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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority based on an application JP 2022-084439 filed in Japan Patent Office (JPO) on 05/24/2022 and receipt of a certified copy thereof.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 04/25/2023 and IDS filed on 02/27/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 8-9, “corresponding wiring portions of the plurality of wiring portions” should read --corresponding ones of the wiring portions -- and line 20, “if the at least one” should read -- when the at least on -- (emphasis added).
In claim 11, lines 3-4, “in a plane, a shape of the plurality of first light-emitting elements view is rectangular” should read --in a plane view, a shape of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is rectangular-- (emphasis added).
In claim 13, line 3, “a temperature under the first joining condition” should read -- the temperature under the first joining condition-- and line 4, “a temperature under the second joining condition” should read -- the temperature under the second joining condition-- (emphasis added).
In claim 14, line 3, “a temperature under the first joining condition” should read -- the temperature under the first joining condition-- and line 4, “a temperature under the second joining condition” should read -- the temperature under the second joining condition-- (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “if the at least one first light-emitting element is removed from the support member in the step of evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element is removable” in lines 19-20. This language is ambiguous as to whether the step of “evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element is removable” requires merely attempting removal and determining removability, or actually removing the light-emitting element during the evaluation step.
For best understand and examination purpose, the claim will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts; and the claim limitation “evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element is removable” will be interpreted as “including actual separation of the at least one first light-emitting element from the support member during the evaluation step” in the instant Office Action.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation “an applied load under the first joining condition is in a range of 10 MPa to 150 MPa, and an applied load under the second joining condition is in a range of 40 MPa to 200 MPa” in lines 3-6. “MPa” is a unit of pressure (force per unit area), however, the claims do not specify the reference area over which the “applied load” is defined (e.g., per light-emitting element contact area, per bonding head area, per transfer member area, or over the entire element region). Because the reference area is not provided, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claimed “applied load” ranges with reasonable certainty.
Further, the specification discusses “joining strength” values expressed in MPa, which are materially different from an externally applied bonding pressure. This creates additional ambiguity as to whether the recited MPa ranges in claims 15 and 16 correspond to (i) an applied bonding pressure during joining, (ii) a resulting joint strength, or (iii) another parameter altogether. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the claimed ranges refer to a total force, an average pressure, a local contact pressure, or another metric, and the metes and bounds of claims 15 and 16 are not reasonably certain.
For best understand and examination purpose, the claim will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts; and the claim limitation “applied load” will be interpreted as “applied bonding pressure during the joining process” in the instant Office Action.
Claims 2-14 and 17-18 are rejected due to their dependency.
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 1-6 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (KR 2021/0091640; hereinafter ‘Wada’) in view of Yip et al. (US 2011/0192547; hereinafter ‘Yip’).
Regarding claim 1, Wada teaches a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device [0011-0012], the method comprising:
providing a plurality of first light-emitting elements (11, FIG. 9, [0075]), each comprising a joining portion (12) containing gold (12 including Au, [0040]);
providing a support member (20 and 21; hereinafter ‘SM’) comprising:
a substrate (20), and
a plurality of wiring portions (21), each disposed on the substrate (20) and containing gold (21 being formed of a metal material corresponding to 12, [0040, 0075]);
joining (temporary bonding, [0076]) the joining portions (12) of the first light-emitting elements (11) and corresponding wiring portions of the plurality of wiring portions (21) under a first joining condition (a temporary bonding condition) by bringing the joining portions (12) of the first light-emitting elements (11) and the corresponding wiring portions (21) into contact with each other (shown in FIG. 9); and
after the step of joining (the temporary bonding) the joining portions (12) of the first light-emitting elements (11) and the corresponding wiring portions (21), evaluating electrical characteristics (electrical test, [0107]) of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11).
Wada does not explicitly teach the method comprising: if the at least one first light-emitting element is removed from the support member in the step of evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element is removable, removing from the support member a first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements determined to be defective in the step of evaluating electrical characteristics of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements.
Wada, however, provides that the light-emitting elements are temporarily bonded to the support member such that individual light emitting elements can be selectively removed from the support member by controlling the bonding condition, including heating temperature, and further provides identifying defective light-emitting elements through electrical testing prior to final bonding, thereby implicitly evaluating removability of the light-emitting elements and conditionally removing defective light-emitting elements while the elements are in the temporary bonding state [0076, 0107].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Wada to obtain and achieve the method comprising: if the at least one first light-emitting element is removed from the support member in the step of evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element is removable, removing from the support member a first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements determined to be defective in the step of evaluating electrical characteristics of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements as claimed, because it permits selective removal by control of the bonding condition, and removing defective light-emitting elements upon confirmation of removability serves the disclosed purpose of facilitating repair prior to final bonding.
Wada does not teach the method comprising: evaluating whether at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is removable from the support member by bringing an adhesive member into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element and then moving the adhesive member in a direction from the support member toward the at least one first light-emitting element.
Yip teaches a method (FIG. 3A-3C, [0023]) comprising: evaluating (monitoring vacuum suction reaching a threshold level, FIG. 8, [0038-0039]) whether at least one die (12) of the plurality of dies (a plurality of semiconductor dice. [0002]) is removable from the support member (14 and 18; hereinafter ‘SM2’) by bringing an adhesive member (20) into contact with the at least one die (12) and then moving the adhesive member (20) in a direction (a lifting direction for detaching) from the support member (SM2) toward the at least one die (12).
Yip does not explicitly teach that the die is a light-emitting element and an adhesive member having an adhesive surface that contacts the die.
Yip, however, discloses a thin semiconductor die handled during singulation and pick-up processes, and light-emitting elements are thin semiconductor dice processed using the same assembly techniques [0001-0004], thus it would have been obvious that the disclosed techniques are applicable to light-emitting elements.
Yip, further, discloses contacting the die with a collet 20 and applying a tensile force in a direction away from the support member via vacuum suction to determine whether the die can be detached from the adhesive tape. The collet does not include an adhesive surface, it performs the claimed function of evaluating whether the die is removable by contacting the die and moving a holding member away from the support member.
As taught by Yip, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wada to obtain and achieve the method comprising: evaluating whether at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is removable from the support member by bringing an adhesive member into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element and then moving the adhesive member in a direction from the support member toward the at least one first light-emitting element as claimed, because this step enables optimization of the detachment process by monitoring condition during die removal, thereby allowing the die to be detached without cracking [0034].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Yip in combination with Wada due to above reason.
Regarding claim 2, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising:
joining a plurality of joining portions (Wada: 12 of replacement 11, FIG. 12, [0107]; hereinafter ‘12R’) of a plurality of second light-emitting elements (replacement 11; hereinafter ‘11R’) and a plurality of corresponding wiring portions of the plurality of wiring portions (corresponding 21 contacted by 12R; hereinafter 21R) by disposing the second light-emitting elements (11R) at a plurality of corresponding positions (positions of removed 11, FIG. 11; hereinafter ‘11P’), and by bringing the joining portions (12R) of the plurality of second light-emitting elements (11R) and the corresponding wiring portions (21R) into contact with each other (shown in FIG. 12), wherein:
each of the joining portions (12R) of the plurality of second light-emitting elements (11R) contains gold (12 including Au, [0040]), and
the corresponding positions (11P) comprise a first position (a position from which 11 identified as defective through an electrical test is removed, [0071]) where the first light-emitting element (11) determined to be defective in the step of evaluating electrical characteristics (electrical test, [0107]) of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11) is removed and a second position (a position from which 11 is removed during evaluation of removability under a temporary bonding condition, [0076-0077]) where the at least one first light-emitting element (11) is removed in the step of evaluating (evaluating removability) whether the at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11) is removable.
Regarding claim 3, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 2, further comprising:
after the step of joining the joining portions (Wada: 12R, FIG. 12) of the second light-emitting elements (11R) and the corresponding wiring portions of the plurality of wiring portions (21), joining the joining portions (12R) of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11R) and the corresponding wiring portions (21) as well as the joining portions (12R) of the plurality of second light-emitting elements (11R) and the corresponding wiring portions (21), under a second joining condition (reflow step, FIG. 12, [0081]), wherein:
a temperature under the second joining condition is higher than a temperature under the first joining condition, and/or a load under the second joining condition is greater than a load under the first joining condition (a temperature under the reflow step being higher than a solder melting temperature and the temperature under the temporary bonding step being lower than the solder melting temperature, [0076, 0081]).
Regarding claim 4, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein:
an element region (Wada: an element region in which 11 are disposed in an array on 20 after temporary bonding, FIGS. 7 and 9, [0064]; hereinafter ‘ER’) comprising the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11) disposed on the substrate (20) is formed after the step of joining (the temporary bonding step) the joining portions (12) of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11) and the corresponding wiring portions (21), and
in a plan view (shown in FIG. 7), the element region (ER) comprises an outer peripheral portion (an outer peripheral portion; hereinafter ‘ERout’), and an inner portion (an inner portion; hereinafter ‘ERin’) surrounded by the outer peripheral portion (ERout) and located inside the outer peripheral portion (ERout).
Wada does not teach the method comprising: evaluating whether at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-in the step of evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is removable, the adhesive member is brought into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element located in the inner portion.
Yip teach the method comprising: in the step of evaluating (monitoring vacuum suction reaching a threshold level) whether the at least one first light-emitting element (the middle 12, FIG. 2, [0007]) of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (12) is removable, the adhesive member (20, [0008]) is brought into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element (the middle 12) located in the inner portion (a inner portion of an element region in which 12 are disposed in an array on 14 and 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Yip to obtain and achieve the method comprising: evaluating whether at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-in the step of evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is removable, the adhesive member is brought into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element located in the inner portion as claimed, because the inner portion is intentionally contacted and held to stabilize the element during evaluation, while removability is assessed from outer-portion separation via suction feedback [0008, 0025, 0031].
Regarding claim 5, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 2, wherein:
an element region (Wada: an element region in which 11 are disposed in an array on 20 after temporary bonding, FIGS. 7 and 9, [0064]; hereinafter ‘ER’) comprising the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11) disposed on the substrate (20) is formed after the step of joining (the temporary bonding step) the joining portions (12) of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11) and the corresponding wiring portions (21), and
in a plan view (shown in FIG. 7), the element region (ER) comprises an outer peripheral portion (an outer peripheral portion; hereinafter ‘ERout’), and an inner portion (an inner portion; hereinafter ‘ERin’) surrounded by the outer peripheral portion (ERout) and located inside the outer peripheral portion (ERout).
Wada does not teach the method comprising: evaluating whether at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-in the step of evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is removable, the adhesive member is brought into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element located in the inner portion.
Yip teach the method comprising: in the step of evaluating (monitoring vacuum suction reaching a threshold level) whether the at least one first light-emitting element (the middle 12, FIG. 2, [0007]) of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (12) is removable, the adhesive member (20, [0008]) is brought into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element (the middle 12) located in the inner portion (an inner portion of an element region in which 12 are disposed in an array on 14 and 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Yip to obtain and achieve the method comprising: evaluating whether at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-in the step of evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is removable, the adhesive member is brought into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element located in the inner portion as claimed, because the inner portion is intentionally contacted and held to stabilize the element during evaluation, while removability is assessed from outer-portion separation via suction feedback [0008, 0025, 0031].
Regarding claim 6, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein:
an element region (Wada: an element region in which 11 are disposed in an array on 20 after temporary bonding, FIGS. 7 and 9, [0064]; hereinafter ‘ER’) comprising the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11) disposed on the substrate (20) is formed after the step of joining (the temporary bonding step) the joining portions (12) of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (11) and the corresponding wiring portions (21), and
in a plan view (shown in FIG. 7), the element region (ER) comprises an outer peripheral portion (an outer peripheral portion; hereinafter ‘ERout’), and an inner portion (an inner portion; hereinafter ‘ERin’) surrounded by the outer peripheral portion (ERout) and located inside the outer peripheral portion (ERout).
Wada does not teach the method comprising: evaluating whether at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-in the step of evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is removable, the adhesive member is brought into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element located in the inner portion.
Yip teach the method comprising: in the step of evaluating (monitoring vacuum suction reaching a threshold level) whether the at least one first light-emitting element (the middle 12, FIG. 2, [0007]) of the plurality of first light-emitting elements (12) is removable, the adhesive member (20, [0008]) is brought into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element (the middle 12) located in the inner portion (an inner portion of an element region in which 12 are disposed in an array on 14 and 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Yip to obtain and achieve the method comprising: evaluating whether at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-in the step of evaluating whether the at least one first light-emitting element of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is removable, the adhesive member is brought into contact with the at least one first light-emitting element located in the inner portion as claimed, because the inner portion is intentionally contacted and held to stabilize the element during evaluation, while removability is assessed from outer-portion separation via suction feedback [0008, 0025, 0031].
Regarding claim 10, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein:
in a plan view (Wada: a plan view, FIG. 7), a shape of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is rectangular (11 is rectangular shape, [0049]), and
a length of one side of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is in a range of 30 μm to 100 μm (the length of 11 in a range from 1 μm to 100 μm, [0049]).
Wada does not explicitly teach the method, wherein a length of one side of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is in a range of 30 μm to 100 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Wada to obtain and achieve the method the plurality of first light-emitting elements is in a range of 30 μm to 100 μm as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein:
in a plan view (Wada: a plan view, FIG. 7), a shape of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is rectangular (11 is rectangular shape, [0049]), and
a length of one side of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is in a range of 30 μm to 100 μm (the length of 11 in a range from 1 μm to 100 μm, [0049]).
Wada does not explicitly teach the method, wherein a length of one side of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is in a range of 30 μm to 100 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Wada to obtain and achieve the method the plurality of first light-emitting elements is in a range of 30 μm to 100 μm as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein:
in a plan view (Wada: a plan view, FIG. 7), a shape of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is rectangular (11 is rectangular shape, [0049]), and
a length of one side of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is in a range of 30 μm to 100 μm (the length of 11 in a range from 1 μm to 100 μm, [0049]).
Wada does not explicitly teach the method, wherein a length of one side of each of the plurality of first light-emitting elements is in a range of 30 μm to 100 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Wada to obtain and achieve the method the plurality of first light-emitting elements is in a range of 30 μm to 100 μm as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein:
a temperature under the first joining condition is in a range of 80° C to 200° C (Wada: a temperature under the temporary bonding step in a range from room temperature to below 216 °C, [0076, 0078]), and
a temperature under the second joining condition is in a range of 200° C. to 300° C (a temperature under the reflow step higher than a solder melting temperature being in a range of 217-220 °C, [0078, 0081]).
Wada does not explicitly teach the method wherein a temperature under the first joining condition is in a range of 80° C to 200° C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Wada to obtain and achieve the method wherein a temperature under the first joining condition is in a range of 80° C to 200° C as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 6, wherein:
a temperature under the first joining condition is in a range of 80° C to 200° C (Wada: a temperature under the temporary bonding step in a range from room temperature to below 216 °C, [0076, 0078]), and
a temperature under the second joining condition is in a range of 200° C. to 300° C (a temperature under the reflow step higher than a solder melting temperature being in a range of 217-220 °C, [0078, 0081]).
Wada does not explicitly teach the method wherein a temperature under the first joining condition is in a range of 80° C to 200° C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Wada to obtain and achieve the method wherein a temperature under the first joining condition is in a range of 80° C to 200° C as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (KR 2021/0091640) in view of Yip (US 2011/0192547), and further in view of Sau et al. (US 2021/0249395; hereinafter ‘Sau’).
Regarding claim 7, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 4, but does not teach the method wherein: an interval between the plurality of first light-emitting elements disposed in the element region is equal to or less than 30 μm.
Sau teaches a method (FIGS. 9A and 9B) wherein: an interval (w2, FIG. 1, [0031]) between the plurality of first light-emitting elements (120) disposed in the element region (102) is equal to or less than 30 μm (w2 is approximately 20 μm or less).
As taught by Sau, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wada in view of Yip to obtain and achieve the method wherein: an interval between the plurality of first light-emitting elements disposed in the element region is equal to or less than 30 μm as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sau in combination with Wada in view of Yip due to above reason.
