DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuka et al. (JP 2020-016737A) in view of Kasugai et al. (WO2012132236A1) and Choi et al. (US Pub. 2015/0014724).
Regarding independent claim 1, Izuka teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (Fig. 10; para. 0100+; refer also to Fig. 1; para. 0039+), comprising:
an active LED structure comprising an n-type layer (11; para. 0049), a p-type layer (13; para. 0055), and an active layer (12; para. 0050) between the n-type layer and the p-type layer;
a reflective layer (27; para. 0100) on the active LED structure;
a current spreading layer (14; para. 0055) on the p-type layer, wherein the current spreading layer is between the p-type layer and dielectric layer (28); and
a plurality of reflective layer interconnects (21) that extend though openings of a dielectric layer (28) to the current spreading layer (Fig. 10; para. 0100).
Izuka is silent with respect to a lumiphoric material layer.
Kasugai teaches (Fig. 1; para. 0063+) a lumiphoric material layer (20/25a/25b; can also be interpreted as including layer 21) over the passivation layer (18), the lumiphoric material layer configured to convert at least a portion of light generated by the active LED structure to a different wavelength (para. 0061-0062, 0067).
Kasugai teaches wherein the lumiphoric material layer is formed mostly on the light emitting surface.
Choi also teaches (Figs. 1, 12, 13; para. 0023+) a lumiphoric material layer (21 and/or 51)) wherein the lumiphoric material can be formed on either the light emitting surface (Fig. 13) or the backside surface (Figs. 1, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the lumiphoric material layer as taught by Kaugai and Choi over the passivation layer(s) (31, 28) of Izuka such that the lumiphoric material layer was between the reflective layer and the active LED structure of Izuka to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a white-light LED.
Re claim 2, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein a portion of the lumiphoric material layer is arranged on mesa sidewalls of the p-type layer, the active layer, and a portion of the n-type layer (Izuka Fig. 10, Kasugai Fig. 1).
Re claim 3, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach a passivation layer (Kasugai Fig. 1: 21) on the lumiphoric material layer, wherein a portion of the passivation layer is arranged on the portion of the lumiphoric material layer that is on the mesa sidewalls (Kasugai Fig. 1: 21; para. 0068).
Re claim 4, Izuka teaches an n-contact (refer to Fig. 1: 26) electrically coupled to the n-type layer; and a p-contact (refer to Fig. 1: 26) electrically coupled to the p-type layer. While these contacts are not explicitly taught in the embodiment of Fig. 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include these contacts within the embodiment of Fig. 10 for the purpose of connecting the LED to a package (Izuka para. 0063).
The combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Cho teach wherein the lumiphoric material layer is arranged between the active LED structure and the p-contact, and the lumiphoric material layer is arranged between the active LED structure and the n-contact (Izuka Fig. 10; Kasugai Fig. 1, Choi Figs. 1, 12).
Re claim 5, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach an n-contact interconnect (Izuka Fig. 10: 22) that extends through an opening formed in the p-type layer, the active layer, and a portion of the n-type layer, wherein the lumiphoric material layer surrounds portions of the n-contact interconnect that reside within the opening (Izuka Fig. 10; Kasugai Fig. 1).
Re claim 7, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein the lumiphoric material layer comprises lumiphoric particles (Kasugai: 25a, 25b; Choi: 51) in a binder material (Kasugai: silicone resin; Choi: 43) (Kasugai Fig. 1, para. 0067; Choi Fig. 1, para. 0077).
Re claim 8, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein the lumiphoric particles comprise phosphor particles (Kasugai para. 0062; Choi para. 0036 – the listed materials can be considered as “quantum dot phoshphors”).
Re claim 9, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein the lumiphoric particles comprise quantum dots (Kasugai para. 0062; Choi para. 0077, 0036).
Re claim 10, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein one or more of the lumiphoric particles are entirely encapsulated by the binder material (Kasugai Fig. 1; Choi Fig. 1, para. 0034).
Re claim 11, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein the lumiphoric material layer comprises a first sublayer of lumiphoric particles (Kasugai Fig. 1: 20/25a/25b) and a second sublayer (Kasugai Fig. 1: 21) on the first sublayer.
Re claim 14, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein the active LED structure is configured to generate light of a first peak wavelength; the lumiphoric material layer is configured to convert a portion of the light of the first peak wavelength to light of a second peak wavelength that is different than the first peak wavelength (Kasugai para. 0061; Choi para. 0044).
While Kasugai and Choi both teach that an intensity of the second peak wavelength is less than an intensity of the first peak wavelength (this would be the case given that only a portion of the first light is converted to the second light), Kasugai and Choi are silent with respect to the specific range of “less than or equal to 30%”.
However, given that the relative intensities would have an effect on the color mixing/color output of the device; that is, it is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the relative intensities such that an intensity of the second peak wavelength is less than or equal to 30% of an intensity of the first peak wavelength as claimed for the purpose of obtaining the desired light mixing/color output of the device. When the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Re claim 15, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein the lumiphoric material layer is further configured to convert another portion of the light of the first peak wavelength to light of a third peak wavelength (Kasugai para. 0061; Choi para. 0044).
While Kasuga and Choi teach that an intensity of the third peak wavelength is less than an intensity of the first peak wavelength (this would be the case given that only a portion of the first light is converted to the third light), Kasugai and Choi are silent with respect to the specific range of “less than or equal to 30%”.
However, given that the relative intensities would have an effect on the color mixing/color output of the device; that is, it is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the relative intensities such that an intensity of the third peak wavelength is less than or equal to 30% of an intensity of the first peak wavelength as claimed for the purpose of obtaining the desired light mixing/color output of the device. When the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Re claim 16, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein the first peak wavelength and the second peak wavelength are in a range from 400 nanometers (nm) to 700 nm (Kasugai para. 006; Choi para. 0029, 0037-0039).
Re claim 17, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein the first peak wavelength is in a range from 400 nm to 700 nm (Kasugai para. 0061; Choi para. 0029), and the second peak wavelength is above 700 nm (Kasugai para. 0061 – in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05) or Choi para. 0041).
Re claim 18, Choi teaches an additional lumiphoric material layer (113) on an opposite side of the active LED structure from the lumiphoric material layer that is between the reflective layer and the active LED structure (Fig. 14; para. 0085, 0088).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place the LED chip formed of the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi within a package as taught by Choi to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of forming; for example, an LED lighting device.
Regarding independent claim 19, Izuka teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (Fig. 10; para. 0100+; refer also to Fig. 1; para. 0039+), comprising:
an active LED structure comprising an n-type layer (11; para. 0049), a p-type layer (13; para. 0055), and an active layer (12; para. 0050) between the n-type layer and the p-type layer;
a first contact (27; para. 0100) electrically coupled to the p-type layer of the active LED structure; and
a current spreading layer (14; para. 0055) on the p-type layer, wherein the current spreading layer is between the p-type layer and dielectric layer (28); and
a plurality of interconnects (21) that extend though openings of dielectric layer (28) between the first contact and the p-type layer to the current spreading layer (Fig. 10; para. 0100).
Izuka is silent with respect to a lumiphoric material layer.
Kasugai teaches (Fig. 1; para. 0063+) a lumiphoric material layer (20/25a/25b; can also be interpreted as including layer 21) over the passivation layer (18), the lumiphoric material layer configured to convert at least a portion of light generated by the active LED structure to a different wavelength (para. 0061-0062, 0067).
Kasugai teaches wherein the lumiphoric material layer is formed mostly on the light emitting surface.
Choi also teaches (Figs. 1, 12, 13; para. 0023+) a lumiphoric material layer (21 and/or 51)) wherein the lumiphoric material can be formed on either the light emitting surface (Fig. 13) or the backside surface (Figs. 1, 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the lumiphoric material layer as taught by Kaugai and Choi over the passivation layer(s) (31, 28) of Izuka such that the lumiphoric material layer was between the reflective layer and the active LED structure of Izuka to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of providing a white-light LED.
Re claim 20, the combination of Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi teach wherein the active LED structure is configured to generate light of a first peak wavelength; the lumiphoric material layer is configured to convert a portion of the light of the first peak wavelength to light of a second peak wavelength (Kasugai para. 0061; Choi para. 0044).
While Kasugai and Choi teach that an intensity of the second peak wavelength is less than an intensity of the first peak wavelength (this would be the case given that only a portion of the first light is converted to the second light), Kasugai and Choi are silent with respect to the specific range of “less than or equal to 30%”.
However, given that the relative intensities would have an effect on the color mixing/color output of the device; that is, it is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the relative intensities such that an intensity of the second peak wavelength is less than or equal to 30% of an intensity of the first peak wavelength as claimed for the purpose of obtaining the desired light mixing/color output of the device. When the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not considered inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izuka et al. (JP 2020-016737A) in view of Kasugai et al. (WO2012132236A1) and Choi et al. (US Pub. 2015/0014724) and further in view of Torimoto et al (US Pub. 2019/0345384).
Re claim 12, Izuka, Kasugai, and Choi are silent with respect to surface modifiers.
Torimoto teaches lumiphoric particles with a surface modifier along outer shells of the lumiphoric particles (para. 0080). Torimoto further teaches this structure of have improved quantum efficiency in the band edge emission (para. 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include surface modifiers as taught by Torimoto such that wherein the lumiphoric material layer of Choi comprised lumiphoric particles with a surface modifier along outer shells of the lumiphoric particles for the same advantage of providing improved quantum efficiency in the band edge emission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation from the prior art of record, nor does the prior art of record otherwise make obvious the limitations of “…wherein the current spreading layer forms at least one opening on the p-type layer, and a portion of the lumiphoric material layer extends through the at least one opening…”, in combination with the other limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues Izuka does not tach any current spreading layer between the p-type layer and any other layer.
The Examiner disagrees because layer 14 of Izuka acts, at least partially, as a current spreading layer. Paragraph 0055-0056 recites: “…The second semiconductor layer 14 is a layer heavily doped in order to secure an electrical connection with the second electrode 21…the second semiconductor layer 14…is made of Zn-doped GaInAsP…”. While not explicitly stated, the high Zn doping of layer 14 would result in at least some current spreading. While current spreading layers are often formed of ITO as in Kasugai or graphene as in Choi, as pointed out by Applicant; highly doped semiconductor layers can also be used as current spreading layers as in Izuka. Thus, the layer 14 of Izuka can reasonably be considered a current spreading layer.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to Kasugai and Choi are considered moot because the primary reference Izuka teaches the claimed current spreading layer as described above.
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 MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (571)272-4237. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights