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 Group I, claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 14 and 16 in the reply filed on June 9, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the manufacturing method of claim 1 is a special technical feature under PCT Rule 13.2. This is not found persuasive because US 2010/0314605 A1 anticipates the manufacturing method of claim 1, as detailed hereinbelow. Therefore, the manufacturing method of claim 1 does not constitute a special technical feature under PCT Rule 13.2 because it fails to make a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19, 21, 23-26, 28 and 33-36 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions (Groups II and III), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on June 9, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on December 28, 2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0314605 A1 (hereinafter “Khan”).
Regarding claim 1, Khan discloses a manufacturing method of a vertical structure deep ultraviolet LED ([0002] and [0029]), wherein the manufacturing method comprises:
forming an epitaxial structure (13, 14, 15 (16, 17), 18, 19; Fig. 2; [0032]-[0033]) on a sapphire substrate (12; Fig. 2; [0033]), the epitaxial structure having a first surface (top surface of contact layer 19 in Fig. 2) and a second surface (bottom surface of buffer layer 13 in Fig. 2), the second surface being connected with the sapphire substrate;
dividing the epitaxial structure into a plurality of epitaxial units arranged in an array (at least a 1×2 linear array, as shown in Fig. 3; [0046]), a portion of the sapphire substrate being exposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of epitaxial units;
forming an adhesive layer (23; Fig. 4; [0047]) on a portion, which is exposed between adjacent ones of the plurality of epitaxial units, of the sapphire substrate;
bonding a second substrate (21; Fig. 6; [0051]) above the first surface of the epitaxial structure;
performing laser lift-off to the sapphire substrate (Fig. 7; [0054]-[0055]); and
removing the adhesive layer (Fig. 10; [0063]).
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, 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of US 2013/0189830 A1 (hereinafter “Hirschler”).
Regarding claim 5, Khan discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1.
Khan does not disclose the adhesive layer is made of cured ultraviolet adhesive or polydimethylsiloxane, and/or step of removing the adhesive layer comprises: removing the adhesive layer using plasma etching process.
Hirschler teaches in Fig. 7 and related text the step of removing the adhesive layer (70; [0039]) comprises: removing the adhesive layer using plasma etching process ([0050]).
Khan and Hirschler are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor manufacturing processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Khan with the specified features of Hirschler because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove the adhesive layer using plasma etching process, as taught by Hirschler, in order to selectively remove the adhesive layer without removing other components of the chip (Hirschler [0052]) and without leaving behind particles or residue (Hirschler [0053]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan in view of CN 101555627 A (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 6, Khan discloses the manufacturing method according to claim 1.
Khan does not explicitly disclose the array is a rectangular array or a hexagonal array, and a spacing between adjacent ones of the plurality of epitaxial units is greater than 50[Symbol font/0x6D]m.
Wang teaches in Fig. 1 and related text the array (of epitaxial units 2) is a rectangular array ([0036] of the previously attached English machine translation).
Wang does not explicitly disclose a spacing between adjacent ones of the plurality of epitaxial units is greater than 50[Symbol font/0x6D]m.
Khan and Wang are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor manufacturing processes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Khan with the specified features of Wang because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the array to be a rectangular array, as taught by Wang, and to form a spacing between adjacent ones of the plurality of epitaxial units to be greater than 50[Symbol font/0x6D]m, in order to increase the throughput of the manufacturing process, and in order to create sufficient space for a dicing saw blade to safely pass between adjacent ones of the plurality of epitaxial units during singulation, respectively.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has 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. 1980). 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.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification does not contain evidence for the criticality of the claimed range “greater than 50[Symbol font/0x6D]m.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 16 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: the prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not teach or suggest at least the limitation “decomposing the irradiated portions of the AlN layer in the plurality of epitaxial units into Al metal and nitrogen gas one by one using an ArF excimer laser lift-off process” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 2. Claims 7, 9, 10, 14 and 16 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 2 and therefore would be allowable at least by virtue of their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M ALBRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-7813. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (CT).
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/PETER M ALBRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights