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 .
Specification
The specification submitted 12/05/2023 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 12/05/2023 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted recently have been considered 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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin (US # 20030222269).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin (US # 20030222269) teaches a light-emitting diode structure (see Figs. 2-3 and corresponding text), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
326
423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a substrate (21), comprising a first electrode (27);
a first semiconductor layer (n-type layer 23) located on the substrate;
a second semiconductor layer (235, 237) located on the first semiconductor layer, wherein a light-emitting layer (interface of pn junction) is formed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer (see [0022]);
a second electrode (features 39, 29, and 37: extending conductive contacts 39 is connected to the second electrode 29 through an extending conductive wire 37) located on the second semiconductor layer (shown in Fig. 2); and
at least one current blocking trench (trench 31 is shown penetrating into p-type layer 237/235) recessed from a light exit surface (top surface, exiting slanted light beams are shown in Fig. 2) of the second semiconductor layer toward the substrate (shown);
wherein by means of the at least one current blocking trench, the current flowing from the second electrode flows through the light-emitting layer located outside the second electrode to the first electrode in a diffusing manner (this trench filled with insulating layer 35 diffuses the current flow).
Regarding Claim 2, Lin teaches the light-emitting diode structure of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one current blocking trench is filled with a high resistance material ([0022] insulating layer (side insulating layer) 35 is formed in the groove 31).
Regarding Claim 6, Lin teaches the light-emitting diode structure of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one current blocking trench is recessed to the first semiconductor layer but is not in contact with the substrate (shown).
PNG
media_image2.png
270
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Lin teaches the light-emitting diode structure of claim 1, wherein the at least one current blocking trench is covered by the second electrode, and each of the at least one current blocking trench is spaced from a periphery of the second electrode (shown because the periphery of features 39, see dotted line, is so large).
Regarding Claim 8, Lin teaches the light-emitting diode structure of claim 7, wherein the at least one current blocking trench is a single annular trench (shown, trench 31 is ring shaped from top perspective).
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsou (US # 20150048303).
PNG
media_image3.png
332
431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Tsou (US # 20150048303) teaches a light-emitting diode structure, comprising:
a substrate (210), comprising a first electrode (290);
a first semiconductor layer (220) located on the substrate;
a second semiconductor layer (240) located on the first semiconductor layer, wherein a light-emitting layer (230) is formed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer;
a second electrode (270, 280) located on the second semiconductor layer (indirectly on); and
at least one current blocking trench (feature 260 is formed in small trench that was formed in layer 250) recessed from a light exit surface (top, interface with 250) of the second semiconductor layer toward the substrate;
wherein by means of the at least one current blocking trench, the current flowing from the second electrode flows through the light-emitting layer located outside the second electrode to the first electrode in a diffusing manner (current blocking layer 260 has a plurality of nitrogen vacancies, which increase contact resistance and block current; see [0054] for more info about how the current diffusing outside the second electrode to the first electrode works).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsou teaches the light-emitting diode structure of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one current blocking trench is filled with a high resistance material (feature 260 is composed of transparent conductive material such as indium tin oxide (ITO); current blocking layer 260 has a plurality of nitrogen vacancies, which increase contact resistance and block current).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsou teaches the light-emitting diode structure of claim 2, wherein the high resistance material is identical to a material of the second electrode ([0046] explains the material comparison of the features 250, 260, and 270).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsou teaches the light-emitting diode structure of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one current blocking trench is not in contact with the light-emitting layer (shown not in contact).
Regarding Claim 7, Tsou teaches the light-emitting diode structure of claim 1, wherein the at least one current blocking trench is covered by the second electrode, and each of the at least one current blocking trench is spaced from a periphery of the second electrode (shown because the periphery of 270 is so large).
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 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsou (US # 20150048303).
Regarding Claim 5, the exact numerical ratio of layer thicknesses to trench depth (1:3:2) is not disclosed. However, adjusting layer thicknesses and recessed feature depth to optimize current flow is a predictable design choice in LED engineering. Therefore, the claimed 1:3:2 ratio would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in view of Tsou and routine LED design practice. The applicant has provided nothing in their disclosure to show any criticality for this dimensional relationship.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US # 20030222269) in view of Chen (US # US # 20210193868).
Regarding Claim 9, although Lin discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the light-emitting diode structure of claim 7, wherein the at least one current blocking trench includes a plurality of trenches arranged in an annular shape and spaced apart from one another.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Chen is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches at least one current blocking feature that includes a plurality of trenches arranged in an annular shape and spaced apart from one another (see Fig. 10, features 7, and see also [0049]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the trench shape of Lin with the shape suggested by Chen would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Chen would be to employ a light-emitting diode structure of claim 7, wherein the at least one current blocking trench includes a plurality of trenches arranged in an annular shape and spaced apart from one another. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve lateral current spreading in an LED of Lin would find it obvious to split Lin’s single current-blocking feature into multiple discrete trenches arranged around the electrode in a ring-like pattern. The Chen reference teaches the annular, discrete arrangement, and applying this concept to Tsou’s LED is a predictable design modification to achieve uniform current spreading. The spacing and number of discrete trenches would be determined by routine design choice and fabrication constraints. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsou’s single current-blocking trench into a plurality of discrete trenches arranged in an annular shape and spaced apart from one another, as recited in claim 9, in view of Chen.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsou (US # 20150048303) in view of Kuo (US # 20110254044).
Regarding Claim 10, although Tsou discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the light-emitting diode structure of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one current blocking trench is located outside a periphery of the second electrode and is not covered by the second electrode.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Kuo is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a light-emitting diode structure (see Figs. 9 and corresponding text) wherein each of at least one current blocking trench (corresponds to features 220) is located outside a periphery of a top electrode (232) and is not covered by the top electrode (shown in Fig. 9A).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the quantity of current blocking features of Tsou with the greater number suggested by Kuo would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Kuo would be to employ a light-emitting diode structure of claim 1, wherein each of the at least one current blocking trench is located outside a periphery of the second electrode and is not covered by the second electrode. Tsou discloses the claimed invention except for having more current blocking features. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use more of those features and spread them out over the top emissive surface since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsou (US # 20150048303) in view of Andrews (US # 9214607) and Matsumura (US # 20140327028).
Regarding Claim 12, light-emitting diode structure, comprising:
a substrate (210), comprising a first electrode (290);
a first semiconductor layer (220) located on the substrate;
a second semiconductor layer (240) located on the first semiconductor layer, wherein a light-emitting layer (230) is formed between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer;
a second electrode (270, 280) located on the second semiconductor layer (indirectly on); and
herein by means of the at least one current blocking trench, the current flowing from the second electrode flows through the light-emitting layer located outside the second electrode to the first electrode in a diffusing manner (current blocking layer 260 has a plurality of nitrogen vacancies, which increase contact resistance and block current; see [0054] for more info about how the current diffusing outside the second electrode to the first electrode works).
Although Tsou discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the first electrode comprising a plurality of metal dots and the second electrode comprising at least one bonding wire electrode located on the second semiconductor layer.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Andrews is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches an LED (see Fig. 13 and corresponding text) wherein a top connection (on face 100a) comprises at least one bonding wire (220).
Furthermore, Matsumura is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches an LED with a lower electrode comprising a plurality of metal dots (7; see especially Fig. 2D).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the wiring of Tsou with the bonding wire suggested by Andrews would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Andrews would be to employ a structure comprising a second electrode comprising at least one bonding wire electrode located on the second semiconductor layer.
Also, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the first electrode of Tsou with the metal dots suggested by Matsumura would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Matsumura would be to employ a structure comprising a first electrode comprising a plurality of metal dots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Tsou’s LED with a recessed current-blocking trench with the bonding wire teachings of Andrews. Doing so would allow electrical connection to the LED while maintaining lateral current spreading via the trench, a predictable and routine design choice in LED packaging. The combination merely uses known LED packaging techniques (bonding wire) in combination with known current-blocking structures, yielding the claimed structure without inventive step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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:
Regarding Claim 11, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including each of the at least one current blocking trench is adjacent to the bonding pad portion and is located between two adjacent extension portions of the extension portions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached on normally working Monday-Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899