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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/25/2026 has been entered.
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) 17-21, 23, & 27-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergmann et al. (US 20170271561).
Regarding claim 17, Bergmann discloses that a light-emitting apparatus, comprising:
a circuit substrate 180 (Fig. 46);
a carrier overlapping the circuit substrate 120 and having an electrical connection region, a light-emitting regions and a plurality of trenches 4010, wherein trenches are recessed from a first surface of the carrier ( a top surface is a first surface of the carrier 120) and disposed respectively between the electrical connection region and the light-emitting regions as well as between the light-emitting regions (Fig. 46);
a reflection layer 145 (para. 0248, note: Al, Ti is known reflective metals) extending along a sidewall of each of the trenches (Fig. 46);
a first semiconductor 112 stacks disposed between the carrier 120 and the circuit substrate 180 in a direction normal to the first surface of the carrier and located respectively in the light-emitting regions, wherein each of the first semiconductor stacks 112 comprises a first type semiconductor layer (para. 0088) , a second type semiconductor layer 114 and a light-emitting layer disposed between the first type semiconductor layer and the second type semiconductor layer 114, and the first type semiconductor layer 112 is disposed between the second type semiconductor layer 114 and the carrier (Fig. 46);
a common electrode 150 & 170 disposed in the electrical connection region and electrically connecting the first type semiconductor layer 114 of each of the first semiconductor stacks through the reflection layer to the circuit substrate, wherein an orthographic projection of the common electrode on the carrier is outside the trenches (Fig. 46) ; and
a color conversion layer 220 disposed on a second surface of the carrier opposite to the first surface of the carrier (Fig. 48).
Reclaim 18, Bergmann discloses that the common electrode 150 & 170 is disposed between the carrier and the circuit substrate 2300 (Fig. 48).
Reclaim 19, Bergmann discloses that a first connector, which electrically connects the common electrode 150 & 170 to the circuit substrate 2300 (Fig. 48).
Reclaim 20, Bergmann discloses that a second connector 160, which electrically connects the second type semiconductor layer of one of the first semiconductor stacks to the circuit substrate (Fig. 46).
Reclaim 21, Bergmann discloses that the carrier 120 is disposed between the color conversion layer 220 and the circuit substrate 180.
Reclaim 23, Bergmann discloses that the carrier is a sapphire substrate (Fig. 46).
Reclaim 27, Bergmann discloses that the first type semiconductor layer is electrically connected to the common electrode through its side surface or its surface facing away from the carrier (Fig. 46, para. 0003).
Reclaim 28, Bergmann discloses that a second semiconductor stack, wherein the second semiconductor stack is disposed between the common electrode and the carrier (Fig. 48).
Reclaim 29, Bergmann discloses that a thickness of the second semiconductor stack is substantially the same as a thickness of the first semiconductor stacks (Fig. 48).
Reclaim 30, Bergmann discloses that a capping layer 140B, which at least covers a sidewall of the first semiconductor stack (Fig. 48).
Reclaim 31, Bergmann discloses that the capping layer 140B fills up the trenches (Fig. 43).
Reclaim 32, Bergmann discloses that an orthographic projection of the second type semiconductor layer on the carrier is outside an orthographic projection of the reflection layer on the carrier, and the reflection layer is electrically connected to the first type semiconductor layer with the proviso that the reflection layer is electrically isolated from the second type semiconductor layer (Fig. 48).
Reclaim 33, Bergmann discloses that an orthographic projection of the electrical connection region on the carrier is outside an orthographic projection of the light-emitting regions on the carrier and the trenches, and the reflection layer electrically connects the first type semiconductor layer of each of the first semiconductor stacks to the common electrode with the proviso that the reflection layer further extends along the first surface of the carrier (Fig. 48).
Reclaim 34, Bergmann discloses that the first type semiconductor layers of the first semiconductor stacks connect to one another through the reflection layer (Fig. 48).
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) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (US 20170271561) in view of Bonart et al. (US 20230163107).
Reclaim 22, Bergmann fails to teach that the color conversion layer includes a plurality of color conversion structures, which is overlapped with the plurality of first semiconductor stacks respectively.
However, Bonart suggests that the color conversion layer includes a plurality of color conversion structures, which is overlapped with the plurality of first semiconductor stacks respectively (para. 0045).
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 Bergmann with the color conversion layer includes a plurality of color conversion structures, which is overlapped with the plurality of first semiconductor stacks respectively as taught by Bonart in order to enhance variation of color and rendering colors to reproduce mixture of colors 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) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (US 20170271561).
Reclaim 24, Bergmann fails to specify that a ratio of a depth of one of the trenches 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 one of the trenches to a thickness of the carrier, because it would have been to obtain a certain ratio of a depth of one of the trenches to a thickness of the carrier to achieve enhance control light reflectivity and controlling light transmission.
Reclaim 25, Bergmann fails to specify that a an included angle between the sidewall of each of the trenches 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 each of the trenches and a surface of the carrier, because it would have been to obtain a certain angle between the sidewall of each of the trenches and a surface of the carrier to achieve light reflectivity and controlling light transmission.
Reclaim 26, Bergmann 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 a reflectivity of the reflection layer, because it would have been to obtain a certain a reflectivity of the reflection layer to achieve light reflectivity and controlling light transmission.
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
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