DETAILED ACTION
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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20140084482 to Hu et al. (Hu) in view of U.S. Pat. No. 8349116 to Bibl et al. (Bibl).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu teaches in Figs. 10A-10C at least, light-emitting apparatus comprising:
(a) a carrier substrate 160;
(b) a multitude of semiconductor light-emitting devices 175 arranged as an array on the carrier substrate, the array of light-emitting devices being characterized by an array spacing and a device separation (spaced apart by air);
(c) for each light-emitting device of the array, a corresponding carrier post 152 between the light-emitting device and the carrier substrate that connects that light-emitting device to the carrier substrate so that the light-emitting device is spaced apart from the carrier substrate, the carrier post
(i) forming the only attachment between the light-emitting device and the carrier substrate,
(ii) being positioned within an areal extent of the light-emitting device, and
(iii) being attached to the light-emitting device at an attachment area thereof that occupies only a fractional portion of the areal extent of the light-emitting device (see Fig. 10A).
Hu does not explicitly teach the carrier post comprising one or more metallic materials or one or more metal or semiconductor oxide, nitride, or oxynitride materials.
However, in analogous art, Bibl teaches that a similar post 210 used in a similar way may be organic (as taught by Hu and previously claimed) and solder 17-18:18-4. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Bibl as a prior art teaching showing materials that may be readily interchanged (MPEP 2144.06-07).
Regarding Claim 2, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 1, the light-emitting devices being light-emitting diodes (LEDs) that include one or more doped or undoped III-V semiconductor materials or combinations, mixtures, or alloys thereof [0056].
Regarding Claim 3, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 1, the attachment area 121-125 of each of the light-emitting devices including one or more metallic or dielectric materials [0059].
Regarding Claim 4, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 3, the one or more materials of the carrier posts (i) extending as a layer on the carrier substrate between the carrier posts and (ii) being spaced apart from the light-emitting devices (see Fig. 10A).
Regarding Claim 5, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 3, an interface between the attachment area of each light-emitting device and the corresponding carrier post exhibiting tensile strength that is less than tensile strength of the carrier post, less than tensile strength of an attachment of the carrier post to the carrier substrate, and less than tensile strength of the light-emitting device [0053].
Regarding Claim 6, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 3, an interface between the attachment area of each light-emitting device and the corresponding carrier post being a metal-metal interface, a metal-dielectric interface, a dielectric-dielectric interface, a metal-polymer interface, or a dielectric-polymer interface (121-125 may be ohmic contacts, 150 modified by 210 of Bibl is solder).
Regarding Claim 8, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 3, the attachment area of each light-emitting device includes one or more metallic materials in electrical contact with, or forming at least a portion of, an electrical contact of the light-emitting device (121-125 are ohmic contacts).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Bibl in view of U.S. Pat.No. 11061276 to Cok.
Regarding Claim 7, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 3, but does not explicitly teach the carrier post including silicon oxide, silicon nitride, or silicon oxynitride.
However, in analogous art, Cok teaches a post 12 similarly situated for detaching an LED 40 made of dielectric 6:66-67. The most well known and used dielectrics in the art are oxides, nitrides and oxynitrides. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include the teaching of Cok as an alternative material to Hu’s non-limiting teaching of polymeric material.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Bibl.
Regarding Claim 10, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that (i) the device separation is less than 50 microns, and (ii) the device spacing is less than 200 microns. However, if a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding Claim 11, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the array of light-emitting devices includes at least 104 light-emitting devices. However, the device of Hu can be scaled to any number of devices (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Claims 9 and 12-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 9, Hu and Bibl teach the light-emitting apparatus of claim 3, but do not explicitly teach that attachment area of each light-emitting device including a portion of a dielectric layer that extends across the light-emitting device, the dielectric layer including one or more grooves or perforations that form an interface between the attachment area and a remainder of the dielectric layer, so that tensile strength of the interface is less than tensile strength exhibited by the carrier post, less than tensile strength exhibited by an attachment of the carrier post to the carrier substrate, and less than tensile strength exhibited by the light-emitting device.
Regarding Claim 12, Hu and Bibl do not teach a post through the sacrificial layer. Rather, the post is a part of the sacrificial layer. GB 2595948 to Ludovic et al. (Ludovic) teaches a post 118 through a sacrificial layer 114 but is silent regarding the sacrificial material. It is further not clear how such a teaching can be combined with the various references in the attached form 892 all teaching polymerized sacrificial layers as they all use the sacrificial material itself as a detaching post.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 EVREN SEVEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5666. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00- 5:00 Pacific.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/EVREN SEVEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights