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 Amendment
The amendment filed on Apr. 15th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-29 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on Apr. 21st, 2026.
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.
Claims 21-26 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CHANG et al. (US 20230129560 from IDS), hereinafter CHANG.
Regarding claim 21, CHANG teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (Abstract) comprising:
an active LED structure (fig. 1 and 6, epitaxial structure 1; para. 0022) comprising a first layer (first semiconductor structure 11; para. 0042) of a first conductivity type (n-type; para. 0042), a second layer (second semiconductor structure 12; para. 0042) of a second conductivity type (p-type; para. 0042) that is opposite the first conductivity type (n-type), and an active layer (active region 13; para. 0042) between the first layer (11) and the second layer (12);
an electrode pad (electrode pad 21; para. 0023) on a first side (top side) of the active LED structure (1);
a plurality of vias (contact region 9; para. 0024) on a second side (bottom side) of the active LED structure (1) opposite the first side (top side), wherein diameters (fig. 2B, first width W1, second width W2, third width W3, fourth width W4 and fifth width W5 maybe different; para. 0029) of individual vias (contact portions 911, 921, 931, 941, 951; para. 0029) of the plurality of vias (9) vary with distance from the electrode pad (distance from 21); and
a first electrode extension (extension electrodes 224; para. 0023) on the first side (top side) of the active LED structure (1), the first electrode extension (fig. 6, 224) electrically connected to the electrode pad (21), wherein a width of the first electrode extension (width of the rounded end portion of 224 changes) varies with distance from the electrode pad (distance from 21) along a majority of a length (fig. 6, the rounded end portion is majority of the length of 224) of the first electrode extension.
Regarding claim 22, CHANG further teaches the LED chip of claim 21, wherein the width of the first electrode extension (fig. 2B, width of the rounded end portion of 224 decrease to the end) progressively decreases with increasing distance from the electrode pad (distance from 21).
Regarding claim 23, CHANG further teaches the LED chip of claim 22, further comprising a second electrode extension (fig. 2A, extension electrodes 226; para. 0023) on the first side (top side) of the active LED structure (1), the second electrode extension (226) electrically connected to the electrode pad (21), wherein a width of the second electrode extension (width of the rounded end portion of 226 decreases to the end) progressively decreases with increasing distance from the electrode pad (distance from 21).
Regarding claim 24, CHANG further teaches the LED chip of claim 23, wherein the plurality of vias (fig. 2A, 9) is arranged in a column (a line) across the second side (fig. 1, bottom side) of the active LED structure (1) between portions of the active LED structure (1) that are vertically aligned (fig. 2A, 9 are aligned vertically between 224, 226) with the first electrode extension and the second electrode extension (224, 226).
Regarding claim 25, CHANG further teaches the LED chip of claim 24, wherein a pitch (distances between the contact portions may gradually increase) between neighboring vias of the plurality of vias (9) increases with increasing distance from the electrode pad (distance from 21).
Regarding claim 26, CHANG further teaches the LED chip of claim 24, wherein diameters (fig. 2B, first width W1, second width W2, third width W3, fourth width W4 and fifth width W5; para. 0029) of individual vias (contact portions 911, 921, 931, 941, 951; para. 0029) of the plurality of vias (9) increase along the column with increasing (W1<W2<W3<W4<W5; para. 0029) distance from the first electrode pad (distance from 21).
Regarding claim 28, CHANG further teaches the LED chip of claim 21, wherein:
the active LED structure (fig. 2A, 1) comprises a first edge (top edge) and a second edge (bottom edge) that are opposite one another, and a third edge (left edge) and a fourth edge (right edge) that are opposite one another;
the plurality of vias (9) is arranged in a first column of vias (9 along R4) and a second column of vias (9 along a line next to R4) that both extend between the first edge (top edge) and the second edge (bottom edge) of the active LED structure (1); and
positions of vias in the first column (9 along R4) of vias are offset (offset from left to right) relative to positions of vias in the second column (9 along a line next to R4) of vias in a direction (direction from left to right) from the third edge to the fourth edge.
Regarding claim 29, CHANG further teaches the LED chip of claim 21, wherein:
the plurality of vias (fig. 2B, 9) is arranged in a first column of vias (9 along 222) and a second column of vias (9 along a line next to 222); and
a total number of vias in the first column of vias (four vias of 9 along 222) is different than a total number of vias in the second column of vias (five vias of 9 along a line next to 222).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 10-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANG et al. (US 20230129560 from IDS) in view of Hu et al. (US 20160133796).
Regarding claim 1, CHANG teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (Abstract) comprising:
an active LED structure (fig. 1, epitaxial structure 1; para. 0022) comprising a first layer (first semiconductor structure 11; para. 0042) of a first conductivity type (n-type; para. 0042), a second layer (second semiconductor structure 12; para. 0042) of a second conductivity type (p-type; para. 0042) that is opposite the first conductivity type (n-type), and an active layer (active region 13; para. 0042) between the first layer (11) and the second layer (12);
a first electrode pad (electrode pad 21; para. 0023) on a first side (top side) of the active LED structure (1),
a first electrode extension and a second electrode extension (extension electrodes 224, 226; para. 0023) on the first side (top side) of the active LED structure (1), wherein the first electrode extension and the second electrode extension (224, 226) are electrically connected to the first electrode pad (21); and
a plurality of vias (contact region 9; para. 0024) on a second side (bottom side) of the active LED structure (1) opposite the first side (top side), the plurality of vias (9) arranged in a column (in a line column) and positioned between portions of the active LED structure (1) that are vertically aligned (fig. 2A, 9 are aligned vertically between 224, 226) with the first electrode extension and the second electrode extension (224, 226), and diameters (fig. 2B, first width W1, second width W2, third width W3, fourth width W4 and fifth width W5 maybe different; para. 0029) of individual vias (contact portions 911, 921, 931, 941, 951; para. 0029) of the plurality of vias (9) vary along the column (width maybe different in a line) with increasing distance from the first electrode pad (distance from 21).
CHANG fails to teach the first electrode pad arranged proximate a first edge of the active LED structure;
a first electrode extension and a second electrode extension arranged in parallel.
However, Hu teaches the first electrode pad (fig. 1, pad portions 161; para. 0012, similar to 21 of CHANG and change from fig. 4 of Hu) arranged proximate a first edge (bottom edge) of the active LED structure (1);
a first electrode extension and a second electrode extension (first extension portion 163, second extension portions 162; para. 0012, similar to 224, 226 of CHANG) arranged in parallel (162 are parallel).
Hu and CHANG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LED devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified electrode extension from circle pattern to parallel to parallel pattern as taught by Hu.
Doing so would realize one or more pad portions to cover more area (para. 0012). Further, it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 3, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the diameters (CHANG: fig. 2B, W1, W2, W3, W4, W5) of individual vias (CHANG: 911, 921, 931, 941, 951) of the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) progressively decrease (CHANG: W1>W2>W3>W4>W5; para. 0029) with increasing distance from the first electrode pad (CHANG: distance from 21).
Regarding claim 4, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 1, wherein the diameters (CHANG: fig. 2B, W1, W2, W3, W4, W5) of individual vias (CHANG: 911, 921, 931, 941, 951) of the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) progressively increase (CHANG: W1<W2<W3<W4<W5; para. 0029) with increasing distance from the first electrode pad (CHANG: distance from 21).
Regarding claim 10, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 1, wherein:
the active LED structure (CHANG: fig. 2A, 1) comprises and a second edge (bottom edge) that is opposite the first edge (top edge), and a third edge (left edge) and a fourth edge (right edge) that are opposite one another;
the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) is arranged in a first column of vias (CHANG: 9 along R4) and a second column of vias (CHANG: 9 along a line next to R4) that both extend between the first edge (top edge) and the second edge (bottom edge) of the active LED structure (CHANG: 1); and
positions of vias in the first column (CHANG: 9 along R4) of vias are offset (CHANG: offset from left to right) relative to positions of vias in the second column (CHANG: 9 along a line next to R4) of vias in a direction (direction from left to right) from the third edge to the fourth edge.
Regarding claim 11, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of vias (CHANG: fig. 2B, 9) is arranged in a first column of vias (CHANG: 9 along 222) and a second column of vias (CHANG: 9 along a line next to 222); and
a total number of vias in the first column of vias (CHANG: four vias of 9 along 222) is different than a total number of vias in the second column of vias (CHANG: five vias of 9 along a line next to 222).
Regarding claim 12, CHANG teaches a light-emitting diode (LED) chip (Abstract) comprising:
an active LED structure (fig. 1, epitaxial structure 1; para. 0022) comprising a first layer (first semiconductor structure 11; para. 0042) of a first conductivity type (n-type; para. 0042), a second layer (second semiconductor structure 12; para. 0042) of a second conductivity type (p-type; para. 0042) that is opposite the first conductivity type (n-type), and an active layer (active region 13; para. 0042) between the first layer (11) and the second layer (12);
a first electrode pad (electrode pad 21; para. 0023) on a first side (top side) of the active LED structure (1),
a first electrode extension and a second electrode extension (extension electrodes 224, 226; para. 0023) on the first side (top side) of the active LED structure (1), wherein the first electrode extension and the second electrode extension (224, 226) are electrically connected to the first electrode pad (21); and
a plurality of vias (contact region 9; para. 0024) on a second side (bottom side) of the active LED structure (1) opposite the first side (top side), the plurality of vias (9) arranged in a column (in a line column) and positioned between portions of the active LED structure (1) that are vertically aligned (fig. 2A, 9 are aligned vertically between 224, 226) with the first electrode extension and the second electrode extension (224, 226), and a pitch (distances between the contact portions may gradually increase or decrease; para. 0030) between neighboring vias of the plurality of vias (9) varies along the column (width maybe different in a line) with increasing distance from the first electrode pad (distance from 21).
CHANG fails to teach the first electrode pad arranged proximate a first edge of the active LED structure;
a first electrode extension and a second electrode extension arranged in parallel.
However, Hu teaches the first electrode pad (fig. 1, pad portions 161; para. 0012, similar to 21 of CHANG and change from fig. 4 of Hu) arranged proximate a first edge (bottom edge) of the active LED structure (1);
a first electrode extension and a second electrode extension (first extension portion 163, second extension portions 162; para. 0012, similar to 224, 226 of CHANG) arranged in parallel (162 are parallel).
Hu and CHANG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LED devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified electrode extension from circle pattern to parallel to parallel pattern as taught by Hu.
Doing so would realize one or more pad portions to cover more area (para. 0012). Further, it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 13, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 12, wherein the pitch (CHANG: fig. 1, distances between the contact portions may gradually increase) increases with increasing distance from the first electrode pad (CHANG: distance from 21).
Regarding claim 14, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 13, wherein diameters (CHANG: fig. 2B, first width W1, second width W2, third width W3, fourth width W4 and fifth width W5; para. 0029) of individual vias (CHANG: contact portions 911, 921, 931, 941, 951; para. 0029) of the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) increase along the column with increasing (CHANG: W1<W2<W3<W4<W5; para. 0029) distance from the first electrode pad (CHANG: distance from 21).
Regarding claim 16, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 12, wherein:
the plurality of vias (CHANG: fig. 5, 9) is arranged in a plurality of columns (CHANG: 3 columns along R4 near center) between the first electrode extension and the second electrode extension (CHANG: 224, 226) proximate the first electrode pad (CHANG: 21); and
the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) is arranged in a single column (CHANG: 1 column along R4 away from center) between the first electrode extension and the second electrode extension (CHANG: 224, 226) in a position that is spaced farther away from the first electrode pad (CHANG: 21) than the plurality of columns (CHANG: 3 columns along R4 near center).
Regarding claim 17, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 16, wherein diameters (CHANG: fig. 2B, first width W1, second width W2, third width W3, fourth width W4 and fifth width W5 maybe different; para. 0029) of individual vias of the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) increase with increasing distance from the first electrode pad (CHANG: distance from 21).
Regarding claim 19, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 12, wherein:
the active LED structure (CHANG: fig. 2A, 1) comprises and a second edge (bottom edge) that is opposite the first edge (top edge), and a third edge (left edge) and a fourth edge (right edge) that are opposite one another;
the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) is arranged in a first column of vias (CHANG: 9 along R4) and a second column of vias (CHANG: 9 along a line next to R4) that both extend between the first edge (top edge) and the second edge (bottom edge) of the active LED structure (CHANG: 1); and
positions of vias in the first column (CHANG: 9 along R4) of vias are offset (offset from left to right) relative to positions of vias in the second column (CHANG: 9 along a line next to R4) of vias in a direction (direction from left to right) from the third edge to the fourth edge.
Regarding claim 20, CHANG in view of Hu further teaches the LED chip of claim 12, wherein:
the plurality of vias (CHANG: fig. 2B, 9) is arranged in a first column of vias (CHANG: 9 along 222) and a second column of vias (CHANG: 9 along a line next to 222); and
a total number of vias in the first column of vias (CHANG: four vias of 9 along 222) is different than a total number of vias in the second column of vias (CHANG: five vias of 9 along a line next to 222).
Claims 5-8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANG in view of Hu as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of KIM et al. (US 20110114990).
Regarding claim 5, CHANG in view of Hu teaches the LED chip of claim 1, further comprising a second electrode pad (Hu: fig. 1, another 161) on the first side (top side) of the active LED structure (Hu: light-emitting device 1; para. 0010, similar to 1 of CHANG).
CHANG in view of Hu fails to teach the second electrode pad is arranged proximate a second edge of the active LED structure, and the second edge is opposite the first edge.
However, KIM teaches the second electrode pad (KIM: fig. 2, second electrode pads 61; para. 0031) is arranged proximate a second edge (top edge) of the active LED structure (KIM: light emitting diode), and the second edge (top edge) is opposite the first edge (Kim: bottom edge with first electrode pads 51; para. 0031, similar to 161 of Hu).
KIM, Hu and CHANG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LED devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/move the second electrode pad as taught by KIM.
Doing so would realize more electrode pads to improve current spreading to expand the light emitting region of the light emitting diode (KIM: para. 0007). Furthermore, 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. (MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B.).
Regarding claim 6, CHANG in view of Hu and KIM further teaches the LED chip of claim 5, wherein the diameters (CHANG: fig. 2B, W1, W2, W3, W4, W5) of individual vias of the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) progressively decrease (CHANG: W1>W2>W3>W4>W5; para. 0029) with increasing distance from the first electrode pad (KIM: fig. 1, distance of 51, similar to 21 of CHANG) and the second electrode pad (KIM: distance of 61, similar to 21 of CHANG) toward a center of the active LED structure (KIM: fig. center).
Regarding claim 7, CHANG in view of Hu and KIM further teaches the LED chip of claim 5, wherein the diameters (CHANG: fig. 2B, W1, W2, W3, W4, W5) of individual vias of the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) progressively increase (CHANG: W1<W2<W3<W4<W5; para. 0029) with increasing distance from the first electrode pad (KIM: fig. 1, distance of 51, similar to 21 of CHANG) and the second electrode pad (KIM: distance of 61, similar to 21 of CHANG) toward a center of the active LED structure (KIM: fig. center).
Regarding claim 8, CHANG in view of Hu teaches the LED chip of claim 1, further comprising:
a second electrode pad (Hu: fig. 1, another 161) on the first side (top side) of the active LED structure (Hu: light-emitting device 1; para. 0010, similar to 1 of CHANG);
the first electrode pad and the second electrode pad (Hu: two 161) are arranged proximate the first edge (bottom edge) of the active LED structure (Hu: 1).
CHANG in view of Hu fails to teach a third electrode pad, and a fourth electrode pad on the first side of the active LED structure;
wherein the third electrode pad and the fourth electrode pad are arranged proximate a second edge of the active LED structure, and the second edge is opposite the first edge.
However, KIM teaches a third electrode pad (KIM: fig. 2, left second electrode pads 61; para. 0031), and a fourth electrode pad (KIM: right 61) on the first side (top side) of the active LED structure (KIM: fig. 3);
wherein the third electrode pad and the fourth electrode pad (KIM: two 61) are arranged proximate a second edge (top edge) of the active LED structure (KIM: fig. 3), and the second edge (top edge) is opposite the first edge (bottom edge).
KIM, Hu and CHANG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LED devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a third electrode pad, and a fourth electrode pad as taught by KIM.
Doing so would realize more electrode pads to improve current spreading to expand the light emitting region of the light emitting diode (KIM: para. 0007). Furthermore, 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. (MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B.).
Regarding claim 15, CHANG teaches the LED chip of claim 12, further comprising a second electrode pad (Hu: fig. 1, another 161) on the first side (top side) of the active LED structure (Hu: light-emitting device 1; para. 0010, similar to 1 of CHANG).
CHANG fails to teach the second electrode pad is arranged proximate a second edge of the active LED structure, and the second edge is opposite the first edge;
wherein the pitch between neighboring vias of the plurality of vias is highest proximate a center of the first side of the active LED structure.
However, KIM teaches the second electrode pad (KIM: fig. 2, second electrode pads 61; para. 0031) is arranged proximate a second edge (top edge) of the active LED structure (KIM: light emitting diode), and the second edge (top edge) is opposite the first edge (Kim: bottom edge with first electrode pads 51; para. 0031, similar to 161 of Hu);
wherein the pitch (CHANG: distances between the contact portions may gradually increase; para. 0030) between neighboring vias of the plurality of vias (CHANG: 9) is highest proximate a center (CHANG: increase from two 21 and highest in the center, similar to center of 51 and 61 of Kim) of the first side of the active LED structure (KIM: light emitting diode).
KIM, Hu and CHANG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LED devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add/move the second electrode pad as taught by KIM.
Doing so would realize more electrode pads to improve current spreading to expand the light emitting region of the light emitting diode (KIM: para. 0007). Furthermore, 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. (MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B.).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANG in view of Hu as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of YOUNG et al. (WO 2021115470 from IDS).
Regarding claim 9, CHANG in view of Hu teaches The LED chip of claim 1 including the first electrode pad (Hu: fig. 1, 161).
CHANG in view of Hu fails to explicitly teach the first electrode pad is an electrode bar.
However, YOUNG teaches the first electrode pad (YOUNG: fig. 1, second pad 16; para. 25, similar to 21 of CHANG) is an electrode bar (YOUNG: 16 is a bar).
YOUNG, Hu and CHANG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LED devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the first electrode pad is an electrode bar as taught by YOUNG.
Doing so would realize electrode bar pattern to improve the uniformity of current distribution (YOUNG: para. 7). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 18, CHANG in view of Hu teaches The LED chip of claim 12 including the first electrode pad (Hu: fig. 1, 161).
CHANG in view of Hu fails to explicitly teach the first electrode pad is an electrode bar.
However, YOUNG teaches the first electrode pad (YOUNG: fig. 1, second pad 16; para. 25, similar to 21 of CHANG) is an electrode bar (YOUNG: 16 is a bar).
YOUNG, Hu and CHANG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LED devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the first electrode pad is an electrode bar as taught by YOUNG.
Doing so would realize electrode bar pattern to improve the uniformity of current distribution (YOUNG: para. 7). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHANG in view of YOUNG.
Regarding claim 27, CHANG teaches The LED chip of claim 21 including the first electrode pad (fig. 1, 21).
CHANG fails to explicitly teach the first electrode pad is an electrode bar arranged proximate a first edge of the active LED structure.
However, YOUNG teaches the first electrode pad (YOUNG: fig. 1, second pad 16; para. 25, similar to 21 of CHANG) is an electrode bar (YOUNG: 16 is a bar) arranged proximate a first edge (left edge) of the active LED structure (YOUNG: light-emitting diode; para. 24, similar to 1 of CHANG).
YOUNG and CHANG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of LED devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the first electrode pad is an electrode bar as taught by YOUNG.
Doing so would realize electrode bar pattern to improve the uniformity of current distribution (YOUNG: para. 7). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed on Apr. 15th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to pages 10 of applicant’s response of claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103.
Applicant submits "In the interest of advancing prosecution, claim 21 is amended to specify "a width of the first electrode extension varies with distance from the electrode pad along a majority of a length of the first electrode extension." For at least these reasons, claim 21 is patentably distinct from Chang"
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in fig. 6 of Chang, Chang teaches the rounded end portion is the majority of the length of 224, because the first electrode extension is very short. And the width varies with distance from the electrode pad 21. As result, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Chang teaches all limitations of claim 21. Details of rejections are discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights