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) 1-2, 6, 8, 11-15, & 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daikoku et al. (US 20180247973).
Regarding claim 1, Daikoku discloses that a light-emitting device, comprising:
a carrier having a light-emitting region, an electrical connection region Rr and a trench 200c, which separates the light-emitting region R1 & R2 & 120 from the electrical connection region 200c;
a reflection layer 130f disposed on a sidewall of the trench 200c;
a common electrode 137t or 137p disposed in the electrical connection region, wherein an orthographic projection of the common electrode on the carrier is outside the trench 130f (Fig. 11A); and
a first semiconductor stack disposed in the light-emitting region 122a , wherein the first semiconductor stack comprises a first type semiconductor layer 122n, a second type semiconductor layer 122p and a light-emitting layer 122a disposed between the first type semiconductor layer 122n and the second type semiconductor layer 122p, and the first type semiconductor layer 122n is disposed between the second type semiconductor layer 122p and the carrier 200 and a first type semiconductor layer 122n of the first semiconductor stack is electrically connected to the common electrode 137p through the reflection layer 130f (Fig. 16x -18x).
Reclaim 2, Daikoku discloses that the carrier 200 is a sapphire substrate (para. 0108).
Reclaim 6, Daikoku discloses that the carrier has a plurality of light-emitting regions, and adjacent light-emitting regions are separated by the trench (Fig. 16x-18x).
Reclaim 8, Daikoku discloses that the first type semiconductor layer 122n is electrically connected to the common electrode 136x through its side surface or its surface facing away from the carrier (Fig. 16x-18x).
Reclaim 11, Daikoku discloses that a second semiconductor stack 120, wherein the second semiconductor stack is disposed between the common electrode and the carrier (Fig. 16x-18x).
Reclaim 12, Daikoku discloses that a thickness of the second semiconductor stack is substantially the same as a thickness of the first semiconductor stack (Fig. 16x-18x).
Reclaim 13, Daikoku discloses that a capping layer 140 which at least covers a sidewall of the first semiconductor stack (Fig. 12A).
Reclaim 14, Daikoku discloses that the capping layer 140 fills up the trench 130f (Fig. 12A).
Reclaim 15, Daikoku discloses that the reflection layer 130f (para. 0091) includes a Bragg reflector layer (multi reflective insulating layers).
Reclaim 17, Daikoku discloses that a light-emitting apparatus, comprising:
a circuit substrate 126t;
a carrier 200 (para. 0152) overlapping the circuit substrate 126t (Fig. 10A) and having an electrical connection region 200c, a plurality of light-emitting regions R2 & R1 and a plurality of trenches 200c, wherein the plurality of trenches are disposed respectively between the electrical connection region 130f and the plurality of light-emitting regions as well as between the plurality of light- emitting regions (Fig. 16x-18x);
a reflection layer 130f disposed on a sidewall of each of the trenches 200c;
a plurality of first semiconductor stacks 120 disposed between the carrier 200 and the circuit substrate 126t and located respectively in the plurality of light-emitting regions 120, wherein each of the first semiconductor stacks 120 comprises a first type semiconductor layer 122n , a second type semiconductor layer 122p and a light-emitting layer 122a disposed between the first type semiconductor layer 122n and the second type semiconductor layer 122p, and the first type semiconductor layer 122n is disposed between the second type semiconductor layer 1229 and the carrier 200; and
a common electrode 137t or 137p disposed in the electrical connection region and electrically connecting the first type semiconductor layer[[s]] of each of the plurality of first semiconductor stacks 120 through the reflection layer 130f to the circuit substrate 126t, wherein an orthographic projection of the common electrode 137t or 137p on the carrier 200 is outside the trenches 130f (Fig. 16x-18x).
Reclaim 18, Daikoku discloses that the common electrode 137t or 137p is disposed between the carrier 200 and the circuit substrate 126t (Fig. 16x-18x, in diagonal direction).
Reclaim 19, Daikoku discloses that a first connector 136p, which electrically connects the common electrode 136t or 136p to the circuit substrate (Fig. 16x-18x).
Reclaim 20, Daikoku discloses that a second connector 136n, which electrically connects the second type semiconductor layer of one of the plurality of first semiconductor stacks to the circuit substrate (Fig. 16x-18x).
Reclaim 21, Daikoku discloses that a color conversion layer, wherein the carrier is disposed between the color conversion layer and the circuit substrate (para. 0088).
Reclaim 22, Daikoku discloses that the color conversion layer includes a plurality of color conversion structures, which is overlapped with the plurality of first semiconductor stacks respectively (para. 0088).
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daikoku et al. (US 20180247973).
Reclaim 3, Daikoku discloses that a ratio of a depth of the trench to a thickness of the carrier.
Daikoku fails to specify that a ratio of a depth of the trench to a thickness of the carrier ranges from 10% to 90%.
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 ratio of a depth of the trench to a thickness of the carrier ranges, because it would have been to obtain a certain ratio of a depth of the trench to a thickness of the carrier ranges to achieve stable support for semiconductor devices.
Reclaim 4, Daikoku fails to specify that an included angle between the sidewall of the trench and a surface of the carrier ranges from 90 degrees to 110 degrees.
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 angle between the sidewall of the trench and a surface of the carrier ranges, because it would have been to obtain a certain angle between the sidewall of the trench and a surface of the carrier ranges to achieve proper reflective layer on the trench.
Reclaim 5, Daikoku fails to specify that a reflectivity of the reflection layer is not less than 90%.
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 reflectivity of the reflection layer, because it would have been to obtain a certain reflectivity of the reflection layer to achieve better emitting to using higher reflectivity of the reflection layer.
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