Regarding claim 8, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 5, but does not teach the method wherein: an interval between the plurality of first light-emitting elements disposed in the element region is equal to or less than 30 μm.
Sau teaches a method (FIGS. 9A and 9B) wherein: an interval (w2, FIG. 1, [0031]) between the plurality of first light-emitting elements (120) disposed in the element region (102) is equal to or less than 30 μm (w2 is approximately 20 μm or less).
As taught by Sau, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wada in view of Yip to obtain and achieve the method wherein: an interval between the plurality of first light-emitting elements disposed in the element region is equal to or less than 30 μm as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sau in combination with Wada in view of Yip due to above reason.
Regarding claim 9, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 6, but does not teach the method wherein: an interval between the plurality of first light-emitting elements disposed in the element region is equal to or less than 30 μm.
Sau teaches a method (FIGS. 9A and 9B) wherein: an interval (w2, FIG. 1, [0031]) between the plurality of first light-emitting elements (120) disposed in the element region (102) is equal to or less than 30 μm (w2 is approximately 20 μm or less).
As taught by Sau, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wada in view of Yip to obtain and achieve the method wherein: an interval between the plurality of first light-emitting elements disposed in the element region is equal to or less than 30 μm as claimed, because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Sau in combination with Wada in view of Yip due to above reason.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (KR 2021/0091640) in view of Yip (US 2011/0192547), and further in view of Hideki et al. (JPH 10110235).
Regarding claim 15, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 3, but does not teach the method wherein: an applied load under the first joining condition is in a range of 10 MPa to 150 MPa, and an applied load under the second joining condition is in a range of 40 MPa to 200 MPa.
Hideki teaches a method [0013] wherein:
an applied load under the first joining condition is in a range of 10 MPa to 150 MPa (50 MPa applied pressure during the first joining condition performed at a temperature lower than an eutectic melting temperature, [0022, 0024, 0027]), and
an applied load under the second joining condition is in a range of 40 MPa to 200 MPa (50 MPa applied pressure during the second joining condition performed at a temperature higher than the eutectic melting temperature).
Hideki does not explicitly teach a solder bonding process for a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device.
Hideki, however, discloses a pressure-assisted joining process involving eutectic phase formation and solidification with reference to a eutectic melting temperature, under applied pressures within a range of 10 MPa to 200 MPa [0018, 0027]. Accordingly, the applied pressure conditions are readily applicable to solder bonding processes, in which joining is likewise governed by material behavior below and above a solder melting point. Thus, it would have been obvious that the pressure-assisted joining technique is applicable to a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, including joining of light-emitting elements. Further, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
As taught by Hideki, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wada in view of Yip to obtain and achieve the method wherein: an applied load under the first joining condition is in a range of 10 MPa to 150 MPa, and an applied load under the second joining condition is in a range of 40 MPa to 200 MPa as claimed, because an applied pressure in a range of 10 MPa to 50 MPa is preferred for pressure-assisted joining, in that pressure below this range are insufficient to induce the desired joining effect, while pressure above this range impose practical limitations on processing equipment, thereby favoriting process stability and practicality [0018]. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Hideki in combination with Wada in view of Yip due to above reason.
Regarding claim 16, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 6, but does not teach the method wherein: an applied load under the first joining condition is in a range of 10 MPa to 150 MPa, and an applied load under the second joining condition is in a range of 40 MPa to 200 MPa.
Hideki teaches a method [0013] wherein:
an applied load under the first joining condition is in a range of 10 MPa to 150 MPa (50 MPa applied pressure during the first joining condition performed at a temperature lower than an eutectic melting temperature, [0022, 0024, 0027]), and
an applied load under the second joining condition is in a range of 40 MPa to 200 MPa (50 MPa applied pressure during the second joining condition performed at a temperature higher than the eutectic melting temperature).
Hideki does not explicitly teach a solder bonding process for a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device.
Hideki, however, discloses a pressure-assisted joining process involving eutectic phase formation and solidification with reference to a eutectic melting temperature, under applied pressures within a range of 10 MPa to 200 MPa [0018, 0027]. Accordingly, the applied pressure conditions are readily applicable to solder bonding processes, in which joining is likewise governed by material behavior below and above a solder melting point. Thus, it would have been obvious that the pressure-assisted joining technique is applicable to a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, including joining of light-emitting elements. Further, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
As taught by Hideki, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wada in view of Yip to obtain and achieve the method wherein: an applied load under the first joining condition is in a range of 10 MPa to 150 MPa, and an applied load under the second joining condition is in a range of 40 MPa to 200 MPa as claimed, because an applied pressure in a range of 10 MPa to 50 MPa is preferred for pressure-assisted joining, in that pressure below this range are insufficient to induce the desired joining effect, while pressure above this range impose practical limitations on processing equipment, thereby favoriting process stability and practicality [0018]. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Alter, 105 USPQ 233.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Hideki in combination with Wada in view of Yip due to above reason.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (KR 2021/0091640) in view of Yip (US 2011/0192547), and further in view of Koyama (US 2015/0348858).
Regarding claim 17, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 3, but does not teach the method wherein: a time period during which the load is applied under the first joining condition is in a range of 0.1 seconds to 10 seconds, and a time period during which the load is applied under the second joining condition is in a range of 1 seconds to 60 seconds.
Koyama teaches a method [0049] wherein:
a time period during which the load is applied under the first joining condition is in a range of 0.1 seconds to 10 seconds (the IC chips is mounted under a load of 30N for 5 seconds, [0071]), and
a time period during which the load is applied under the second joining condition is in a range of 1 seconds to 60 seconds (thermocompression bonding is performed while a load of 30N is applied for 5 seconds during temperature increase to 250 °C, [0072]).
Koyama does not explicitly teach that the IC chip is a light-emitting element.
Koyama, however, discloses suppression of damage to a thin semiconductor chip [0055] having a small thickness [0069], and thus, it would have been obvious that the disclosed techniques are applicable to light-emitting elements. Further, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
As taught by Koyama, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wada in view of Yip to obtain and achieve the method wherein: a time period during which the load is applied under the first joining condition is in a range of 0.1 seconds to 10 seconds, and a time period during which the load is applied under the second joining condition is in a range of 1 seconds to 60 seconds as claimed, because a two-step bonding process performed at two different temperatures with respect to the solder melting point under an applied load for a short duration suppresses damage to the semiconductor chip while improving manufacturing efficiency [0040, 0050, 0071-0072].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Koyama in combination with Wada in view of Yip due to above reason.
Regarding claim 18, Wada in view of Yip teaches the method for manufacturing the light-emitting device according to claim 6, but does not teach the method wherein: a time period during which the load is applied under the first joining condition is in a range of 0.1 seconds to 10 seconds, and a time period during which the load is applied under the second joining condition is in a range of 1 seconds to 60 seconds.
Koyama teaches a method [0049] wherein:
a time period during which the load is applied under the first joining condition is in a range of 0.1 seconds to 10 seconds (the IC chips is mounted under a load of 30N for 5 seconds, [0071]), and
a time period during which the load is applied under the second joining condition is in a range of 1 seconds to 60 seconds (thermocompression bonding is performed while a load of 30N is applied for 5 seconds during temperature increase to 250 °C, [0072]).
Koyama does not explicitly teach that the IC chip is a light-emitting element.
Koyama, however, discloses suppression of damage to a thin semiconductor chip [0055] having a small thickness [0069], and thus, it would have been obvious that the disclosed techniques are applicable to light-emitting elements. Further, if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
As taught by Koyama, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wada in view of Yip to obtain and achieve the method wherein: a time period during which the load is applied under the first joining condition is in a range of 0.1 seconds to 10 seconds, and a time period during which the load is applied under the second joining condition is in a range of 1 seconds to 60 seconds as claimed, because a two-step bonding process performed at two different temperatures with respect to the solder melting point under an applied load for a short duration suppresses damage to the semiconductor chip while improving manufacturing efficiency [0040, 0050, 0071-0072].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Koyama in combination with Wada in view of Yip due to above reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 2/3/26