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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-15,18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al; (Kim) US 2014/0091338 in view of Chen et al., (Chen) US 2021/0066390.
Regarding claim 1, Kim shows in FIG. 12, a light-emitting diode [0040], comprising: a semiconductor stacked layer (42,43,44)[0059], having lower and upper surfaces opposite to each other; wherein the semiconductor stacked layer comprises: a first semiconductor layer (42)[0059], a light-emitting layer (43)[0059] and a second semiconductor layer (44)[0059] sequentially stacked in that order from the lower surface to the upper surface; a first electrode (46), disposed on the first semiconductor layer (42), and electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer; and a first current blocking layer (48)[0064], disposed between the first semiconductor layer (42) and the first electrode (46); wherein the first current blocking layer (48) comprises: a first blocking area and a second blocking area (edge portion and middle portion); the first blocking area overlaps with the first electrode (46)(portion under 46) and the second blocking area (portion outside 46, slanted area) does not overlap with the first electrode as viewed in a direction from above the light-emitting diode towards the semiconductor stacked layer; and at least part of the second blocking area (portion of 48) is disposed outside an edge of the first electrode proximate to a side of the second electrode.
Kim differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device having a second electrode, disposed on the second semiconductor layer, and electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer.
Chen discloses and shows in FIG. 2D, a device having a second electrode (18), disposed on the second semiconductor layer (122), and electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer.
Chen is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Kim. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Chen in the device of Kim because it will provide a device with high voltage operation [0005, 0006].
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein a shortest distance is defined between the edge of the first electrode (18) and an edge of the second electrode (18 other), and at least part of the second blocking area (230) is located between the edge of the first electrode and the edge of the second electrode with the shortest distance.
Chen is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Kim. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Chen in the device of Kim because it will provide a device with high voltage operation [0005, 0006].
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein the first electrode (46) completely or partially overlaps with the first blocking area (48) as viewed in the direction from above the light-emitting diode towards the semiconductor stacked layer.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein the first electrode (46) partially overlaps with the first blocking area (48) as viewed in the direction from above the light-emitting diode towards the semiconductor stacked layer, and a projection area of the first blocking area (48) on the first semiconductor layer accounts for 5% to 96% of a projection area of the first electrode on the first semiconductor layer.
As for the percentage of projection area, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular projection area. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein the first electrode (46) partially overlaps with the first blocking area (48) as viewed in the direction from above the light-emitting diode towards the semiconductor stacked layer, and a projection area of the first blocking area (48) on the first semiconductor layer accounts for 50% to 96% of a projection area of the first electrode on the first semiconductor layer.
As for the percentage of projection area, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular projection area. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein the first electrode (46) partially overlaps with the first blocking area (48) as viewed in the direction from above the light-emitting diode towards the semiconductor stacked layer, and a projection area of the first blocking area (48) on the first semiconductor layer accounts for 10% to 95% of a projection area of the first current blocking layer on the first semiconductor layer.
As for the percentage of projection area, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular projection area. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein at least part of the first blocking area (48) is disposed inside the edge of the first electrode proximate to the second electrode as viewed in the direction from above the light-emitting diode towards the semiconductor stacked layer.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein the first blocking area (48) partially overlaps with the first electrode (46), the first electrode comprises: a non-overlapping electrode (part of 46) area not overlapping with the first blocking area, and at least part of the non-overlapping electrode area is disposed inside an edge of the first electrode facing away from the second electrode.
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein a projection area of the non-overlapping electrode (46) area on the first semiconductor layer accounts for 4% to 95% of a projection area of the first electrode on the first semiconductor layer.
As for the percentage of projection area, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular projection area. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein the first blocking area (48) and the second blocking area (other part of 48) extend to cover edge areas of the first electrode beyond the non-overlapping electrode area.
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein the semiconductor stacked layer (42,43,44) defines a mesa exposing a part of an upper surface of the first semiconductor layer (42), the first electrode (46) is disposed on the mesa, and a projection of the second blocking area on the mesa is located inside the mesa.
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein a minimum distance is defined between the projection of the second blocking area (part of 48) on the mesa and an edge of the mesa, and the minimum distance is larger than or equal to 1 micron (μm).
As for the distance, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular distance. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein a distance between the second blocking area (part of 48) and the edge of the first electrode is larger than or equal to 1 μm as viewed in the direction from above the light-emitting diode towards the semiconductor stacked layer.
As for the distance, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular distance. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein the first current blocking layer (48) is in an annular shape, and an inner ring of the annular shape is located inside the first electrode (46) as viewed in the direction from above the light-emitting diode towards the semiconductor stacked layer.
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein a pattern of the first current blocking layer (48) is consistent with that of the first electrode, and the pattern of the first current blocking layer (48) is offset towards a direction proximate to the second electrode as viewed in the direction from above the light-emitting diode towards the semiconductor stacked layer.
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein the light-emitting diode further comprises: an insulation layer (99) [0067], covering a side wall of the semiconductor stacked layer.
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Chen as applied to claims 1-15,18,20, and further in view of Wei et al., (Wei) US 2024/0222558.
Regarding claim 16, Kim in view of Chen discloses the light-emitting diode wherein a material of the first current blocking layer (48) is an insulating material that at least partially transmits light, the material of the first current blocking layer is at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon oxide, titanium oxide, silicon nitride, aluminum oxide, magnesium fluoride, spin-on glass and polymer [0078].
Kim in view of Chen differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of the first current blocking layer is in a range of 50 to 500 nanometers (nm).
Wei discloses a device wherein a thickness of the first current blocking layer (70)[0046] is in a range of 50 to 500 nanometers (nm).
Wei is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Kim in view of Chen. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Kim in view of Chen in the device of Wein because it will prevent pushing and cracking of the device [0046].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17,19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights