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 Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Re. claim 1: The phrase “the release layer is irradiated with laser light from a second surface side of the first substrate” as recited in lines 15-16 appears to be --the release layer is irradiated with a laser light from the second surface side of the first substrate--.
Re. claim 2: The phrase “each disposed on a corresponding one” as recited in lines 5-6 appears to be -- each layer disposed on a corresponding one--.
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 2, 4-7 and 9 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.
Re. claim 2: The phrase “each disposed on a corresponding one of the light-emitting elements” as recited in lines 5-6 renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what the light-emitting elements are indicated. Are the one or more light-emitting elements as recited in line 3 or the plurality of the light-emitting elements as recited in lines 3-4?
The phrase “the corresponding light-emitting element” as recited in lines 7-8 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 4: The phrase “the light-emitting element’’ as recited in line 4 lacks antecedent basis.
Re. claim 9: The phrase “the light-emitting element’’ as recited in line 3-4 lacks antecedent basis.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki (JP-2020188037 A) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP-2006196693 A).
Takaki teaches a process of making a light-emitting device, comprising steps of: preparing a first structure comprising: a first substrate (14, Fig. 4, paragraph [0034]) having a first surface and a second surface on a side opposite the first surface, a release layer (13, Fig. 4, paragraph [0034]) disposed on the first surface, and one or more light-emitting elements (11, Fig. 6, paragraph [0041]) fixed to the first surface of the first substrate via the release layer, the one or more light-emitting elements each having a third surface facing the release layer and a fourth surface on a side opposite the third surface as shown in Fig. 6, wherein: the release layer encloses the fourth surface in the plan view as shown in Fig. 6 (see also paragraphs [0041]-[0044]); preparing a second structure comprising a second substrate having an upper surface as shown in Fig. 7 (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]); and transferring the one or more light-emitting elements from the first substrate to the second substrate by removing the release layer in such a manner that the release layer is irradiated with laser light from a second surface side of the first substrate in a state in which the one or more light-emitting elements are disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate and the first surface of the first substrate is opposed to the upper surface of the second substrate as shown in Fig. 8 (see also paragraphs [0051]-[0057]).
However, the fourth surface of the one or more light-emitting elements is larger than the third surface in a plan view. It is to be expected that a small change in physical attributes would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstance, a small change in physical attributes may impact patentability to a process if particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the result of the prior art. Such ranges are termed “critical” ranges, and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. However, even though applicant’s modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. More particularly, where the general conditions of claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Alternately, Suzuki et al. teach a process of making an electrical device including one or more semiconductor elements (8, Fig. 2 (C), equivalent with one or more light-emitting elements) having a third surface and a fourth surface on a side opposite the third surface, the fourth surface being larger than the third surface in a plan view as shown in Fig. 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating a light-emitting device of Takaki by one or more light-emitting elements having a third surface and a fourth surface on a side opposite the third surface, the fourth surface being larger than the third surface in a plan view as taught by Suzuki et al. in order to provide a desirable one or more light-emitting elements.
Re. claim 2: Takaki also teaches that the one or more light-emitting elements are a plurality of the light-emitting elements, the release layer comprises a plurality of layers (131, 132, Fig. 12), each disposed on a corresponding one of the light-emitting elements, and each of the layers encloses the fourth surface of the corresponding light-emitting element in the plan view as shown in Fig. 13.
Re. claim 3: Takaki also teaches that the one or more light-emitting elements are a plurality of the light-emitting elements, and the release layer is a continuous layer (131, Fig. 12 and 13) that encloses all the fourth surfaces of the plurality of light-emitting elements in the plan view.
Re. claim 11: Takaki also teaches that the second structure further comprises an adhesive layer (32, Fig. 7, paragraph [0053]) disposed on an upper surface side of the second substrate, and in the step of transferring the one or more light-emitting elements, the one or more light-emitting elements are bonded to the second substrate via the adhesive layer as shown in Figs. 7-9.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takaki in view of Suzuki et al., and further in view of Ishiguro et al. (PGPub 2017/0008128 A1).
Takaki, modified by Suzuki et al., teaches all limitations as set forth above, but silent controlling an emission direction of the laser light by a Galvano method. Ishiguro et al. teach a laser beam machine such that Main controller 105 outputs a pulse emitting command signal to laser oscillator 101. Laser oscillator 101 receiving the pulse emitting command signal emits laser r. Laser r is partially split into determination laser ra by beam splitter 102 installed in an optical path of laser r, and is guided to light detector 103. Light detector 103 measures energy intensity of determination laser ra. In addition, laser r from which determination laser ra is split is emitted to a substrate while an emission direction of laser r is changed by a galvano meter. One or a plurality of pulses of laser r is emitted to one split region in the substrate so as to perform the laser drilling. Thereafter, the galvano meter changes the emission direction of laser r to a split region requiring the subsequent laser drilling as shown in Fig. 1 (see paragraph [0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a process of fabricating a light-emitting device of Takaki, modified by Suzuki et al., by controlling an emission direction of the laser light by a Galvano method as taught by Ishiguro et al. in order to precise the laser drilling.
Re. claim 9: Takaki also teaches that the laser light is emitted obliquely to the third surface of the light-emitting element as shown in Fig. 8.
Re. claim 10: Takaki also teaches that an intensity distribution of the laser light is a top hat distribution as shown in Fig. 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
The Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng et al. (PGPub 2019/0044023 A1), Oohataet al. (PGPub 2010/0259164 A1), and Akram (US PAT. 11,145,794) are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to a process of making a light-emitting device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 PM.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights