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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/15/23 was/were received by the Examiner before the issuance/mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered (except for anything in foreign language non-accompanied by an English translation) by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 9-10, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2019/0371967).
a. Re claim 1, Kim et al. disclose a light-emitting device, comprising: a light-emitting laminate 30 (see figs. 4A&5 and related text; see remaining of disclosure for more details), and a first insulating reflective structure 43 including n pairs (either for n=3, the 3 pairs made of pairs 1, 7 and 8 or the pairs made of 1, 7 and 12 on fig. 5; or for n=3, the 3 pairs made of pairs 1, 7 and 8 on fig. 5; or for n=4, the 4 pairs made of pairs 1, 7, 8 and 12; or for n=6, the 6 pairs made of pairs 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; note that as written, the claim does not mean that “n” is the total number of pairs in the insulating reflective structure) of dielectric layers (SiO2 layers and TiO2 layers; [0093]) stacked on said light-emitting laminate, each of the n pairs of dielectric layers including a first material (SiO2) layer having a first refractive index (1.492 as per at least [0080]), and a second material (TiO2) layer having a second refractive index (2.677 as per at least [0080]) that is greater than the first refractive index of the first material layer; wherein for each pair of dielectric layers among m1 pairs of dielectric layers (for n=3 above, m1=3 and made of pairs number 1, 7 and 8 or pairs 1, 7 and 12; for n=4 above, m1=4 and made of pairs number 1, 7, 8 and 12; and for n=6, m1=4 and made of pairs 1, 7, 8 and 12) out of the n pairs of dielectric layers, the first material layer has an optical thickness that is greater than an optical thickness of the second material layer (explicit on fig. 5 in view of the above), where 0.5n≤m1≤n (explicit as per the above) , and n and m1 are natural numbers greater than 0 (explicit as per the above).
b. Re claim 3, the optical thickness of the first material layer in each of the m1 pairs of dielectric layers ranges from 80 nm to 220 nm (noting that λ=400nm as per [0080] and [0106], and as such, the optical thickness of the SiO2 layer in pair 1 is 400x0.28=112nm as per fig. 5, the optical thickness of the SiO2 layer in pair 7 is 400x0.29=116nm as per fig. 5, the optical thickness of the SiO2 layer in pair 8 is 400x0.275=110nm as per fig. 5, and the optical thickness of the SiO2 layer in pair 12 is 400x0.37=148nm as per fig. 5, and all those optical thicknesses valued fall in the claimed range).
c. Re claim 5, the optical thickness of the first material layer in each of the m1 pairs of dielectric layers is greater than λ/4, λ being a peak emission wavelength of light emitted by the light-emitting laminate and ranging from 420 nm to 460 nm ([0034] and [0079] disclose a peak emission wavelength of λ=440nm, and λ/4=110nm, and the optical thickness of the SiO2 layer is greater than 110nm for the m1 pair made of pairs 1, 7 and 12; see claim 3 rejection above for the values of the optical thicknesses).
d. Re claim 8, the m1 pairs of dielectric layers are discontinuously stacked (this is true as per fig. 5 noting that the first region is disclosed closer to light emitting structure 30 while region 2 is farther; see at least [0104] and [0105]).
e. Re claim 9, for each pair of dielectric layers among m2 pairs (pairs 9, 10, or 9, 10 and 11 on fig. 5, and this, for n=6 scenario in claim 1 rejection) of dielectric layers out of the n pairs of dielectric layers, the optical thickness of the first material layer is smaller than the optical thickness of the second material layer (explicit on fig. 5), where m2 (which is 2 or 3 as per the above) is a natural number not smaller than 1.
f. Re claim 10, m2 (when it is 2 as per claim 9 rejection above) is not greater than 0.4n (which is 0.4x6=2.4).
g. Re claim 13, n (which is 3, 4 or 6 as per claim 1 rejection) ranges from 3 to 25.
h. Re claim 14, m1 (when it is 3 as per claim 1 rejection above) is equal to n.
i. Re claim 15, m2 (when it is 3 as per claim 9 rejection above) is not smaller than 2.
j. Re claim 16, light-emitting device according to claim 1, further comprises a transparent substrate 21 (fig. 4A, [0085]) disposed between the light-emitting laminate and the first insulating reflective structure.
k. Re claim 17, light-emitting device according to claim 1, further comprises a second insulating reflective structure 39 ([0092]) disposed on a side of the light-emitting laminate that is away from the first insulating reflective structure.
l. Re claim 20, the light-emitting device according to claim 1, further comprises electrode pads (33 and 35; see {0090]) that have different polarities (n-type for 33 and p-type for 35; see [090]) and that are disposed on a side of the light-emitting laminate that is away from the first insulating reflective structure.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Check (US 2019/0237630).
a. Re claim 1, Check discloses a light-emitting device, comprising: a light-emitting laminate 52 (see figs. 5A-B and related text; see [0058] and remaining of disclosure for more details), and a first insulating reflective structure 56 including n pairs of dielectric layers (pair 56-1&56-2, pair 56-3&56-4 and pair 56-5&56-6, thus n=3) stacked on said light-emitting laminate, each of the n pairs of dielectric layers including a first material (silicon dioxide; [0070]) layer having a first refractive index (1.48; [0066]), and a second material (silicon nitride; [0070]) layer having a second refractive index (1.9; [0066]) that is greater than the first refractive index of the first material layer; wherein for each pair of dielectric layers among m1 pairs of dielectric layers (i.e. m1=2, wherein the two pairs are pair 56-1&56-2 and pair 56-3&56-4) out of the n pairs of dielectric layers, the first material layer has an optical thickness that is greater than an optical thickness of the second material layer (the optical thickness is by definition the product of the thickness and refractive index of a layer as per [0070]; layer 56-1 has a thickness of 190-200nm as per [0073], thus an optical thickness of 190x1.48=281.2nm to 1.48x200=296nm; layer 56-2 has a thickness of 50-60nm, thus an optical thickness of 1.9x50=95nm to 1.9x60=114nm; layer 56-3 has a thickness 335-345nm, thus an optical thickness of 1.48x335=495.8nm to 1.48x345=510.6nm; layer 56-4 has a thickness of 55-65nm, thus an optical thickness of 1.9x55=104.5nm to 1.9x65=123.5nm; from all those optical thickness values, it can be seen that the first material layer has an optical thickness that is greater than an optical thickness of the second material layer), where 0.5n≤m1≤n (explicit as per the above wherein m1=2 and n=3), and n and m1 are natural numbers greater than 0.
b. Re claim 2, for each of the m1 pairs of dielectric layers, the optical thickness of the first material layer is greater than the optical thickness of the second material layer by at least 60 nm (explicit as per the calculation of the optical thickness values in claim 1 rejection above).
c. Re claim 7, the m1 pairs of dielectric layers are successively and continuously stacked (explicit in fig. 5B).
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2019/0371967).
a. Re claim 18, Kim et al. disclose al. the limitations of claim 17 as stated above including that the second insulating reflective structure includes x pairs (x being whichever number of pairs is implicitly formed) of reflective dielectric layers that are stacked on one another (see [0092]), except explicitly that x is greater than n. But [0092] discloses that the pairs of reflective dielectric layers are provided in such a way that light loss due to absorption of light by the second electrode pad 35 may be prevented, thereby improving luminous efficacy of the light emitting diode chip.
As such, and noting that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art but may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law (see MPEP 2144.I), further noting that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal and even common-sensical (see MPEP 2144.II), and finally noting from MPEP 2141.03 that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and that a “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.”, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided x greater than n if required or as needed in order to prevent light loss due to absorption of light by the second electrode pad 35, thereby improving luminous efficacy of the light emitting diode chip.
b. Re claim 19, Kim et al. disclose al. the limitations of claim 17 as stated above except explicitly that the second insulating reflective structure has an absolute thickness greater than an absolute thickness of the first insulating reflective structure. But [0092] discloses that the pairs of reflective dielectric layers are provided in such a way that light loss due to absorption of light by the second electrode pad 35 may be prevented, thereby improving luminous efficacy of the light emitting diode chip.
As such, and noting that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art but may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law (see MPEP 2144.I), further noting that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal and even common-sensical (see MPEP 2144.II), and finally noting from MPEP 2141.03 that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and that a “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.”, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the second insulating reflective structure having an absolute thickness greater than an absolute thickness of the first insulating reflective structure if required or as needed in order to prevent light loss due to absorption of light by the second electrode pad 35, thereby improving luminous efficacy of the light emitting diode chip.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Check (US 2019/0237630).
a. Re claim 4, Check discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except explicitly that the optical thickness of the second material layer in each of the m1 pairs of dielectric layers ranges from 20 nm to 70 nm. However, and noting that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art but may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law (see MPEP 2144.I), further noting that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal and even common-sensical (see MPEP 2144.II), and finally noting from MPEP 2141.03 that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and that a “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.”, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the optical thickness of the second material layer in each of the m1 pairs of dielectric layers ranging from 20 nm to 70 nm while scaling down the insulating reflective structure 56 of the light emitting device in order to obtain a lighter and thinner light emitting device while saving time and cost by using less material for making the said insulating reflective structure 56 (see MPEP 2144.II).
b. Re claim 6, Check discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as stated above except explicitly that the optical thickness of the second material layer in each of the m1 pairs of dielectric layers is smaller than λ/4, λ being a peak emission wavelength of light emitted by the light-emitting laminate and ranging from 420 nm to 460 nm. But Check discloses a peak wavelength of 430-480nm ([0061]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 420-460. The Examiner notes that the smallest thicknesses of layers 56-2 and 56-4 have respective optical thicknesses of 95nm and 104.5nm as per claim 1 rejection above, and those values are less than 430nm/4=107.5nm and 480nm/4=120nm.
As such, and noting that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art but may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law (see MPEP 2144.I), further noting that the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal and even common-sensical (see MPEP 2144.II), and finally noting from MPEP 2141.03 that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” and that a “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.”, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the light emitting device with a narrower peak wavelength range such as 430-460nm or a shorter range in that interval, and to have also reduced the thicknesses of at least the silicon nitride layers (thus layers 56-2 and 56-4), and this in order obtain a light emitting device with improved monochromaticity and resolution (or precision) as well as efficiency, and also a lighter and thinner light emitting device while saving time and cost by using less material for making the insulating reflective structure 56 (see MPEP 2144.II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin (US 2013/0058102) and Nakamura et al. (US 2014/0138731) disclose light emitting devices similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENIEL M GUMEDZOE whose telephone number is (571)270-3041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 5712707877. 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.
/PENIEL M GUMEDZOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899