DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to an Application filed on 11/13/2023.
Currently, claims 1-11 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 07/14/2024 and 07/16/2025. The IDS have been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version) Light Emitting Device Having Improved Light Emission Uniformity and Light Emitting Device Substrate Including the Light Emitting Device
(Clean Version) Light Emitting Device Having Improved Light Emission Uniformity and Light Emitting Device Substrate Including the Light Emitting Device
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.
Claims 9-11 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.
Independent claim 9 is indefinite, because the limitation “the plurality of epitaxial structures” in lines 7-8 is not mentioned before. Only “an epitaxial structure” is recited in claim 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis. The limitation will be interpreted as “a plurality of the epitaxial structures.”
Claim 11 is indefinite, because:
(1) The limitation “the epitaxial structures comprises a first and a second” in lines 1-2 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “a first” and “a second” are in reference to. The limitation will be interpreted as “a first epitaxial structure” and “a second epitaxial structure.”
(2) The limitation “the first” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “the first” is in reference to. The limitation will be interpreted as “the first epitaxial structure.”
(2) The limitation “the second” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what “the second” is in reference to. The limitation will be interpreted as “the second epitaxial structure.”
Note the dependent claims 10-11 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0050481 A1 to Li.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
807
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Li in Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 1 teaches a light emitting device 1 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 45, light-emitting device structure 1), comprising:
an epitaxial structure 100 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 36, epitaxial structure 100) having a light emitting surface LES (Annotated Fig. 1 & ¶ 38, patterns 52 improves a light output efficiency of the structure 100, which discloses the surface patterns 52 are formed on is a light emitting/output surface) and a surrounding wall surface SWS (Annotated Fig. 1), and the surrounding wall surface SWS surrounds and is connected to the light emitting surface LES (Annotated Fig. 1); and
a plurality of surface microstructures 52 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 38, patterns 52 having a width W between 0.1 μm and 2.5 μm. That is, patterns 52 are in micro-scale) separately arranged on the light emitting surface LES along a plurality of directions D1, D2 (Fig. 1, directions D1, D2 of side surfaces of the patterns 52), and the directions D1, D2 are not perpendicular to the surrounding wall surface SWS (Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Li in Annotated Fig. 1 further teaches an edge profile of the surrounding wall surface SWS connected to the light emitting surface LES is rectangular (Annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Li in Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 1 further teaches the light emitting surface LES defines an opening profile 52 (Fig. 1, ¶ 22 & ¶ 38, patterns 52 are recessed structures i.e., openings in the surface LES) of each of the surface microstructures 52 to be the same (see Fig. 1, opening profiles 52 are in the same shape and size).
Regarding claim 7, Li in Annotated Fig. 1 further teaches maximum depths of the surface microstructures 52 along a normal direction of the light emitting surface LES are all the same (Annotated Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2015/0155437 A1 to Singh et al. (“Singh”).
Regarding claim 2, Li in Annotated Fig. 1 teaches a sidewall of the surrounding wall surface SWS reveals a first surface microstructure 52 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 36, one of the patterns 52), a second surface microstructure 52 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 36, another one of the patterns 52), and a third surface microstructure 52 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 36, the other one of the patterns 52) of the surface microstructures 52, the first surface microstructure 52, the second surface microstructure 52, and the third surface microstructure 52 respectively have a first maximum depth, a second maximum depth, and a third maximum depth along a normal direction of the light emitting surface LES (Annotated Fig. 1).
Li does not explicitly disclose the first maximum depth, the second maximum depth, and the third maximum depth are different from each other.
Singh recognizes a need for enhancing the light extraction efficiency from the surface of the LED (¶ 1). Singh satisfies the need by providing a first surface structure (Fig. 2C), a second surface structure (Fig. 2C), and a third surface structure (Fig. 2C) respectively have a first maximum depth, a second maximum depth, and a third maximum depth along a normal direction of a light emitting surface 225 (Fig. 2C & ¶ 27, surface 225), and the first maximum depth, the second maximum depth, and the third maximum depth are different from each other (Fig. 2C, the structures have different maximum depths).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first, second and third microstructures taught by Li with different maximum depths taught by Singh, so as to enhance the light extraction efficiency from the surface of the LED (Singh: ¶ 1).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2010/0096657 A1 to Ou et al. (“Ou”).
Regarding claim 4, Li in Annotated Fig. 1 and Figs. 4A-4B further teaches the surface microstructures 52 are separately arranged on the light emitting surface LES (Figs. 4A-4B) in a hexagonal close packing manner.
Ou recognizes a need for achieving light-extraction efficiency of a light-emitting device (¶ 9). Ou satisfies the need by providing surface structures (Fig. 6A & ¶ 24, hexagonal pattern units) arranged in a hexagonal close packing manner (Fig. 6A & ¶ 24 disclose the hexagonal pattern units are arranged in a hexagonal close packing manner).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the surface microstructures taught by Li with the hexagonal pattern units and arrangement taught by Ou, so as to achieve light-extraction efficiency of a light-emitting device (Ou: ¶ 9).
Regarding claim 5, Li in Annotated Fig. 1 teaches the surface microstructures 52 are arranged along a first direction D1 (Annotated Fig. 1) and a second direction D2 (Annotated Fig. 1) respectively.
The combination of Li and Ou does not explicitly disclose an included angle between the first direction and the second direction is 60 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to form the included angle within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Li.
Regarding claim 8, Li in Annotated Fig. 1 teaches the surface microstructures 52 are arranged along a first direction D1 or D2 (Annotated Fig. 1), the surrounding wall surface SWS has a plurality of sidewall surfaces SWS (Annotated Fig. 1), and an included angle between the first direction D1 or D2 and any of the sidewall surfaces SWS.
Li does not explicitly disclose the included angle is between 5 degrees and 25 degrees, between 35 degrees and 55 degrees, or between 65 degrees and 85 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to form the included angle within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 9-11 are rejected.
Claims 9-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding independent claim 9, Li in Fig. 1 and Annotated Fig. 1 teaches a light emitting device substrate 1 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 45, light-emitting device structure 1), comprising:
a light emitting devices 1 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 45, light-emitting device structure 1) comprises:
an epitaxial structure 100 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 36, epitaxial structure 100) having a light emitting surface LES (Annotated Fig. 1 & ¶ 38, patterns 52 improves a light output efficiency of the structure 100, which discloses the surface patterns 52 are formed on is a light emitting/output surface); and
a plurality of surface microstructures 52 (Fig. 1 & ¶ 38, patterns 52 having a width W between 0.1 μm and 2.5 μm. That is, patterns 52 are in micro-scale) separately arranged on the light emitting surface LES along a plurality of directions D1, D2 (Fig. 1, directions D1, D2 of side surfaces of the patterns 52).
However, the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 9, a carrier board; and
a plurality of light emitting devices disposed on the carrier board, wherein an orthographic projection of the plurality of epitaxial structures of the light emitting devices on the carrier board defines a plurality of isolation area patterns of the carrier board, and each of the directions is not perpendicular to an extending direction of each of the isolation area patterns.
Therefore, independent claim 9 would be allowable.
Claims 10-11 would be allowable, because they depend from the allowable claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0068872 A1 by Kuo et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. 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.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817