SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE

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) 1-18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., (Huang) US 2023/0081600 in view of Wang et al., (Wang ) US 2021/0343913 and Perzlmaier US 2019/0198717. Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses and shows in FIG. 22,23, a light-emitting device, including: a semiconductor stack (120) FIG. 22,23, [0069]; a substrate (110) FIG. 22,23, [0069] located on the semiconductor stack (120), including a lower surface connected to the semiconductor stack (120), an upper surface opposite to the lower surface and a side surface located between the lower surface and the upper surface (see 110), wherein the side surface includes a mirror area (within 110) FIG. 22,23,[0069], a first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0069] [0070], and a first crack area (111A-2) FIG. 22,23, [0069] [0070], the mirror area is closer to the lower surface than the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0069] to the lower surface, and the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0069] is located between the mirror area and the first crack area (111A-2) FIG. 22,23, [0069]; wherein the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0069] is located below the upper surface of the substrate (110) FIG. 22,23, [0069] at a distance less than or equal to ¼ of a thickness of the substrate (110) FIG. 22,23, [0069]. Huang differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device having an optical structure located on the upper surface of the substrate; and a reflective structure contacting a side surface of the first dicing area and the first crack area. Wang discloses and shows a device having an optical structure (1a-1f) located on the upper surface of the substrate; and a reflective structure (58) located on a side surface of the first dicing area and the first crack area (disclosed by Huang). Wang is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Huang. 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 Wang in the device of Huang because it will improve the current spreading efficiency [0026] and improve the scribing yield [0050]. Perzlmaier discloses a reflective structure (6, FIG. 3, [0042,0068]) (6 is structure with 60% reflectance, it is a reflective layer) contacting a side surface. Perzlmaier is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Huang and Wang. 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 Perzlmaier in the device of Huang and Wang because this structure increased contrast between the luminous and non-luminous areas of the main surface of the component [0042]. As for the value of the distance, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular value of the 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 claims 2-6, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, a light-emitting device wherein the mirror area includes a width greater than 75 μm [0058,0059, 0072] FIG. 22,23; wherein the first dicing area includes a first dicing width between 4 μm and 30 μm. [0058,0059, 0072] FIG. 22,23; wherein the first dicing area is located below the upper surface of the substrate at a distance less than 45 μm [0058,0059, 0072] FIG. 22,23; wherein the first dicing area is located below the upper surface of the substrate at a distance less than 25 μm, and the distance is larger than 1 μm [0058,0059, 0072] FIG. 22,23; wherein the first dicing area and the first crack area include a total width smaller than a total width of the mirror area [0058,0059, 0072] FIG. 22,23; wherein the substrate further comprises a first surface and a second surface connected to the side surface with an angle, when a light emitted from the light-emitting device is viewed from the first surface, a difference between a light intensity measured at +300 with respect to a main optical axis of the light and a light intensity measured at -30 with respect to the main optical axis of the light is less than 2% [0058,0059, 0072] FIG. 22,23; wherein when the light emitted from the light-emitting device is viewed from the second surface, a difference between a light intensity measured at +300 with respect to the main optical axis of the light and a light intensity measured at -30 with respect to the main optical axis of the light is less than 2% [0058,0059, 0072] FIG. 22,23. As for the value of the area, the width, and the distance, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular value of the area, the width, and the 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 7, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, the light-emitting device wherein the first dicing area 111A-1 includes a roughness standard deviation (RMS) larger than a roughness standard deviation (RMS) of the first crack area (111A-2) 22,23 [0045, 0059], and the roughness standard deviation (RMS) of the first crack area is larger than a roughness standard deviation (RMS) of the mirror area FIG. 22,23 [0045, 0059]. Regarding claim 8, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, the light-emitting device wherein the first dicing area (112) [0071] includes a plurality of dicing convex portions (FIG. 20) and/or a plurality of dicing concave portions, and the first crack area includes a plurality of crack convex portions and/or a plurality of crack concave portions extending to the upper surface of the substrate from the first dicing area (see FIG. 20,23). Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, a light-emitting device wherein the plurality of dicing convex portions (112) FIG. 22,23 [0071] and/or the plurality of dicing concave portions include an amount or a size larger than an amount or a size of the plurality of crack convex portions and/or the plurality of crack concave portions (see FIG. 20,23). Regarding claim 10, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, the light-emitting device wherein a minimum distance between the plurality of dicing convex portions and/or the plurality of dicing concave portions (112) FIG. 22,23 [0045, 0059] is smaller than a minimum distance between the plurality of crack convex portions and/or the plurality of crack concave portions. As for the value of the distance, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular value of the 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 11, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, a light-emitting device wherein the mirror area (110) FIG. 22,23, [0063] includes a plurality of mirror portions passing through the first dicing area (111A) FIG. 22,23 to divide the first dicing area into a plurality of first dicing portions, and one of the plurality of mirror portions is located between two adjacent ones of the plurality first dicing portions (see FIG. 22,23). Regarding claim 12, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, the light-emitting device, wherein one of the plurality of first dicing portions (111A) FIG. 22,23, [0063] includes a first length larger than a second length of one of the plurality of mirror portions in a direction parallel to the upper surface (see FIG. 22,23). Regarding claim 13, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, the light-emitting device wherein the mirror portion (110) FIG. 22,23, [0063, 0072] includes a length of 0.5 to 0.8 [0072] times a length of one side of the light-emitting device in a side view of the light-emitting device. As for the value of the length, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular value of the length. 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, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, the light-emitting device wherein in a side view of the light-emitting device, the side surface includes two edges, and the first dicing area adjacent to the two edges of the substrate (110) FIG. 22,23, [0063] includes a roughness standard deviation (RMS) larger than a roughness standard deviation (RMS) of the first dicing area (111) FIG. 22,23, [0063] away from the two sides of the substrate [0045, 0059]. Regarding claims 15-18, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, the light-emitting device further including a second dicing area (111A-1, multiple in 110) FIG. 22,23, [0063] located between the first dicing area (1st 111A-1) and the upper surface of the substrate (110); wherein the first crack area (111A-2) is located between the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0063] and the second dicing area (second 111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0063]; wherein the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0063] includes a first width larger than a second width of the second dicing area; wherein the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0063] includes a first width smaller than a second width of the second dicing area; wherein the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0063] FIG. 22,23, [0063] includes a first width that is the same as a second width of the second dicing area (second 111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0063]. As for the width, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular value of the width. 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 20, Huang in view of Wang and Perzlmaier discloses and shows in FIG. 15-23, the light-emitting device wherein the optical structure contains a wavelength conversion material (the composition of the LED can be adjusted emit desired emission wavelength) (see Huang [0040]) and includes a layered structure (1a-1f)(see Wang). Wang is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Huang. 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 Wang in the device of Huang and Perzlmaier because it will improve the current spreading efficiency [0026] and improve the scribing yield [0050]. Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al., (Huang) US 2023/0081600 in view of Wang et al., (Wang ) US 2021/0343913; Perzlmaier US 2019/0198717; and Chao et al., (Chao) US 2019/0157507. Regarding claim 24, Huang discloses and shows in FIG. 22,23, a circuit board; and one or more light-emitting devices disposed on the circuit board (A4, FIG.14, [0049])(typically it is inherent that a board will be used to support the LED device); wherein the one or more light-emitting devices comprise: a semiconductor stack (120) FIG. 22,23, [0069]; a substrate (110) FIG. 22,23, [0069] located on the semiconductor stack (120), including a lower surface connected to the semiconductor stack (120), an upper surface opposite to the lower surface and a side surface located between the lower surface and the upper surface (see 110), wherein the side surface includes a mirror area (within 110) FIG. 22,23,[0069], a first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0069] [0070], and a first crack area (111A-2) FIG. 22,23, [0069] [0070], the mirror area is closer to the lower surface than the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0069] to the lower surface, and the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0069] is located between the mirror area and the first crack area (111A-2) FIG. 22,23, [0069]; wherein the first dicing area (111A-1) FIG. 22,23, [0069] is located below the upper surface of the substrate (110) FIG. 22,23, [0069] at a distance less than or equal to ¼ of a thickness of the substrate (110) FIG. 22,23, [0069]. Huang differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device having an optical structure located on the upper surface of the substrate; and a reflective structure contacting a side surface of the first dicing area and the first crack area; and a circuit board. Wang discloses and shows a device having an optical structure (1a-1f) located on the upper surface of the substrate; and a reflective structure (58) located on a side surface of the first dicing area and the first crack area (disclosed by Huang). Wang is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Huang. 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 Wang in the device of Huang because it will improve the current spreading efficiency [0026] and improve the scribing yield [0050]. Perzlmaier discloses a reflective structure (6, FIG. 3, [0042,0068]) (6 is structure with 60% reflectance, it is a reflective layer) contacting a side surface. Perzlmaier is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Huang and Wang. 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 Perzlmaier in the device of Huang and Wang because this structure increased contrast between the luminous and non-luminous areas of the main surface of the component [0042]. As for the value of the distance, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular value of the 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). Chao discloses and shows a circuit board, and one or more LED devices disposed on the circuit board (49, FIG. 12, [0073]). Chao is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Huang, Wang, and Perzlmaier. 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 Chao in the device of device of Huang, Wang, and Perzlmaier because it will facilitate control of the device [0073]. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) claims 1-18,21 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. 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 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