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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1,3,4,5,8, 9, 12, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 111864022 A) in view of Huang (CN 113066914 A)
Regarding claim 1, Zheng et al discloses A light-emitting diode fig. 5, comprising an epitaxial structure(104,105,106)(pp. 19 para 3), wherein the epitaxial structure (104,105,106)has a light-emitting surface (pp. 13 para 2 lines 8-12)and a rear surface opposite to the light-emitting surface(rear surface of 104) fig. 5, the light-emitting surface (pp. 13 para 2 lines 8-12)comprises a peripheral region(104 portion extending outside of 105/106 portion) and a middle region(105/106 portion) surrounded by the peripheral region fig. 5, the peripheral region (104 portion extending outside of 105/106 portion) is covered with a first insulating layer (108)(pp. 19, para 1) fig. 5.
Zheng et al fails to teach wherein an area of the middle region accounts for 60% to 99% of an area of the light-emitting surface.
However, Huang et al discloses a LED chip wherein an area of the middle region (1012/1013)(pp. 14, Embodiment I lines 5-7)accounts for 60% to 99% of an area of the light-emitting surface(pp. 15, para 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zheng et al with the teachings of Huang et al to increase brightness.
Regarding claim 3, Zheng et al discloses wherein the light-emitting surface
has a roughening structure (non-flat structure of 106) , and a region with the roughening structure is a roughened region(pp. 18 para 1) fig. 5.
Regarding claim 4, Zheng et al discloses wherein an area of the roughened region (non-flat structure of 106) accounts for 0% to 100% of the area of the light-emitting surface(pp. 18 para 1-examiner notes since 106 of 106/104 is roughened, more than 0% has a roughened region. Furthermore, because occupied features (107a/107b) are absent of roughening, the light emitting surface is less than 100% roughened) fig. 5.
Regarding claim 5, Zheng et al discloses wherein the roughened region(non-flat structure of 106) is located in the middle region (105/106 portion) fig. 5.
Regarding claim 8, Zheng et al in view of Huang et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Zheng et al fails to teach wherein a periphery of the epitaxial
structure is formed as a cutting line of the light-emitting diode, and a width of the cutting line is between 10 µm and 30µm.
However, Huang et al discloses wherein a periphery of the epitaxial
structure (101)is formed as a cutting line (103)of the light-emitting diode, and a width of the cutting line(103) but fails to teach the width is between 10 µm and 30 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a width between 10 µm and 30 µm through routine experimentation to optimize the light emitting area. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Zheng et al with the teachings of Huang et al. to improve luminous efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Zheng et al discloses wherein the epitaxial structure
comprises a semiconductor layer of a first conductivity type(106), a light-emitting layer(105), and a semiconductor layer of a second conductivity type (104)stacked in sequence from the light-emitting surface to the rear surface, wherein the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type (106)serves as the light emitting surface(pp. 13 para 2 lines 8-12 and para 3).
Regarding claim 12, wherein a reflective layer (102) is formed
on the rear surface of the epitaxial structure(rear of 104), and a substrate(100) is bonded to a surface of the reflective layer(102) (pp. 13 para 3; pp 14 para 3) fig. 5.
.Regarding claim 13, Zheng et al discloses wherein a sidewall of the epitaxial
structure(104/105/106) has a roughening structure fig. 5 (pp. 18 para 2).
Claim(s) 2, 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 111864022 A) in view of Huang (CN 113066914 A) as applied to claim 1 and claim 9 and further in view of Guo (CN 111384216 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng et al as modified by Huang et al discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach a width of the first insulating layer on the light-emitting surface is between 5 µm and 20 µm.
However, Guo et al discloses a LED chip comprising a protective layer (5) on a light emitting surface having a width between 5 µm and 20 µm (pp. 17 para 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Zheng et al & Huang et al with the teachings of Guo et al to protect the epitaxial structure from being polluted and improve brightness.
Regarding claim 10, Zheng et al as modified by Huang et al discloses the claim limitations of claim 9 and further teaches wherein a first electrode (107a)and an
extended electrode(107b) that are connected to the semiconductor layer (106)of the first conductivity type are formed above the middle region(106/105), and a surface of the extended electrode(107b) is covered(Zheng et al fig. 6) but fails to teach with a second insulating layer.
However, Guo et al discloses a LED chip using a second insulating layer(5- two parts) to cover the extended electrode (42) and sidewall of epitaxial structure fig. 17(pp. 33 para 3 and pp 34 para 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Zheng et al & Huang et al with the teachings of Guo et al to improve the brightness of the LED chip and prevent the extension electrode from being scratched in subsequent processing.
Regarding claim 11, Zheng et al discloses wherein a region of the middle
region (105/106 portion) except for the first electrode(107a) and the extended electrode(107b) has a roughening structure (pp 10 para 3 and para 5) fig. 6.
Claim(s) 6 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 111864022 A) in view of Huang (CN 113066914 A) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Wang (CN 112968091 A).
Regarding claim 6, Zheng et al as modified by Huang et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4 but fails to teach wherein the roughened region is
located in the middle region but fails to teach a portion of the peripheral region, and the roughening structure in the peripheral region is distributed closely adjacent to the middle region.
However, Wang et al discloses roughening structure (100)in the peripheral region (edge region of 111) is distributed closely adjacent to the middle region(portions 112/113) (see fig. 1-pp. 13 para 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Zheng et al & Huang et al with the teachings of Wang et al to improve extraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Wang et al discloses wherein the roughened region (100)is
located in the middle region (region 112/113) and the peripheral region(edge region of 111) (see fig. 1-pp. 13 para 1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (CN 111864022 A) in view of Huang (CN 113066914 A) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Yoshimura (US Pub no. 2005/0001225 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Zheng et al as modified by Huang et al discloses A display device, wherein the light-emitting unit is the light-emitting diode according to claim 1 (pp. 3 para 2)but fails to teach comprising: a housing, and a light-emitting unit disposed in the housing.
However, Yoshimara et al teaches a LED (220) disposed in a housing(230)[0259]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zheng et al and Huang et al with a housing taught by Yoshimura et al to accommodate the LED and provide shielding capabilities.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights