DETAILED ACTION
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, 4-6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-17, and 24-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mezouari et al. (US 2018/0083156 A1; hereinafter “Mezouari”) in view of Keller et al. (US 2012/0235190 A1; hereinafter “Keller”).
Regarding claim 2, Mezouari teaches an apparatus, comprising: a light emitting diode (LED) region (a LED structure including 210/310, 215/315, and 220/320) having: an active region having a first width (215/315 having a width); an n-side region (210/310), and a p-side region (220/320) (Figs. 2D and 3B and paragraphs 98-106 including paragraph 104 disclosing “related reference numerals related to the same portion of the structure”); a reflective contact (235/335) formed on a first side of the LED region (a bottom side of the LED structure) (Fig. 3B and paragraphs 69 and 99); an optical element (360) formed on a second side of the LED structure region (a top side of the LED structure) opposite the first side of the LED region structure, the optical element configured to steer light emitted by the LED region, the optical element having a second width (a horizontal width of 360 as shown in Fig. 3B) that increases and then decreases along a direction (a direction from the bottom to the top of 360) opposite the LED region (Fig. 3B and paragraphs 44-46 and 106); and a sidewall material (a reflective metal, not shown, coated on 207/307) in contact with the optical element (paragraphs 71, 102, and 112).
Mezouari does not explicitly teach that the optical element includes a gallium nitride (GaN)-based material. Keller teaches an apparatus (an LED package), comprising: an optical element including a gallium nitride (GaN)-based material (56 as an optical element or a lens including scattering particles formed of gallium nitride therein) in order to provide light scattering characteristics for the LED package (paragraphs 38, 60, and 69). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mezouari with that of Keller in order to provide light scattering characteristics for the LED package.
Regarding claim 4, Mezouari teaches wherein the first side of the LED structure region is a bottom side of the LED region (a bottom side of the LED structure) (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 5, Mezouari teaches wherein the reflective contact is excluded from contacting the sidewall material (since the reflective metal is coated on 207/307 in Fig. 3B, 235/335 is excluded from contacting the reflective metal).
Regarding claim 6, Mezouari teaches wherein the reflective contact is separated from a bottom surface of the sidewall material (since the reflective metal is coated on 207/307 in Fig. 3B, 235/335 is separated from a bottom surface of the reflective metal).
Regarding claim 8, Mezouari teaches wherein the optical element has a tapered sidewall above a top surface of the sidewall material (Fig. 3B, 360 has a tapered sidewall above 307).
Regarding claim 9, Mezouari teaches wherein at least a portion of a sidewall of the LED region is covered with a reflective material (a reflective metal, not shown, coated on 207/307) (paragraphs 71, 102, and 112).
Regarding claim 11, Mezouari teaches wherein the LED region is included in a first LED structure (a left-side LED structure), the apparatus further comprising: a second LED structure (a right-side LED structure) and a second optical element (460) are configured to steer light emitted by the second LED structure (Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 12, Mezouari teaches an apparatus, comprising: a light emitting diode (LED) region (a LED structure including 210/310, 215/315, and 220/320) having: an active region having a first width (215/315 having a width); an n-side region (210/310), and a p-side region (220/320) (Figs. 2D and 3B and paragraphs 98-106 including paragraph 104 disclosing “related reference numerals related to the same portion of the structure”); a reflective contact (235/335) formed on a bottom side of the LED region (a bottom side of the LED structure) (Fig. 3B and paragraphs 69 and 99); and an optical element (360) formed on a top side of the LED structure region (a top side of the LED structure) opposite the bottom side of the LED region structure, the optical element configured to steer light emitted by the LED region, the optical element having a second width (a horizontal width of 360 as shown in Fig. 3B) that decreases, from a maximum width, along a direction toward the LED region (a downward direction from the maximum horizontal width of 360) and decreases, from the maximum width, along a direction opposite the LED region (an upward direction from the maximum horizontal width of 360) (Fig. 3B and paragraphs 44-46 and 106); and a sidewall material (a reflective metal, not shown, coated on 207/307) in contact with the optical element (paragraphs 71, 102, and 112).
Mezouari does not explicitly teach that the optical element includes a gallium nitride (GaN)-based material. Keller teaches an apparatus (an LED package), comprising: an optical element including a gallium nitride (GaN)-based material (56 as an optical element or a lens including scattering particles formed of gallium nitride therein) in order to provide light scattering characteristics for the LED package (paragraphs 38, 60, and 69). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mezouari with that of Keller in order to provide light scattering characteristics for the LED package.
Regarding claim 15, Mezouari teaches wherein the reflective contact is excluded from contacting the sidewall material (since the reflective metal is coated on 207/307 in Fig. 3B, 235/335 is excluded from contacting the reflective metal).
Regarding claim 16, Mezouari teaches wherein the reflective contact is separated from a bottom surface of the sidewall material (since the reflective metal is coated on 207/307 in Fig. 3B, 235/335 is separated from a bottom surface of the reflective metal).
Regarding claim 17, Mezouari teaches wherein the optical element has a tapered sidewall above a top surface of the sidewall material (Fig. 3B, 360 has a tapered sidewall above 307).
Regarding claim 24, Mezouari in view of Keller does not explicitly teach that the first optical element is larger than the second optical element. However, Keller teaches various shapes of the optical element (Figs. 2-3 and paragraph 62) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the sizes of the optical elements, including the sizes such that the first optical element is larger than the second optical element as claimed, for obtaining the desired shape of the optical element and/or for obtaining the desired light output from the optical element.
Regarding claim 25, Mezouari wherein the sidewall material is reflective (paragraphs 71, 102, and 112).
Regarding claim 26, Mezouari wherein the second width of the optical element has a maximum width (a maximum horizontal width of 360) greater than the first width of the active region (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 27, Mezouari wherein the second width of the optical element has a minimum width (a minimum horizontal width of 360 at the top side of 360) less than the first width of the active region (Fig. 3B).
Regarding claims 28-29, Mezouari in view of Keller has been discussed above including the lens as the optical element include scattering particles formed of gallium nitride for scattering effect (Keller, paragraphs 38, 60, and 69 for claim 29). While Mezouari in view of Keller does not explicitly teach a lens on the optical element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the lens as the secondary optical element above the first optical element (i.e., the first lens) as one way of providing the LED package covered by the lens for its protection and/or usage.
Regarding claim 30, Mezouari wherein the reflective contact is formed on the n-side region (Fig. 3B, 235/335 formed on 210/310).
Regarding claim 31, Mezouari wherein the optical element is monolithically integrated with the LED region (a single unit of the LED structure as shown in Fig. 3B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended and newly submitted claims have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection as set forth above in this Office Action.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3418. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8AM-5PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571)272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL WHALEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893