20210167252).
Reclaim 8, Jang discloses that an insulating layer covering the plurality of first electrodes and the second electrode.
Jung fails to specify that the insulating layer comprises a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) structure.
However, Sung suggests that an insulating layer can be a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) structure (para. 0112).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Jung with an insulating layer can be a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) structure as taught by Sung in order to enhance brightness of LED and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 20210057602) in view of in view of Kunoh et al. (US 20210217942) and further in view of Nizeki et al. (US 20190288171).
Reclaim 24, Jang & Kunoh fail to teach that the first electrode pad has an area smaller than that of the first electrode.
However, Nizeki suggests that the first electrode pad 16 has an area smaller than that of the first electrode 32 (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Jang & Kunoh with the first electrode pad has an area smaller than that of the first electrode as taught by Nizeki in order to avoid contamination of soler material by using less size and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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 SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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.
/SU C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights