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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/14/2026.
However, it should be noted that Applicant has amended claim 14 to depend on claim 1. Thus, claim 14-20 will be examined as dependents of claim 1 .
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 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, 7, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (20110260211).
Regarding claim 1, Cheng teaches a manufacturing method of a light-emitting device, comprising:
providing a substrate (fig. 2: 1), wherein the substrate comprises a front surface and a back surface opposite to each other (please see fig. 2);
performing patterning process on the front surface of the substrate to form a protrusion portion and a groove (please see fig.2 which shows protrusions 2 + 3 and spacing between them being formed by patterning, as taught in par. 25 and 56-58);
growing a semiconductor epitaxial layer on at least one of following locations:
on the protrusion portion, in the groove or on the protrusion portion and in the groove (par. 59-62 teaches growing active layers); and
forming a first light-emitting unit and a second light-emitting unit by doping a first element during growth of the semiconductor epitaxial layer (par. 60-62 teaches doping the active layers while during the growth process),
wherein a component proportion of the first element in the first light-emitting unit is different from a component proportion of the first element in the second light-emitting unit (par. 60-62 teaches gradation of layers depending on the desire of the experimenter; further, it should be noted that across any layer having, at least, a heterogenous composition, there will be variation of the heterogenous composition in both the horizontal and vertical direction);
turning the substrate upside down on a transposition substrate to expose the back surface of the substrate (please see fig. 4); and
forming a third light-emitting unit (fig. 1: 18) on the back surface of the substrate.
Please note that multiple embodiments of prior art are used above. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing to utilize these embodiments in combination since are related to similar fields of endeavor. Further, the addition of active layers on either side of a substrate increase the emittance of each unit device, allow for a more efficient unit device.
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches a manufacturing method according to claim 1, before turning the substrate upside down on the transposition substrate, further comprising: forming a first passivation layer on the front surface of the substrate, wherein the first passivation layer at least covers a surface of the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit (please see fig. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 11, Cheng teaches a manufacturing method according to claim 1, before forming the third light-emitting unit on the back surface of the substrate, further comprising: thinning the substrate from the back surface of the substrate (par. 74).
Regarding claim 12, Cheng teaches a manufacturing method according to claim 1, after forming the third light-emitting unit on the back surface of the substrate, further comprising: forming a second passivation layer on the back surface of the substrate, wherein the second passivation layer at least covers a surface of the third light-emitting unit (please see fig. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, Cheng teaches a light-emitting device manufactured by the manufacturing method according to claim 1, the light-emitting device comprising:
a substrate comprising a front surface and a back surface opposite to each other, wherein the front surface comprises a protrusion portion and a groove; a first light-emitting unit and a second light-emitting unit located on the front surface of the substrate, wherein the first light-emitting unit and the second light-emitting unit are located on at least one of the following locations: on the protrusion portion, in the groove or on the protrusion portion and in the groove; and a component proportion of a first element in the first light-emitting unit is different from a component proportion of the first element in the second light-emitting unit; and a third light-emitting unit located on the back surface of the substrate (please see fig. 1 which shows these elements, as outlined in claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Claim 3 and 4 are objected to based on dependency on claim 2.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 9 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.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 13 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.
Claim 15 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.
Claim 16-18 are objected to based on dependency on claim 2.
Claim 19 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.
Claim 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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 at (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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights