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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species IV (FIG. 19) and Subspecies B (FIG. 25), encompassing claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 1/4/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 reciting “the micro light-emitting element has … a bottom surface and a top surface” and “the micro light-emitting element comprises a substrate arranged below the bottom surface and a transfer adhesive film covering a portion of the top surface” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “substrate” and the “transfer adhesive film” are structural parts of the “micro light-emitting element” or are components outside the “micro light-emitting element”. The preamble of the claim is directed to “a micro light-emitting element”. Claim 1 further specifies the micro light-emitting element is defined by a bottom surface and a top surface. However, a “substrate” is additionally arranged below the bottom surface of the micro light-emitting element, and a “transfer adhesive film” is additionally covering a portion of the top surface of the micro light-emitting element. The “substrate” and “transfer adhesive film” appear to be external to the micro light-emitting element. It is unclear how is the “micro light-emitting element” further limited by other components external to it. It is unclear if the “substrate” and “transfer adhesive film” are intended to be features of the “micro light-emitting element”. It is also unclear if the claim scope is intended to cover more than the “micro light-emitting element” as recited in the preamble. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the “substrate” and “transfer adhesive film”, seemingly external to the “micro light-emitting element”, are required features of the claim.
Claim 10 reciting “at least one of the first electrical connection layer and the second electrical connection layer is located on the bottom surface” renders the claim indefinite for similar reason as claim 1. The first and second electrical connection layers are recited as parts of the micro light-emitting element which is defined by the top surface and the bottom surface. It is unclear how are the first and second electrical connection layers further “located on the bottom surface” of the micro light-emitting element.
Claim 12 reciting “at least one of the plurality of micro light-emitting diode … with a bottom surface, a top surface” and “the at least one micro light-emitting diode comprises a substrate arranged below the bottom surface and a transfer adhesive film covering a portion of the top surface” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the “substrate” and the “transfer adhesive film” are structural parts of “the at last one micro light-emitting diode”. The at least one micro light-emitting diode is defined by a bottom surface and a top surface. However, a “substrate” is additionally arranged below the bottom surface of the at least one micro light-emitting diode, and a “transfer adhesive film” is additionally covering a portion of the top surface of the at least one micro light-emitting diode. It is unclear if the “substrate” and “transfer adhesive film” are intended to be features of “the at last one micro light-emitting diode”.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schubert et al. US 2014/0203239 A1 (Schubert).
In re claim 1, as best understood, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4C & 5) “a micro light-emitting element” 100 (¶ 29), comprising:
a semiconductor layer sequence 104 (¶ 29-30), comprising a first semiconductor layer 104a, a second semiconductor layer 104c, and an active layer 104b located between the first semiconductor layer 104a and the second semiconductor layer 104c;
a first electrical connection layer 428b, electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer 104a;
a second electrical connection layer 428a, electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer 104c;
wherein “the micro light-emitting element has a side surface, a bottom surface 124 and a top surface 113 opposite to the bottom surface”, and the top surface 113 is a light-emitting surface (¶ 12); and
wherein “the micro light-emitting element comprises a substrate (circuit board, not shown, ¶ 32) arranged below the bottom surface 124 and a transfer adhesive film 136 covering a portion of the top surface 113” (¶ 20), the top surface 113 comprises a first region (region covered by 136) and a second region (region not covered by 136), the transfer adhesive film 136 (see FIGs. 4C & 5) is located within the first region (region covered by 136), and the second region surrounds the first region (region covered by 136 is in the center).
In re claim 3, Schubert discloses (FIG. 2E) wherein the top surface 113 comprises one of a regular roughened surface and an irregular roughened surface (¶ 18, active surface 113 is roughened and is necessarily either regular or irregular roughened) .
In re claim 8, no specific “transfer adhesive film” has been claimed that would structurally distinguish over the entirety of Schubert’s substrate 134 including 136 covering a portion of the light emitting surface 113. Schubert further discloses wherein a material of the transfer adhesive film 134,136 comprises one of polyimide and acrylic adhesive (flexible polymeric material, ¶ 19-20).
In re claim 10, as best understood, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein at least one of the first electrical connection layer 428b and the second electrical connection layer 428a is located on the bottom surface (as best understood, the electrical connection layers define the bottom surface of the light-emitting element).
In re claim 11, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4C & 5) wherein the substrate is a circuit board (circuit board, not shown, ¶ 32), and the bottom surface 124 (contact surface of 428a,428b) of the micro light-emitting element is fixed on the circuit board (¶ 32).
In re claim 12, as best understood, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4C & 5) a micro light-emitting array (assembly 100 attached to circuit board to form various devices, ¶ 29,32,33), comprising:
a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes 114, wherein “at least one of the plurality of micro light-emitting diodes comprises a semiconductor layer sequence 104, a first electrical connection layer 428b, and a second electrical connection layer 428a, with a bottom surface 124, a top surface 113, and a side surface”; the semiconductor layer sequence 104 comprises a first semiconductor layer 104a, a second semiconductor layer 104c, and an active layer 104b located between the first semiconductor layer 104a and the second semiconductor layer 104c; and the first electrical connection layer 428b is electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer 104a, and the second electrical connection layer 428a is electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer 104c; and
“wherein the at least one micro light-emitting diode comprises a substrate (circuit board, not shown, ¶ 32) arranged below the bottom surface 124 and a transfer adhesive film 136 partially covering the top surface 113” (¶ 20), the top surface 113 comprises a first region (region covered by 136) and a second region (region not covered by 136), the transfer adhesive film 136 (see FIGs. 4C & 5) is located within the first region (region covered by 136), and the second region surrounds the first region (region covered by 136 is in the center).
In re claim 16, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIGs. 4 & 5) a display (assembly 100 attached to circuit board to form various displaying devices, e.g. mobile phone, tablet, digital readers, ¶ 29,32,33), comprising a micro light-emitting array 100, wherein the micro light-emitting array comprises a plurality of micro light-emitting diodes 114, at least one of the plurality of micro light-emitting diodes comprises a bottom surface 124, a top surface 113, a side surface, a circuit board (not shown, ¶ 32) arranged below the bottom surface 124 and a transfer adhesive film 136 covering on the top surface 113 (¶ 20), and an edge of the transfer adhesive film 136 does not exceed an edge of the top surface 113 (see FIGs. 4A, 4C & 5).
In re claim 17, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIG. 4C) wherein the transfer adhesive film 136 comprises a lower surface (top of 136 in FIG. 4C) in contact with the top surface 113 and an upper surface (bottom of 136 in FIG. 4C) facing away from the top surface, a horizontal distance from an edge of the upper surface 113 to the edge of the top surface (bottom of 136) is non-zero (P1>P3, ¶ 28), and a vertical projection of the upper surface (bottom of 136) on the top surface 113 is less than or equal to a vertical projection of the lower surface (top of 136) on the top surface 113 (equal vertical projection for top and bottom surfaces of 136).
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 2, 4, 9, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claims 1, 12 and 17 above.
In re claims 2 and 13, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIG. 4C) the transfer adhesive film 136 is spaced apart from an edge of the top surface 113 by a distance that is equal to (P1-P3)/2 (¶ 28). Although Schubert does not explicitly disclose the dimensions, the claimed distance range of 0.2 micrometers (μm) to 2 μm, or 2 μm to 10 μm would be obvious due to routine optimization as a result of making the device with desired processing conditions and to obtain a device of desired size. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 4, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIG. 4C) a length of any edge of a surface of the transfer adhesive film 136 in contact with the top surface 113 is P3. Schubert does not explicitly discloses P3 is not less than 10 μm. Schubert also does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the transfer adhesive film 136 is in a range of 0.1 μm to 1 μm or no greater than 0.1 μm, and a length of any edge of a surface of the transfer adhesive film in contact with the top surface is not less than 10 μm. Although the specific dimensions are not disclosed by Schubert, forming the transfer adhesive film 136 to have a length not less than 10 μm and a thickness in a range of 0.1 μm to 1 μm or no greater than 0.1 μm would be obvious due to routine optimization to ensure desired adhesive characteristics and to obtain a device of desired size. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 9, Schubert does not explicitly disclose a minimum side length of the micro light-emitting element is in a range of 50 μm to 100 μm or less than 50 μm, and a thickness of the semiconductor layer 104 sequence is in a range of 2.5 μm to 6 μm. Although Schubert does not explicitly disclose the dimensions, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the device to have the dimensions as claimed due to routine optimization to obtain a device of desired size and characteristics. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 18, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIG. 4C) wherein the top surface 113 comprises a first region (region covered by 136) and a second region (region not covered by 136), the transfer adhesive film 136 (see FIGs. 4C & 5) is located within the first region (region covered by 136). Schubert further discloses (e.g. FIG. 4C) the transfer adhesive film 136 is spaced apart from an edge of the top surface 113 by a distance that is equal to (P1-P3)/2 (¶ 28). Although Schubert does not explicitly disclose the dimensions, the claimed distance range of 0.2 μm to 2 μm, or 2 μm to 10 μm would be obvious due to routine optimization as a result of making the device with desired processing conditions and to obtain a device of desired size. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Furuyama et al. US 2019/0171093 A1 (Furuyama).
In re claim 5, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIG. 5) wherein the transfer adhesive film 136 is configured to transmit light with a wavelength ranging from 400 nanometers (nm) to 750 nm (¶ 19,20,29). Schubert further discloses the transfer adhesive film 136 can include a phosphor. Schubert does not explicitly disclose the transfer adhesive film absorbs at least partially light with a wavelength below 350 nm.
Furuyama discloses a wavelength conversion member including phosphor particles that absorbs ultraviolet light having a wavelength of 300 nm to 440 nm and converting to visible light color (¶ 38,39,43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Schubert’s transfer adhesive film 136 with a phosphor that absorbs ultraviolet light (absorbs at least partially light with a wavelength below 350 nm) and convert emission to visible light as taught by Furuyama.
In re claim 15, Schubert discloses (e.g. FIG. 4C) a length of any edge of a surface of the transfer adhesive film 136 in contact with the top surface 113 is P3. Schubert discloses wherein the transfer adhesive film 136 is configured to transmit light with a wavelength ranging from 400 nanometers (nm) to 750 nm (¶ 19,20,29).
Schubert does not explicitly discloses P3 is not less than 10 μm. Schubert also does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the transfer adhesive film 136 is in a range of 0.1 μm to 1 μm or no greater than 0.1 μm, and a length of any edge of a surface of the transfer adhesive film in contact with the top surface is not less than 10 μm. Although the specific dimensions are not disclosed by Schubert, forming the transfer adhesive film 136 to have a length not less than 10 μm and a thickness in a range of 0.1 μm to 1 μm or no greater than 0.1 μm would be obvious due to routine optimization to ensure desired adhesive characteristics and to obtain a device of desired size. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Schubert further discloses the transfer adhesive film 136 can include a phosphor. Schubert does not explicitly disclose the transfer adhesive film absorbs at least partially light with a wavelength below 350 nm.
Furuyama discloses a wavelength conversion member including phosphor particles that absorbs ultraviolet light having a wavelength of 300 nm to 440 nm and converting to visible light color (¶ 38,39,43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Schubert’s transfer adhesive film 136 with a phosphor that absorbs ultraviolet light (absorbs at least partially light with a wavelength below 350 nm) and convert emission to visible light as taught by Furuyama.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Camras et al. US 2002/0093023 A1 (Camras).
In re claim 6, no specific “transfer adhesive film” has been claimed that would structurally distinguish over the entirety of Schubert’s substrate 134 covering the light emitting surface 113. Schubert the “transfer adhesive film” 134 includes transparent material (¶ 19). Schubert does not explicitly disclose an edge of the transfer adhesive film is inclined with an inclination angle in a range of 40° to 75°.
Camras discloses a light emitting element comprising a transparent superstrate 117 having side surfaces beveled with optimized angle α to improve light extraction efficiency (¶ 66).
Furthermore, optimization the inclination angle is obvious through routine experimentation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Schubert’s “transfer adhesive film” 134 to have beveled side surface to improve light extraction efficiency as taught by Camras and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive an optimum inclination angle to be in a range of 40° to 75°. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 19, no specific “transfer adhesive film” has been claimed that would structurally distinguish over the entirety of Schubert’s substrate 134 covering the light emitting surface 113. Schubert the “transfer adhesive film” 134 includes transparent material (¶ 19). Schubert does not explicitly disclose a side edge connected between the lower surface and the upper surface of the transfer adhesive film 134 is inclined, and an area of the lower surface is greater than that of the upper surface.
Camras discloses a light emitting element comprising a transparent superstrate 117 having side surfaces beveled with optimized angle α to improve light extraction efficiency (¶ 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Schubert’s “transfer adhesive film” 134 to have beveled side surface to improve light extraction efficiency as taught by Camras. As such, an area of the lower surface (closest to 104) is greater than that of the upper surface 144.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sugano et al. US 2011/0062479 A1 (Sugano).
In re claims 7 and 14, Schubert discloses the transfer adhesive film 136 has roughened surface to reduce internal reflection for improving light emission efficiency and promote adhesive. Schubert does not explicitly disclose the transfer adhesive film has periodic grooves on a surface facing away from the semiconductor layer sequence 104, and a spacing between the periodic grooves is less than or equal to 7 μm.
However, Sugano discloses light-emitting element (FIGs. 1-3) comprising a semiconductor layer 30 having roughened surface and a buffer layer 2 has periodic grooves (corresponding to the periodicity of 22) on a surface facing away from the semiconductor layer sequence 30, and a spacing between the periodic grooves d2 is 0.5-5 times d1 as desired to reduce light reflection (¶ 103-105). More specifically, Sugano teaches d1 2.2 µm, and d2 is 1.8 µm (¶ 345).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form periodic grooves on a surface of Schubert’s transfer adhesive film 136 facing away from the semiconductor layer sequence 104, and space the grooves apart by a spacing of less than or equal to 7 µm, e.g. 1.8 µm as taught by Sugano, to reduce reflection at the interface and improve light emission extraction.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Sugano et al. US 2011/0062479 A1 (Sugano) and Furuyama et al. US 2019/0171093 A1 (Furuyama).
In re claim 20, Schubert discloses the transfer adhesive film 136 has roughened surface to reduce internal reflection for improving light emission efficiency and promote adhesive. Schubert does not explicitly disclose the transfer adhesive film has periodic grooves on a surface facing away from the semiconductor layer sequence 104, and a spacing between the periodic grooves is less than or equal to 7 μm.
However, Sugano discloses light-emitting element (FIGs. 1-3) comprising a semiconductor layer 30 having roughened surface and a buffer layer 2 has periodic grooves (corresponding to the periodicity of 22) on a surface facing away from the semiconductor layer sequence 30, and a spacing between the periodic grooves d2 is 0.5-5 times d1 as desired to reduce light reflection (¶ 103-105). More specifically, Sugano teaches d1 2.2 µm, and d2 is 1.8 µm (¶ 345).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form periodic grooves on a surface of Schubert’s transfer adhesive film 136 facing away from the semiconductor layer sequence 104, and space the grooves apart by a spacing of less than or equal to 7 µm, e.g. 1.8 µm as taught by Sugano, to reduce reflection at the interface and improve light emission extraction.
Furthermore, Schubert discloses wherein the transfer adhesive film 136 is configured to transmit light with a wavelength ranging from 400 nanometers (nm) to 750 nm (¶ 19,20,29). Schubert further discloses the transfer adhesive film 136 can include a phosphor. Schubert does not explicitly disclose the transfer adhesive film absorbs at least partially light with a wavelength below 350 nm.
Furuyama discloses a wavelength conversion member including phosphor particles that absorbs ultraviolet light having a wavelength of 300 nm to 440 nm and converting to visible light color (¶ 38,39,43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Schubert’s transfer adhesive film 136 with a phosphor that absorbs ultraviolet light (absorbs at least partially light with a wavelength below 350 nm) and convert emission to visible light as taught by Furuyama.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896