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, & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub no. 2014/0264411 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al discloses A light-emitting diode, comprising an epitaxial structure(13), wherein the epitaxial structure (13)has a light-emitting surface (1333/1332)and a rear surface opposite to the light-emitting surface(1333/1332)[0020-0021], the epitaxial structure (13)comprises a semiconductor layer of a first conductivity type(133), a light-emitting layer(132), and a semiconductor layer of a second conductivity type (131)stacked in sequence from the light-emitting surface(1333/1332) to the rear surface[0020], wherein a top surface of the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type (133)serves as the light-emitting surface and the light emitting surface (1333/1332)comprises a peripheral region (1332)and a middle region(1333)
surrounded by the peripheral region(1332), the peripheral region(1332) is covered with a first insulating layer(19), and the middle region (1332)is not covered by the first insulating layer(19), wherein an area of the middle region accounts for 10% to 90% of an area of the light emitting surface top surface of the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type(133)[0021] but fails to teach 60% to 99% . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve an area of 60-90% through routine experimentation. 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)
Regarding claim 3, Lin et al discloses wherein the light- emitting surface(1333/1332) has a roughening structure, and a region with the roughening structure is a roughened region[0021] fig. 2.
Regarding claim 4, Lin et al discloses wherein an area of the roughened region accounts for 0% to 100% of the area of the light-emitting surface(1333/1332)[0021] fig. 2.
Regarding claim 5, Lin et al discloses wherein the roughened region is located in the middle region(1333) [0021] fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12 , Lin et al discloses wherein a reflective layer(12) is formed on the rear surface of the epitaxial structure(13), and a substrate(10)
is bonded to a surface of the reflective layer(12)[0020].
Claim(s) 2, 10, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub no. 2014/0264411 A1) in view of Guo (CN 111384216 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lin 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 Lin et al with the teachings of Guo et
al to protect the epitaxial structure from being polluted and improve brightness.
Regarding claim 10, Lin et al discloses the claim
limitations of claim 9 and further teaches wherein a first electrode (16)and an
extended electrode(163) that are connected to the semiconductor layer (133)of
the first conductivity type are formed above the middle region(1333)[0020]but fails to teach and a surface of the extended electrode is covered 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 Lin 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, Lin et al discloses wherein a region of the middle region (1333)except for the first electrode (16)and the extended electrode(163) has a roughening structure[0020-0021].
Claim(s) 6, 7 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub no. 2014/0264411 A1) in view of Wang (CN 112968091 A).
Regarding claim 6, Lin et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4 and further teach wherein the roughened region (exposed region 1333)is located in the middle region(1333)[0021] fig. 2 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( top edges of 112) (see fig. 1-pp. 12-13 para 1 description of drawings).. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Lin et al with the teachings of Wang et al to improve extraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Lin et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4 and further teach wherein the roughened region (exposed region 1333)is located in the middle region(1333)[0021] fig. 2 but fails to teach a portion of the peripheral region, and the roughening structure in the peripheral region.
However, Wang et al discloses roughening structure (100)in the peripheral region
(edge region of 111) (see fig. 1-pp. 12-13 para 1 description of drawings). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Lin et al with the teachings of Wang et al to improve extraction efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al discloses wherein a sidewall of
the epitaxial structure(112/113) has a roughening structure(100)(see fig. 1-pp. 12-13 para 1 description of drawings; para 3 pp. 15).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub no. 2014/0264411 A1) in view of Huang (CN 113066914 A)
Regarding claim 8, Lin et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but 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 30 µm.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub no. 2014/0264411 A1) in view of Yoshimura (US Pub no. 2005/0001225 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lin et al discloses the light-emitting unit is the light-emitting diode according to claim 1 [0020-0021] fig. 2 but fails to teach comprising: a housing, and a light-emitting unit disposed in the housing.
However, Yoshimara et al teaches a display device comprising 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 Lin et al with a
housing taught by Yoshimura et al to accommodate the LED and provide shielding
capabilities.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 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.
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.
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 8:30 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