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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 4/15/2026, with respect to amended independent claim(s) 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Doe (US publication 2023/0337450 A1), and response to the arguments have been fully incorporated into the claim rejection set forth below in this office action.
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)(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.
Claim 1-2, 5-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doe (US publication 2023/0337450 A1), hereinafter referred to as Doe450.
Regarding claim 1, Doe450 teaches a vertical-type light-emitting diode (fig. 2 below and related text), comprising: a semiconductor stack layer (32/33/34, [0027]) having an upper surface (top surface of 32) and a lower surface (bottom surface of 34) opposite to each other, wherein the semiconductor stack layer comprises a first semiconductor layer (34), a light-emitting layer (33) and a second semiconductor layer (32) stacked in sequence along a direction from the lower surface to the upper surface (fig. 2 below); a first electrode (35, [0027]) located at the lower surface of the semiconductor stack layer and connected to the first semiconductor layer (fig. 2 below); a second electrode (A (31), examiner markup below) located at the upper surface of the semiconductor stack layer and connected to the second semiconductor layer (fig. 2 below); a protruding protective electrode (B (31), examiner markup below) connected to the second electrode; wherein an upper surface of the protruding protective electrode is higher than an upper surface of the second electrode (fig. 2 below), and wherein an entire contact surface between the second electrode and the second semiconductor layer is a flat surface parallel to the lower surface of the semiconductor stack layer (fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Doe450 teaches wherein a first distance from the upper surface of the protruding protective electrode to the upper surface of the semiconductor stack layer is greater than a second distance from the upper surface of the second electrode to the upper surface of the semiconductor stack layer (fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 5, Doe450 teaches wherein a material of the protruding protective electrode comprises at least one selected from a group consisting of Au ([0030], Pt, Ti, Ni, Ge, Be, Zn, Al ([0030], and Cr.
Regarding claim 6, Doe450 teaches wherein the second electrode comprises a pad electrode (A, examiner markup above) and a finger electrode (C, examiner markup above, [0032]), and the pad electrode is connected to the finger electrode (fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 11, Doe450 teaches a light-emitting device, which adopts the vertical-type light-emitting diode according to claim 1 (fig. 2 above).
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 of this title, 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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doe450, as applied to claim 1 or 2 above.
Regarding claim 3, Doe450 discloses all the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Doe450 does not explicitly teach wherein the first distance is at least 1000 angstroms greater than the second distance. However, Doe450 teaches the first distance is greater than the second distance and these values depend on the thickness of the protruding protective electrode and the second electrode and it is well-known in the art that a width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer depends on a process technology, overall size of the device, and is a result-effective variable as electrical properties (conductivity, current, resistance, doping, insulation, withstanding breakdown, etc.) depend on the width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer. So, a width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer is a parameter that one must consider and decide upon and is something that can be optimized through routine experimentation.
Furthermore, it has been held where 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. (MPEP §2144.05 II/III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Doe450 so that wherein the first distance is at least 1000 angstroms greater than the second distance for the purpose of optimizing device performance and overall size of the device.
Regarding claim 4, Doe450 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Doe450 does not explicitly teach wherein the protruding protective electrode has a height ranging from 1000 angstroms to 5 microns. However, it is well-known in the art that a width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer depends on a process technology, overall size of the device, and is a result-effective variable as electrical properties (conductivity, current, resistance, doping, insulation, withstanding breakdown, etc.) depend on the width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer. So, a width/thickness of a semiconducting or insulation or conductive layer is a parameter that one must consider and decide upon and is something that can be optimized through routine experimentation.
Furthermore, it has been held where 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. (MPEP §2144.05 II/III).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Doe450 so that wherein the protruding protective electrode has a height ranging from 1000 angstroms to 5 microns for the purpose of optimizing device performance and overall size of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims contain limitations that none of the prior art of record discloses, teaches or fairly suggests, alone or in combinations when taken in combination with all other limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed R Alam whose telephone number is 469-295-9205 and can normally be reached between 8:00am-6:00pm (M-F) or by e-mail via Mohammed.Alam1@uspto.gov.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. 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.
/MOHAMMED R ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights