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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reasons.
112 Rejection
Applicant argues (pg. 1 of Remarks):
Paragraph [0056] of the published application expressly contrasts the targeted release of exactly one region of connection material per light pulse with an alternative in which "the first carrier [is] irradiated with laser light L over a large area, so that essentially all predefined areas of the electrical connection material 2 are released from the first carrier 5 ... and fall in the direction of the second carrier." Similarly, paragraph [0060] explains that in the targeted mode, material is released "only selectively or locally" from the first carrier, the direct converse of the large-area mode.
Read in light of this disclosure, a skilled artisan would understand the term "over a large area" in claim 17 means that the first carrier is irradiated non-selectively across substantially the entirety of the surface bearing the structured connection material, so that all of the pre-structured regions are released in a single irradiation step, as opposed to a spatially targeted irradiation of individual regions in registry with the connection surfaces.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees. The above cited description in paragraphs [0056] & [0060] does not define “large area” and simply repeats the relative term. The argument that a skilled artisan would understand “large area” means across substantially the entirety of the surface bearing the structure connection material is Applicant’s extrapolation, which is not captured in the claim language. As potential amendment, examiner recommends the claim to recite “across the entirely of the surface” rather than vague term large area to avoid ambiguity.
103 Rejection
With respect to Molpeceres, Applicant argues (pg. 3 of Remarks):
Applicant submits that Molpeceres does not disclose:
a first carrier on which the connection material is structured to correspond to a plurality of mutually spaced electrical connection surfaces of one or more discrete optoelectronic components. Rather, Molpeceres discloses a single, contiguous conductive line intended for a unitary metallization pattern on one photovoltaic cell, not electrically separated subareas assigned to distinct connection surfaces; and
a sintering or transfer step compatible with connection surfaces spaced apart by as little as 50 µm without risking a short circuit between them. Molpeceres' process forms one continuous conductor and gives no consideration to maintaining electrical separation between adjacent deposits, because no such adjacent, isolated deposits exist in its disclosure. This distinction is reinforced by the fundamentally different irradiation regime: Molpeceres relies on a continuous-wave laser that is swept along the deposit to achieve deep, uniform sintering of a single contiguous line (see Molpeceres, paragraphs [0033]-[0036]), which is structurally incompatible with a pulsed, large-area irradiation step that releases multiple, pre- defined, mutually isolated regions of material in registry with separate connection surfaces of a component.
In response, examiner first points out that recited feature “electronic connection material arranged in a structured manner” (claim 17) is broader than a plurality of mutually spaced surfaces of one or more discrete optoelectronic components or electrically separated subareas as argued. Examiner contends that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., structured to correspond to a plurality of mutually spaced surfaces) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Secondly, examiner submits that Molpeceres is modified to have at least two regions of the electrical connection material with a motivation to form a desired pattern as explained in the obviousness rejection. Concerning sintering with connection surfaces spaced by 50 microns between adjacent deposits without risking a short circuit, these features (i.e., spaced by 50 µm between adjacent deposits in connection surfaces) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not convincing as they are not commensurate with the scope of the pending claims.
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.
Claims 17-32 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.
With respect to claim 17, limitation “first carrier is irradiated over a large area with the laser light” is ambiguous because it is unclear what is meant by “large area”? The relative term "large area" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the limitation. Therefore, the recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope of the claims, rendering them indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: the first carrier is irradiated with the laser light.
With respect to claim 23, limitation “over a large area” is ambiguous in scope for same reasons explained in claim 17 above and renders the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, the claim is taken to mean: the electrical connection material is arranged on the first carrier.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
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.
Claims 17-24, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molpeceres et al. (US 2015/0294872, hereafter “Molpeceres”).
Regarding claim 17, Molpeceres discloses a method for applying an electrical connection material (metallic paste) to an electrical connection surface of at least one optoelectronic component [0013], the method comprising: providing a first carrier 2 (donor substrate, [0016, 0049]) on which the electrical connection material 1 (metallic paste – [0019]) is arranged in a structured manner (fig. 1); providing a second carrier 3 with at least one electrical connection surface [0015, 0050]; positioning the first carrier relative to the second carrier such that the electrical connection material is facing the at least one electrical connection surface and is spaced from the at least one electrical connection surface (fig. 1, [0060]); and pulse irradiating the first carrier with laser light such that the electrical connection material is detached from the first carrier and falls onto the at least one electrical connection surface of the second carrier through laser induced transfer [0023, 0057-0061].
Molpeceres does not explicitly show detaching at least two (plurality) regions of the connection material from the first carrier while irradiating with the laser light. However, Molpeceres teaches creating at least two (plurality) contacts in forming the electronic devices including LEDs, OLEDs ([0042], claim 31), which intrinsically include an optoelectronic component. Moreover, it is known in the art to transfer layer of material with a desired pattern to the surface of the wafer in manufacture of optoelectronic devices [0001, 0003]. The paste material would be deposited on at least two/plurality of regions on the surface to form the desired contacts/pattern. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to deposit the metallic paste on at least two regions (plurality) on an optoelectronic component in the method of Molpeceres with a motivation to produce desired device including OLED with target electrical contacts/pattern. Thus, the first carrier is irradiated with the laser light in order to detach & deposit at least two regions of the structured paste material on at least one optoelectronic component on the second carrier.
As to claim 18, Molpeceres discloses that the electrical connection material comprises an electrically conductive adhesive/paste [0019-0020, 0040, 0054].
As to claim 19, Molpeceres discloses that the first carrier is substantially transparent (glass substrate 2- [0055]) for the laser light.
As to claim 20, Molpeceres discloses that the second carrier 3 is formed by conductive oxide film [0056] and teaches that it is known to transfer layer of material with a desired pattern to the surface of the wafer in optoelectronic device [0003]. Thus, a wafer composite as second carrier is rendered obvious.
As to claim 21, Molpeceres discloses that the electrical connection paste material deposited onto the second carrier comprises thickness in a range of 40-60 microns [0026], and a width in a range between 50-100 microns [0038] – this is equivalent to a volume range of 2000 to 60000 µm3, which overlaps with the recited range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 22, Molpeceres teaches creating at least two (plurality) contacts in forming the electronic devices including LEDs, OLEDs ([0042], claim 31) and moreover, it is known in the art to transfer layer of material with a desired pattern to the surface of the wafer in manufacture of optoelectronic devices [0001, 0003]. The paste material would be deposited on at least two/plurality of regions on the surface to form the desired contacts/pattern. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the optoelectronic component comprise two electrical connection surfaces which are spaced apart less than 50 µm with a partial region of the electrical connection material applied to each of the electrical connection surfaces in order to create the desired contact pattern for particular OLED device.
As to claim 23, Molpeceres discloses that area(s) of the electrical connection paste material are selectively irradiated with laser light and detached from the first carrier to be deposited on the second carrier (fig. 1).
As to claim 24, Molpeceres teaches forming electronic devices including LEDs, OLEDs ([0042], claim 31), which encompasses micro-LED chip and renders the claim obvious.
As to claim 28, Molpeceres shows that the electrical connection material 1 is flush with a surface of the first carrier 3 (fig. 1).
As to claim 30, Molpeceres teaches the method further comprising subsequent sintering of the electrical connection material [0021-0022].
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molpeceres as applied to claim 17 above, and in view of Shapiro (US 5873511).
As to claim 25, Molpeceres does not disclose the first carrier having at least one cavity with the electrical connection paste material. However, such technique is known in the art. Shapiro is drawn to selective solder (connection material) placement onto surfaces of a carrier substrate (abstract). In one embodiment, Shapiro discloses the first carrier 73 comprising a plurality of cavities or holes 74 in which the electrical connection material (solder 75) is arranged (figs. 8-9), wherein the solder connection material is deposited & transferred on a substrate 71 using laser beam (figs. 10-11; col. 4, lines 40-45, 55-62). Shapiro teaches this arrangement of transferring solder to metallic islands of a substrate is easily automated and a pattern can be formed in a well understood manner (col. 5, lines 14-22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize any suitable carrier strip with holes similar to Shapiro in the method of Molpeceres in order to easily automate the transfer process and quickly form a desired pattern.
As to claim 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to supply the solder or paste material into the carrier holes using doctor blading in the combination of Molpeceres & Shapiro because such technique would enable to accurately fill the holes, thereby resulting in smooth & flush finish with the surface of the carrier.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 29 and 31-32 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 amended to overcome 112 rejection noted above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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 Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights