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 with traverse of Species II and Subspecies E in the reply filed on 2/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because there is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species at least because the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a main electrode and a plurality of extending electrodes that extend in an extending direction” is unclear as to which element(s) “that” refers.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a plurality of current transmission blocks that are disposed on said second surface of said epitaxial structure and that are disposed between two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes,” is unclear as to how the current transmission blocks and are between extension electrodes because the elements are understood as being on entirely different vertical levels.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “for each of said two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes,” is unclear because it appears to require multiple sets of adjacent extending electrodes, however the previous recitation appears to only require a single set of two adjacent extending electrodes.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “one side of said extending electrode,” is unclear as to which extending electrode.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “has an electrode-facing sidewall that faces said one side of said extending electrode, and that is non-curved and parallel to an imaginary perpendicular surface which passes through said extending electrode and extends in the extending direction, and a non-electrode-facing sidewall that is distal to said one side of said extending electrode, said imaginary perpendicular surface being a normal surface that is perpendicular to said first surface; and
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “each of those of said current transmission blocks that are adjacent to one side of said extending electrode” is unclear as to which current transmission blocks “those” refers.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “and that is non-curved and parallel…” is unclear as to what previously recited element “that” refers.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an imaginary perpendicular surface which passes through said extending electrode and extends in the extending direction,” is unclear as to how it can be both imaginary and a “surface,” the latter being understood to be a physical boundary of an object. It is further unclear as to a surface of what element.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “said imaginary perpendicular surface being a normal surface that is perpendicular to said first surface,” is unclear as to what is required by “normal surface.” Specifically, normal might be understood to require the surface being normal to another surface, however the further recitation of perpendicular would be understood to mean the same and therefore appears to indicate that “normal surface” requires something further.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, the limitation “said current transmission blocks” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited plurality of current transmission blocks and the “those of said current transmission blocks.”
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “said extending electrodes” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited plurality of extending electrodes, the “two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes,” and the “said extending electrodes.”
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “said electrode-facing sidewall of each of said current transmission blocks are axisymmetric” is unclear as to what is required by axisymmetric. Specifically, “axisymmetric” is understood to require symmetry around an axis (e.g. line a cone), however no disclosed surfaces appear to be symmetric around an axis.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the limitation “said current transmission blocks are prisms,” and “hexagonal prisms, pentagonal prisms, and quadrangular prisms” are unclear as to what is required by “prisms.” Specifically, a prism is understood to require specific optical properties, however applicant’s disclosure appears to be using the term merely as an indication of shape.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “(said) two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes,” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited plurality of extending electrodes, the “two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes,” and the “said extending electrodes.”
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “those of said current transmission blocks that are between said two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes” is unclear as to which current transmission blocks “those” refers.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “disposed in a symmetrical and uniform manner” is unclear as to symmetrical relative to what other element and as to the proper interpretation of “uniform” in the instance of only two current transmission blocks.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “each of said those of said current transmission blocks that faces said one side of said extending electrode” is unclear as to which current transmission blocks “those” refers.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “said extending electrode” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited plurality of extending electrodes, the “two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes,” and the “said extending electrodes.”
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein for each of said two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes, a projection, on said imaginary perpendicular surface, of said electrode-facing sidewall of each of said those of said current transmission blocks that faces said one side of said extending electrode has a length in the extending direction, and a ratio of a sum of the lengths of said projections of said electrode-facing sidewalls of said those of said current transmission blocks to a length of said extending electrode in the extending direction is no greater than 0.9” is unclear because it is replete with run-ons, improper punctuation, lack of antecedent basis, and/or language which is inconsistent with previous claim limitations, and the meaning cannot be ascertained.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “sequentially disposed in such order in a laminating direction from said first surface to said second surface,” is unclear as to how the “sequentially,” “such order” and “in a laminating direction from said first surface to said second surface” are related to each other.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 20180033918; herein “Lin”).
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses in Figs. 12A, 13E, and related text a light-emitting device, comprising:
an epitaxial structure (120, see [0025]) that has a first surface and a second surface opposite to said first surface;
a first metal electrode (132/171, see [0069]) that is disposed on said first surface of said epitaxial structure, said first metal electrode including a main electrode (e.g. 171) and a plurality of extending electrodes (e.g. 132/132a/132b) that extend in an extending direction;
a plurality of current transmission blocks (e.g. 140’ of 140b, see [0075]) that are disposed on said second surface of said epitaxial structure and that are disposed between two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes (see Fig. 12A), wherein for each of said two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes, each of those of said current transmission blocks that are adjacent to one side of said extending electrode has an electrode-facing sidewall that faces said one side of said extending electrode, and that is non-curved and parallel to an imaginary perpendicular surface which passes through said extending electrode and extends in the extending direction, and a non-electrode-facing sidewall that is distal to said one side of said extending electrode, said imaginary perpendicular surface being a normal surface that is perpendicular to said first surface (see Fig. 12A); and
a current blocking layer (142, see [0043]) that is disposed in spaces among said current transmission blocks.
Regarding claim 2, Lin further discloses wherein a projection of each of said current transmission blocks on said first surface of said epitaxial structure falls outside a projection of each of said extending electrodes on said first surface of said epitaxial structure (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 6, Lin further discloses wherein for two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes, those of said current transmission blocks that are between said two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes are disposed in a symmetrical and uniform manner (see Fig. 12A).
Regarding claim 9, Lin further discloses wherein said current blocking layer (142) contains an oxide material, a nitride material, a fluoride material, or combinations thereof (see [0079]).
Regarding claim 10, Lin further discloses a current spreading layer (111, see [0023]) that is disposed between said epitaxial structure and said current blocking layer.
Regarding claim 11, Lin further discloses an insulation layer (180, see [0035]) that covers a sidewall of said epitaxial structure and a portion of said first surface.
Regarding claim 12, Lin further discloses wherein said epitaxial structure includes a first semiconductor layer (121), an active layer (122), and a second semiconductor layer (123) sequentially disposed in such order in a laminating direction from said first surface to said second surface (see [0025]).
Regarding claim 13, Lin further discloses wherein said first surface of said epitaxial structure is a roughened surface (see [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Lin further disclose further comprising a reflection layer (150, see [0032]) that is disposed on said current blocking layer and said current transmission blocks away from said epitaxial structure, a substrate (103, see [0032]) that is disposed on said reflection layer (150) away from said epitaxial structure, and a second metal electrode (172, see [0035]) that is disposed on said substrate away from said epitaxial structure.
Regarding claim 15, Lin further discloses a bonding layer (160, see [0032]) that is disposed between said substrate (103) and said reflection layer (150).
Regarding claim 16, Lin further discloses light-emitting apparatus (see [0025] at least) comprising the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lin.
Regarding claims 3, 4 and 5, Lin further discloses
wherein said electrode-facing sidewall of each of said current transmission blocks are axisymmetric (see Fig. 12A);
wherein said current transmission blocks are prisms (see Fig. 12A, 13E, [0075]);
wherein said current transmission blocks are hexagonal prisms, pentagonal prisms, and quadrangular prisms or combinations thereof (see Fig. 12A, 13E.
In the alternative, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the shape as claimed since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component (see Lin [0057] and [0064]). A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Lin further discloses wherein for each of said two adjacent ones of said extending electrodes, a projection, on said imaginary perpendicular surface, of said electrode-facing sidewall of each of said those of said current transmission blocks that faces said one side of said extending electrode has a length in the extending direction, but does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a sum of the lengths of said projections of said electrode-facing sidewalls of said those of said current transmission blocks to a length of said extending electrode in the extending direction is no greater than 0.9; wherein the ratio ranges from 0.3 to 0.8.
Note that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ratio of lengths to be a result effective variable affecting the current spreading and luminous efficiency of the device (see Lin [0030], [0040], [0061]-[0062] at least). Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Lin to have the ratio within the claimed range in order to achieve desired efficiency, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 4/22/2026
