DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 & 4 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.
Regarding claim 3, while the combination of Chu, Lapatovich and Chu2 teaches “seed layer”, it does not teach the presence of “seed layer” specifically in “protrusions”. Hence, indication of Allowable Subject Matter. Please note that the Allowable Subject Matter in the instant case is similar in scope to that of the one of this case’s parent cases, S/N 16/016,971 (see Notice of Allowance, dated 04/02/21).
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not disclose such an additional dielectric layer between the already cited barrier layer and an SST. Hence, indication of Allowable Subject Matter. Please note that the Allowable Subject Matter in the instant case is similar in scope to that of the one of this case’s parent cases, S/N 14/614,382 (see Notice of Allowance, dated 02/27/2018).
Regarding claim 16, while the combination of Chu, Lapatovich and Chu2 teaches “seed layer”, it does not teach the presence of “seed layer” specifically in “protrusions”. Hence, indication of Allowable Subject Matter. Please note that the Allowable Subject Matter in the instant case is similar in scope to that of the one of this case’s parent cases, S/N 16/016,971 (see Notice of Allowance, dated 04/02/21).
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not disclose such an additional dielectric layer between the already cited protrusions and an SST. Hence, indication of Allowable Subject Matter. Please note that the Allowable Subject Matter in the instant case is similar in scope to that of the one of this case’s parent cases, S/N 14/614,382 (see Notice of Allowance, dated 02/27/2018).
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 9-14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2008/0142814) by Chu et al (“Chu”) in view of (US-2010/0067241) by Lapatovich et al (“Lapatovich”).
Examiner’s Note: Examiner mostly relies on FIG. 11D; however, Chu’s description is not very thorough for each of the figures; Chu describes a lot with regards to FIG. 4 (mostly the process steps), and given the explanation is already known, does not explain that again with regards to further figures; Chu then jumps to FIG. 8; then, Chu returns to FIG. 7; therefore, Examiner relies on the totality of what the reference teaches to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses in FIG. 11D and related text, e.g., a solid-state transducer (SST) assembly comprising:
a support substrate (unmarked layer, pointed to by the arrow of 722 in FIG. 7; see paragraph 58; “layers of the conductive substrate 718 may comprise ... Cu”);
a barrier material (712; it is the equivalent of 84 in the embodiment of FIG. 4) positioned over the support substrate;
an SST (3 are shown) disposed over the barrier material, the SST including (a) a first contact (710), (b) a transducer structure (704, 706 & 708) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and (c) a second contact (1210) having an uppermost surface; and
protrusions (712 and an unmarked layer, pointed to by the arrow of 722 in FIG. 7) on opposite sides of the SST, each protrusion including a projecting portion of the barrier material (see FIG. 11D) that extends above the uppermost surface of the second contacts.
Chu does not disclose “a projecting portion of the barrier material that extends above the uppermost surface of the second contacts”.
Lapatovich discloses in FIG. 7 and related text, e.g., “a projecting portion of the barrier material (501; “optical cup”) that extends above the uppermost surface of the second contacts” (Lapatovich specifically teaches in FIG. 7 the concept of separators that are much higher than the device and any contacts that are on it (501 is much taller than 110 and any second contact that is necessarily present there, on top of it, in order for 120 to connect to it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Chu with “a projecting portion of the barrier material that extends above the uppermost surface of the second contacts” as taught by Lapatovich, in order to provide physical space, for deposition of phosphor, and thus having the ability of converting one color of light into another (par. 44; please note that Lapatovich teaches both variants: one where the cover element is above the topmost surface of separator (FIG. 7) and a one where the cover element is below the topmost surface of separator (FIG. 8)).
Regarding claim 5, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising a discrete optical element (Lapatovich, FIG. 7, 702 & 704) over the second surface of the transducer structure.
Regarding claim 6, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the discrete optical element includes a cover element (704).
Regarding claim 7, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the support substrate comprises a metal material (unmarked layer, pointed to by the arrow of 722 in FIG. 7; see paragraph 58; “layers of the conductive substrate 718 may comprise ... Cu”).
Regarding claim 9, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the protrusions have vertical sidewalls abutting the SST (FIG. 4 of Chu shows an example of such vertical sidewalls; hence, the limitations are at the very least obvious in light of Chu’s explicit teachings).
Regarding claim 10, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the protrusions have sloped sidewalls abutting the SST (see FIG. 11D of Chu).
Regarding claim 11, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., disclose substantially the entirety of claimed subject matter, but do not explicitly state “wherein the protrusions have curved sidewalls abutting the SST”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Chu and Lapatovich with “wherein the protrusions have curved sidewalls abutting the SST”, in order to achieve a desired optical parameters (it is notoriously well-known that the shape of borders of optical device (“optical cup” of Lapatovich, for example), will decide how light bounces on the inside of such “optical cup”; hence, choosing a shape that will allow for desired optical profile for a specific design, such as a shape with “curved sidewalls”, is within the scope of POSITA’s skills.
Change in Shape: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.) (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 12, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., a solid state transducer (SST) assembly, comprising:
a support substrate (see claim 1);
a barrier material positioned over the support substrate (see claim 1);
an SST (see claim 1) disposed over the barrier material, the SST including (a) a first contact (see claim 1), (b) a transducer structure (see claim 1) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and (c) a second contact having an uppermost surface (see claim 1); and
a protrusion surrounding the SST (see claim 1; they are on both sides of device; hence, “surrounding”), the protrusion including a projecting portion of the barrier material that extends above the uppermost surface of the second contacts (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising an optical element (see claims 5 & 6) disposed over the SST, the optical element including a cover element (704) and a converter element (702; par. 44) between the cover element and the transducer structure, the cover element including a topmost surface that is above a topmost portion of the protrusion (see FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 14, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., further comprising an optical element disposed over the SST, the optical element including a cover element and a converter element between the cover element and the transducer structure (all same as in claim 13, above), the cover element including a topmost surface that is below a topmost portion of the protrusion (such an embodiment is shown in FIG. 8 of Lapatovich).
Regarding claim 18, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the protrusions have vertical sidewalls abutting the SST (see claim 9).
Regarding claim 19, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the protrusions have sloped sidewalls abutting the SST (see claim 10).
Regarding claim 20, the combined device of Chu and Lapatovich disclose in cited figures and related text, e.g., wherein the protrusions have curved sidewalls abutting the SST (see claim 11).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2008/0142814) by Chu et al (“Chu”) in view of (US-2010/0067241) by Lapatovich et al (“Lapatovich”) as applied to claims above, and further in view of (US-8,507,302) by Chu et al (“Chu2”).
Regarding claim 2, Chu and Lapatovich disclose substantially the entire claimed structure as recited in claim 1, but does not explicitly state further comprising a seed material positioned between the support substrate and the barrier material.
Chu2 discloses in FIG. 9C and related text, e.g., further comprising a seed material (“Seed metal”) positioned between the support substrate (“Metal”) and the barrier material (“Non-conductive material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Chu and Lapatovich with “further comprising a seed material positioned between the support substrate and the barrier material” as taught by Chu2, in order to allow for deposition of an easier deposition of other metal layers of support substrate (first of all, see Chu2, col. 6, lines 5-15; reasoning for seed layer benefit is clearly laid out [Wingdings font/0xE0] other metal layers are going to be easier to deposit; now look at Chu, par. 58; “layers of the conductive substrate 718 may comprise ... Cu”; in other words, Chu’s device may already contain a seed layer and Chu maybe just silent about it; in any case, the fact that Chu’s substrate has metal layers, therefore allows for explicit addition of Chu2’s seed layer, to make creation of those conductive layers easier; please note that Chu and Chu2 are in fact the very same inventor; hence, there can be no argument along the lines that such combination of references is not obvious, since both references have the very same inventor as the main inventor).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2008/0142814) by Chu et al (“Chu”) in view of (US-2010/0067241) by Lapatovich et al (“Lapatovich”) as applied to claim(s) above, and further in view of (US-2007/0221944) by Cheol et al (“Cheol”).
Regarding claim 8, Chu and Lapatovich disclose substantially the entire claimed structure as recited in claim 1 & 7, but does not disclose wherein the metal material has a plated thickness between approximately 50 um and approximately 300 um.
Cheol discloses in FIG. 2B and related text, e.g., “wherein the metal material (268) has a plated thickness between approximately 50 um and approximately 300 um (par. 79; by overlapping range)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Chu and Lapatovich with “further comprising a seed material positioned between the support substrate and the barrier material” as taught by Cheol, in order to increase the reliability of the device, by forming a metal substrate to sufficient thickness for the purposes of performing mechanical support.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-2008/0142814) by Chu et al (“Chu”) in view of (US-2010/0067241) by Lapatovich et al (“Lapatovich”) as applied to claims above, and further in view of (US-2010/0155766) by Ku (“Ku”).
Regarding claim 15, Chu and Lapatovich disclose substantially the entire claimed structure as recited in claim 12, but does not disclose “wherein the second contact includes at least one of a yttrium aluminum garnet, silicate phosphor, nitrate phosphor and aluminate phosphor”.
Ku discloses in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., “wherein the second contact includes at least one of a yttrium aluminum garnet, silicate phosphor, nitrate phosphor and aluminate phosphor” (first of all, it is unclear by what Applicant means when the Applicant says “second contact includes at least one of”; Applicant’s disclosure shows various cited materials on top of second contact”, not “included” in it; second of all, see par. 31 of Ku; he explicitly teaches “yttrium-aluminum-garnet” which is deposited on top of second contact (both contacts, actually), thus meeting Applicant’s presumed limitations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the device of Chu and Lapatovich with “wherein the second contact includes at least one of a yttrium aluminum garnet, silicate phosphor, nitrate phosphor and aluminate phosphor” as taught by Ku, in order to achieve the desired color of light (see par. 31 of Ku).
Conclusion
Additional references (if any) are cited on the PTO-892 as disclosing similar features to those of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexander Belousov whose telephone number is (571)-272-3167. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-4 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jeff Natalini can be reached on 571-272-2266. 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.
/Alexander Belousov/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2894
05/30/26
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights