DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
General Remarks
2. 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection.
3. When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with paragraph numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
4. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
Specification
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
“Flip-chip Light Emitting Diode and Production Method and Use Thereof”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “wherein said second electrode has a multi-layered structure, and has a layer that is in contact with said second-type window sublayer, that is made from one of an Au-containing alloy and an Au-containing alloy,” which repeats the limitation “an Au-containing alloy.” Applicant is advised to correct claim 19 by removing said repeated limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Chong Cook (Pub No. US 20170358705 A1) (hereinafter, Kim), and further in view of Hennessy, John J. et al. (Pub No. US 20140166066 A1) (hereinafter, Hennessy).
Re Claim 1, Kim teaches a light emitting device comprising:
an epitaxial structure including a first-type semiconductor layer (Second conductivity type semiconductor layer/second clad layer; 73/71; Fig 6; ¶[0032]), an active layer (Active layer; 51; Fig 6; ¶[0046]), and a second-type semiconductor layer (First conductivity type semiconductor layer/first clad layer; 41/43; Fig 6; ¶[0032]),
said second-type semiconductor layer having a second-type cladding sublayer (First clad layer; 43; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) and a second-type window sublayer (First conductivity type semiconductor layer; 41; Fig 6; ¶[0032]), (See Fig 6 below)
Kim, Fig 6: Light-emitting device with illustration of first-type and second-type semiconductor layers, first-type and second-type electrodes, and active layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
330
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
said active layer being made from aluminum gallium indium phosphide (AlGaInP) (Well layer 53 is within active layer 51 comprises AlInGaP; ¶[0090]) and disposed on (51 is above 41/43; Fig 6) said second-type semiconductor layer,
said first-type semiconductor layer being disposed on (73/71 is above 51; Fig 6) said active layer opposite to said second-type semiconductor layer;
a first electrode (Electrode; 95; Fig 6; ¶[0130]) disposed on an electrode placement side (Upper surfaces of 73 & 41; Fig 6) of said epitaxial structure, so that said first electrode is electrically connected with said first-type semiconductor layer; and
a second electrode (Electrode; 91; Fig 6; ¶[0130]) disposed on said electrode placement side of said epitaxial structure, so that said second electrode is electrically connected with said second-type semiconductor layer, said second electrode being in ohmic contact (First electrode 91 may be in ohmic contact with first conductivity type semiconductor layer 41; Fig 6; ¶[0131]) with said second-type window sublayer;
However, Kim does not teach wherein said second-type window sublayer has a doping concentration varying in a thickness direction thereof, and
a portion of said second-type window sublayer closer to said second electrode having a doping concentration higher than that of another portion of said second-type window sublayer farther from said second electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Hennessy teaches wherein said second-type window sublayer (Template layer, i.e. includes second graded portion 124; 120; Fig 13A; ¶[0035]) has a doping concentration (Grading rate of one component of the layer, i.e. may be the n-type dopant; ¶[0035]) varying in a thickness direction (Graded in composition as a function of thickness; ¶[0035]) thereof, and
a portion (Upper portions of 124; Fig 13A) of said second-type window sublayer closer to said second electrode (Active cell bottom silicide; 1210; Fig 13A; ¶[0061]) having a doping concentration (Doping concentration may change as a function of position; Note: In the broadest reasonable interpretation this may be graded higher near the conductor and lower away from said conductor; ¶[0035])) higher than that of another portion of said second-type window sublayer farther from said second electrode. (See Fig 13A below)
Hennessy, Fig 13A: Formation step of a solar cell array with integrated devices
PNG
media_image2.png
340
443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used said second-type window sublayer having a doping concentration varying in a thickness direction thereof, and a portion of said second-type window sublayer closer to said second electrode having a doping concentration higher than that of another portion of said second-type window sublayer farther from said second electrode, as taught by Hennessy, for the second-type window sublayer of the light-emitting device of Kim. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because a doping concentration being graded within the second-type window sublayer may serve to lattice-match the upper electrode to relieve lattice mismatch strain (Hennessy; ¶¶[0008, 0035]).
Re Claim 3, Kim in view of Hennessy does not teach the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said epitaxial structure has a size of not greater than 300 µm × 300 µm.
Kim fails to disclose the exact size of the epitaxial structure as claimed.
Nevertheless, as depicted in Figure 6 of Kim, such features must possess particular dimension. The choice of the minimum distance between the first connection structure and the first connection trace is matter of engineering design choice; therefore, obvious expedient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kim's size of the epitaxial structure because this would be the best engineering design choice.
In addition, the selection of the particular ranges as claimed is obvious expedient because given Applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of the specific limitation.
“Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” – MPEP 2144.04"
Re Claim 4, Kim teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 3, wherein said second-type cladding sublayer (First clad layer; 43; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) and said second-type window sublayer (First conductivity type semiconductor layer; 41; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) that are proximate to and distal from said active layer (Active layer; 51; Fig 6; ¶[0046]), respectively (43 is proximate to 51 and 41 is distal to 51; Fig 6).
Re Claim 5, Kim teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said second-type semiconductor layer (First conductivity type semiconductor layer/first clad layer; 41/43; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) is an n-type semiconductor layer (¶[0042]).
Re Claim 8, Kim teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said first-type semiconductor layer (Second conductivity type semiconductor layer/second clad layer; 73/71; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) has a first-type window sublayer (Second conductivity type semiconductor layer; 73; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) and a first-type cladding sublayer (Second clad layer; 71; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) that are distal from and proximate to said active layer (Active layer; 51; Fig 6; ¶[0046]), respectively (73 is distal to 51 and 71 is proximate to 51; Fig 6).
Re Claim 12, Kim teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said first-type semiconductor layer (Second conductivity type semiconductor layer/second clad layer; 73/71; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) is made from a material selected from the group consisting of AlGaAs, AlGaInP, aluminum indium phosphide (AlInP), gallium phosphide (GaP), and combinations thereof (At least one of GaN, MN, AlGaN, InGaN, InN, InAlGaN, AlInN, AlGaAs, GaP, GaAs, GaAsP, and AlGaInP; ¶[0082]).
Re Claim 13, Kim teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said second-type semiconductor layer (First conductivity type semiconductor layer/first clad layer; 41/43; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) is made from a material selected from the group consisting of AlGaAs, AlGaInP, AlInP, GaP, and combinations thereof (At least one of at least one of GaN, AlN, AlGaN, InGaN, InN, InAlGaN, AlInN, AlGaAs, GaP, GaAs, GaAsP, and AlGaInP; ¶[0042]).
Re Claim 14, Kim teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said second-type cladding sublayer (First clad layer; 43; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) and said second-type window sublayer (First conductivity type semiconductor layer; 41; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) that are proximate to and distal from said active layer, respectively, said second-type window sublayer being made from a material selected from the group consisting of AlGaAs, AlGaInP, and a combination thereof (At least one of at least one of GaN, AlN, AlGaN, InGaN, InN, InAlGaN, AlInN, AlGaAs, GaP, GaAs, GaAsP, and AlGaInP; ¶[0042]).
Re Claim 15, Kim teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said second electrode (Electrode; 91; Fig 6; ¶[0130]) is in one of a single-layered form and a multi-layered form (Single-layered form; Fig 6), a contact portion (Lower surface of 91 or contact layer; Fig 6; ¶[0131]) of said second electrode in contact with said second-type window sublayer being made from one of gold (Au) and an Au-containing alloy (May be selected from Au (Gold); ¶[0131]).
Re Claim 16, Kim in view of Hennessy does not teach the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising a first metallic layer that is disposed over and in contact with said first electrode, and a second metallic layer that is disposed over and in contact with said second electrode, said first and second metallic layers being larger in surface area than said first and second electrodes, respectively.
In the same field of endeavor, Hennessy teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, further comprising a first metallic layer (Conductor above silicide 1200; 1300; Fig 13A; ¶[0061]) that is disposed over and in contact with said first electrode (Silicide; 1200; Fig 13A; ¶[0059]), and a second metallic layer (Conductor above silicide 1210; 1300; Fig 13A; ¶[0061]) that is disposed over and in contact with said second electrode (Silicide; 1210; Fig 13A; ¶[0059]), said first and second metallic layers being larger in surface area (Upper and lower conductors are larger in surface area than silicides 1200/1210; Fig 13A) than said first and second electrodes, respectively.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used a first metallic layer that is disposed over and in contact with said first electrode, and a second metallic layer that is disposed over and in contact with said second electrode, said first and second metallic layers being larger in surface area than said first and second electrodes, respectively, as taught by Hennessy, for the light-emitting device of Kim. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because a larger surface area of a conductor above the electrodes/silicides allows for total power to be greater between attachment sites of the light-emitting device and the electrodes due to a greater surface area (Hennessy; ¶[0004]).
Re Claim 18, Kim teaches the light emitting apparatus as claimed in Claim 16, wherein said second-type semiconductor layer (First conductivity type semiconductor layer/first clad layer; 41/43; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) of said epitaxial structure further includes a second-type barrier sublayer (N-type barrier layer; 55; Fig 5; ¶[0057]) disposed on said second-type cladding sublayer (First clad layer; 43; Fig 6; ¶[0032]) opposite to said second-type window sublayer (First conductivity type semiconductor layer; 41; Fig 6; ¶[0032]).
Re Claim 19, Kim teaches the light emitting apparatus as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said second electrode (Electrode; 91; Fig 6; ¶[0130]) has a multi-layered structure (May be an arm or finger structure with current diffusion pattern; ¶[0131]), and has a layer (Bottom layer of electrode 91; Fig 6) that is in contact with said second-type window sublayer (First conductivity type semiconductor layer; 41; Fig 6; ¶[0032]), that is made from an Au-containing alloy (May be selected from Au (Gold); ¶[0131]).
However, Kim in view of Hennessy does not teach said second electrode has a thickness ranging from 1 nm to 50 nm.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the thickness of the second electrode to have a range of about 1 nm to about 50 nm, to be a result effective variable affecting the size and density of the flip-chip light-emitting device to be optimum, such that light output and current spreading are improved. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the thickness of the first metal seed layer within the claimed range, since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. (See MPEP 2144.05 II.B)
9. Claims 2, 6, 9-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Chong Cook (Pub No. US 20170358705 A1) (hereinafter, Kim) in view of Hennessy, John J. et al. (Pub No. US 20140166066 A1) (hereinafter, Hennessy) as applied to claims 1 and 19, and further in view of Kinoshita, Toru et al. (Pub No. US 20190189834 A1) (hereinafter, Kinoshita).
Re Claim 2, Kim in view of Hennessy does not teach the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the doping concentration of said second-type window sublayer is not less than 1×10^18 atoms/cm3.
In the same field of endeavor, Kinoshita teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the doping concentration (Concentration of n-type dopant, e.g. Silicon (Si); ¶[0033]) of said second-type window sublayer (Second composition gradient layer, i.e. part of n-type semiconductor layer 13; 13B; Fig 1; ¶[0033]) is not less than 1×10^18 atoms/cm3 (Between 1x10^18 to 5x10^19 atoms/cm3). (See Fig 1 below)
Kinoshita, Fig 1: Optical semiconductor element comprising of a second composition gradient layer below the n-electrode
PNG
media_image3.png
327
490
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the doping concentration of said second-type window sublayer which is not less than 1×10^18 atoms/cm3, as taught by Kinoshita, for the light-emitting device of Kim. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success in order to obtain high enough conductivity such that light may be emitted efficiently through the substrate (Kinoshita; ¶[0033]).
Re Claim 6, Kim in view of Hennessy does not teach the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein a thickness of said second-type window sublayer ranges from 500 nm to 5000 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Kinoshita teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein a thickness of said second-type window sublayer (Second composition gradient layer, i.e. part of n-type semiconductor layer 13; 13B; Fig 1; ¶[0033]) ranges from 500 nm to 5000 nm (500 nm to 1 micron; ¶[0056]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used said second-type window sublayer with a thickness ranging from 500 nm to 5000 nm, as taught by Kinoshita, for the second-type window sublayer of Kim. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because large current flows between the n-electrode and active layer through the second-type window sublayer due to its increased conducitivity, therefore the thickness of the second-type window sublayer must be sufficient to channel said large current to prevent an increase in operation voltage (Kinoshita; ¶[0056]).
Re Claim 9, Kim in view of Hennessy does not teach the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said second-type window sublayer has a doping concentration ranging from 1×10^18 atoms/cm3 to 2×10^18 atoms/cm3.
In the same field of endeavor, Kinoshita teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said second-type window sublayer (N-type semiconductor layer; 13; Fig 1; ¶[0033]) has a doping concentration (Concentration of n-type dopant, e.g. Silicon (Si); ¶[0033]) ranging from 1×10^18 atoms/cm3 to 2×10^18 atoms/cm3 (Between 1x10^18 to 5x10^19 atoms/cm3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used the doping concentration of said second-type window sublayer which is not less than 1×10^18 to 2x10^18 atoms/cm3, as taught by Kinoshita, for the light-emitting device of Kim. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success in order to obtain high enough conductivity such that light may be emitted efficiently through the substrate (Kinoshita; ¶[0033]).
Re Claim 10, Kim in view of Hennessy does not teach the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said second-type window sublayer has a thickness ranging from 2.5 µm to 3.5 µm.
In the same field of endeavor, Kinoshita teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein said second-type window sublayer (Second composition gradient layer, i.e. part of n-type semiconductor layer 13; 13B; Fig 1; ¶[0033]) has a thickness ranging from 2.5 µm to 3.5 µm (1 micron or more; ¶[0056]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used said second-type window sublayer with a thickness ranging from 2.5 microns to 3.5 microns, as taught by Kinoshita, for the second-type window sublayer of Kim. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because large current flows between the n-electrode and active layer through the second-type window sublayer due to its increased conducitivity, therefore the thickness of the second-type window sublayer must be sufficient to channel said large current to prevent an increase in operation voltage (Kinoshita; ¶[0056]).
Re Claim 20, Kim in view of Hennessy does not teach the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 19, wherein a thickness of said second-type window sublayer ranges from 2.5 µm to 3.5 µm.
In the same field of endeavor, Kinoshita teaches the light emitting device as claimed in Claim 19, wherein a thickness of said second-type window sublayer (Second composition gradient layer, i.e. part of n-type semiconductor layer 13; 13B; Fig 1; ¶[0033]) ranges from 2.5 µm to 3.5 µm (1 micron or more; ¶[0056]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used said second-type window sublayer with a thickness ranging from 2.5 microns to 3.5 microns, as taught by Kinoshita, for the second-type window sublayer of Kim. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because large current flows between the n-electrode and active layer through the second-type window sublayer due to its increased conducitivity, therefore the thickness of the second-type window sublayer must be sufficient to channel said large current to prevent an increase in operation voltage (Kinoshita; ¶[0056]).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 7, 11 and 17 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.
11. Regarding claim 7, the closest prior art Ishizaki, Junya (Pub No. WO 2016110916 A1) (hereinafter, Ishizaki) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
“The light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein barriers and wells of said active layer are respectively made from Al(a10Ga(1-a1)InP and Al(a2)Ga(1-a2)InP, with a1 being larger than a2,”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as claimed and defined by applicant.
In the instant case, re claim 7, Ishizaki teaches a barrier layer with an Al(z)Ga(1-z) formula, however the well layer is GaAs. Due to the well layer not comprising AlGa of a varying concentration, Ishizaki cannot be combined with any other prior art elements such that a predictable result may be obtained.
12. Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art Kim, Chong Cook (Pub No. US 20170358705 A1) (hereinafter, Kim) in view of Hennessy, John J. et al. (Pub No. US 20140166066 A1) (hereinafter, Hennessy) and Kinoshita, Toru et al. (Pub No. US 20190189834 A1) (hereinafter, Kinoshita) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
“The light emitting device as claimed in Claim 1, wherein some metal atoms in said second electrode diffuses into said second-type window sublayer,”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as claimed and defined by applicant.
In the instant case, re claim 11, Kim in view of Hennessy and Kinoshita does not teach a light-emitting device in which some metal atoms in said second electrode diffuses into said second-type window sublayer. Therefore, the prior art cannot be combined with any other prior art elements such that a predictable result may be obtained.
13. Regarding claim 17, the closest prior art Kim, Chong Cook (Pub No. US 20170358705 A1) (hereinafter, Kim) in view of Hennessy, John J. et al. (Pub No. US 20140166066 A1) (hereinafter, Hennessy) and Kinoshita, Toru et al. (Pub No. US 20190189834 A1) (hereinafter, Kinoshita) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
“The light emitting device as claimed in Claim 16, wherein said first metallic layer and second metallic layer are reflective layers,”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as claimed and defined by applicant.
In the instant case, re claim 17, Kim in view of Hennessy and Kinoshita does not teach said first metallic layer and second metallic layer are reflective layers. Therefore, the prior art cannot be combined with any other prior art elements such that a predictable result may be obtained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
[1] Kang Dong Hun et al. (Pub No. KR 20120111364 A) discloses a light emitting device comprising AlINN layers alternatively laminated and stacked to reduce stress, and also includes an active layer below the p-type region and a semiconductor layer below the n-type region. In general, the light emitting device has a structure in which a nitride semiconductor is grown on a sapphire substrate to emit light. Sapphire, SiC, Si, GaN and the like are used as the substrate, and a method of giving a pattern to the substrate is generally used to improve light extraction efficiency.
[2] Kim Kyoung Hoon et al. (Pub No. KR 20140073284 A) discloses a light emitting diode comprising of a substrate; a light emitting structure having a first conductive semiconductor layer, an active layer, and a second conductive semiconductor layer which are arranged on the substrate to be sequentially stacked; and at least either a first current diffusion layer which is arranged on a boundary between the first conductive semiconductor layer and the active layer or a second current diffusion layer which is arranged on a boundary between the active layer and the second conductive semiconductor layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY EDWARD DUREN whose telephone number is (703)756-1426. The examiner can normally be reached 07:30 - 17:00 PST.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.E.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights