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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on August 3rd, 2026, is acknowledged. Therefore, Claims 19-20 are hereby withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. For the clarity of the record, Examiner notes that on page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks in response to the restriction requirement, Applicant “requests reconsideration and examination of the elected cla[i]ms 1-7 and 9-20 on the merits”. As was stated earlier in Applicant’s remarks, Group I, comprising Claims 1-18, was elected without traverse. Therefore, Examiner is making clear for the record that Claims 1-18 are to be examined on the merits with Claims 19-20 being withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the within application. Claims 19-20 have been withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s response to restriction requirement submitted on August 3rd, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, and 15 have been amended. Therefore, Claims 1-18 are subject to the within examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55, more specifically to Applicant’s request for priority to TW112116857 (filed on May 5th, 2025). However, should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been provided by the Applicant.
Specification
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: “LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE THAT SUPPORTS NARROWER MESA LAYOUTS”.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to for being in excess of 150 words and for failing to be in narrative form (e.g., a recitation of Claim 1). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The specification is objected to as the section headings are in bold type. Pursuant to MPEP 608.01(a) and 37 C.F.R. 1.77(c), “The text of the specification sections defined in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(12) of this section, if applicable, should be preceded by a section heading in uppercase and without underlining or bold type” (emphasis added). The instant application has section headings with bold type. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a) [0047], “… outside the operational region R2” should read “outside the operational region R1”, as R2 corresponds to a non-operational region.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a) “and the second opening are respectively located on the central areas” should read, “and the second openings are respectively located on the central areas”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8, 12, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, et al. (US 20170365745 A1; hereinafter referred to as Yang) and further in view of Hsu, et al. (TW 202218181 A; hereinafter referred to as Hsu).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
781
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses a light-emitting device (light-emitting device 100, [0029], Fig. 1C), comprising:
a semiconductor stack (emission structure 103, [0030], Fig. 1C), comprising a first semiconductor layer (first semiconductor layer 103A, [0032], Fig. 1C) and a plurality of mesas spaced apart from each other on the first semiconductor layer (mesa region MR, [0032], Fig. 1A, Fig. 9C), wherein the plurality of mesas each comprises a second semiconductor layer (second semiconductor layer 103C, [0032], Fig. 1C);
a contact metal formed on the semiconductor stack (protection pattern layer 105, [0030], Fig. 1A), comprising a plurality of second contact parts located on the mesas and electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer (protection patterns 105P, [0030], Fig. 1C);
a first insulating structure formed on the contact metal (first insulating pattern layer 109, [0030], Fig. 1C), comprising a plurality of first openings (see Annotated Fig. 1C) and a plurality of second openings corresponding to the second contact parts (see Annotated Fig. 1C);
a current spreading electrode formed on the first insulating structure (first electrode layer 113 and second electrode layer 115 together form the current spreading electrode, [0049], Fig. 1C), comprising a first current spreader (second electrode layer 115, [0049], Fig. 1C), wherein the first current spreader is located between the mesas and filled in the first openings to connect the first contact parts (see Annotated Fig. 1C);
a second insulating structure formed on the current spreading electrode (second insulating pattern layer 117, [0058], Fig. 1C), comprising a third opening on the first current spreader and a plurality of fourth openings formed on the mesas (see Annotated Fig. 1C); and
an electrode pad structure formed on the second insulating structure (first isolated electrode layer 119A and second isolated electrode layer 119B together form the electrode pad structure, [0059], Fig. 1C), comprising a first electrode pad filled in the third opening (second isolated electrode layer 119B, [0059], Fig. 1C), and a plurality of second electrode pads filled in the fourth openings, respectively (first isolated electrode layer 119A, [0059], Fig. 1C).
Yang fails to disclose the contact metal further comprising a plurality of first contact parts located between the mesas and electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer and that the third openings are corresponding to the first contact parts.
However, in analogous art, Hsu discloses a contact metal (Hsu: contact electrodes 16, Fig. 3) comprising a plurality of first contact parts located between the mesas and electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer (Hsu: first contact electrode 16a, Fig. 3), and
a first insulating structure formed on the contact metal (Hsu: first insulating layer 17, Fig. 3) comprising a plurality of first openings corresponding to the first contact parts (Hsu: first openings 171, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display device as disclosed by Yang such that first contact parts were used in addition to the second contact parts as disclosed by Hsu, and that the first openings correspond to the first contact parts, as also disclosed by Hsu. Pursuant to MPEP 2143(I)(B), it would have been obvious because the prior art contained a display device which differed from the instant display device by the substitution of first contact parts instead of having the current spreading electrode be in direct contact with the first semiconductor layer, and that the first contact parts and their functions were known in the art, as disclosed by Hsu. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the first contact parts of Hsu in place of the direct contact between current spreading electrode and first semiconductor layer of Yang, and the results of said substitution (e.g., an improve display device) would have been predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein parts of the second contact parts form a second contact group (Yang: see Annotated Fig. 1C) and the second contact group is located on one of the mesas (Yang: see Annotated Fig. 1C); and
wherein in a plan view, one of the fourth openings is located between the second contact parts within the second contact group (Yang: see Annotated Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the current spreading electrode further comprises a plurality of second current spreaders (Yang: first electrode layer 113, [0051], Fig. 1C), wherein the second current spreaders are respectively formed on the mesas and filled in the second openings to connect the second contact parts (Yang: [0051], Fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 2, wherein in a plan view, the second contact parts in the second contact group are arranged symmetrically with respect to a center of the second semiconductor layer of the one of the mesas (Yang: Fig. 1C).
PNG
media_image2.png
945
1394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of mesas comprises a first mesa and a second mesa adjacent to each other (Yang: Fig. 1C), and parts of the plurality of the first contact parts form a first contact group located between the first mesa and the second mesa (Hsu: see Annotated Fig. 3), and
wherein in a plan view, the third opening is located between the first contact parts within the first contact group (Hsu: see Annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first electrode pad comprises multiple first electrode pads (Yang: Fig. 1A), and the multiple first electrode pads are respectively located between the plurality of mesas (Yang: Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 8, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of mesas comprises side walls and a top surface (Yang: see Annotated Fig. 1C, Hsu: see Annotated Fig. 3), and the first current spreader (Hsu: first extension electrode 20a, Fig. 3) covers the side walls and the top surface of each of the plurality of mesas (Hsu: see Annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Yang does not disclose the light-emitting device further comprising a transparent conductive layer formed between the second semiconductor layer and the second contact parts.
However, Hsu discloses a light-emitting device further comprising a transparent conductive layer formed between the second semiconductor layer and the second contact parts (transparent conductive layer 14, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the light-emitting device as disclosed in Yang by introducing the transparent conductive layer 14 as disclosed by Hsu. One would be motivated to do so in order to more uniformly diffuse current through the second semiconductor layer and, thus, creating a more efficient light-emitting device (Hsu: page 4, paragraph 7 of the attached computer-generated translation).
Regarding Claim 15, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein in a plan view, one of the second current spreaders has an area larger than that of one the second contact parts and smaller than that of the second semiconductor layer of one of the mesas (Hsu: Fig. 3; the second current spreader [second extension electrode 20b] has a larger area than the second contact part [second contact electrode 16b] and a smaller area than that of the second semiconductor layer).
Regarding Claim 18, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first contact parts are located at an edge of the light-emitting device (Hsu: Fig. 1; the first contact parts are located at an edge of the light-emitting device).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Hsu as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Chiu, et al. (US 20200243598 A1; hereinafter referred to as Chiu).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of second contact parts comprises a central area (Hsu: second contact pad 161b, Fig. 1).
The combination of Yang/Hsu does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of second contact parts comprises a central area and a plurality of extension areas, and the second opening[s] are respectively located on the central areas.
PNG
media_image3.png
639
922
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, in analogous art, Chiu discloses wherein each of the plurality of second contact parts (Chiu: second insulating portion 230b, [0032], Figs. 1 and 2) comprises a central area (Chiu: see Annotated Fig. 1) and a plurality of extension areas (Chiu: see Annotated Fig. 1), and the second opening[s] are respectively located on the central areas (Chiu: [0033], Figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the plurality of second contact parts as taught in Yang/Tsuji such that they comprise a central area and a plurality of extension areas as disclosed by Chiu. One would be motivated to do so in order to block current from directly being injected into the semiconductor stack through the pad electrodes located on top of the second contact parts and to push current to spread through the various other conductive layers throughout the device (Chiu: [0038]), which increases device performance.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Hsu as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Hong, et al. (US 20230361154 A1; hereinafter referred to as Hong).
Regarding Claim 9, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 3, wherein the first current spreader and the second current spreaders do not overlap each other and a minimum distance is set therebetween (Hsu: Fig. 3).
The combination of Yang/Hsu fails to explicitly disclose the minimum distance is greater than or equal to a minimum distance between two adjacent mesas of the plurality of mesas.
However, in analogous art, Hong discloses the distance between two adjacent mesas of the plurality of mesas can be less than 1 µm while also being greater than 10 µm (Hong: [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the minimum distance between the first and second current spreader to be greater than or equal to the minimum distance set between two adjacent plurality of mesas as one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application would have known that the minimum distance between two adjacent mesas can be optimized below 1 µm. Additionally, the instant application fails to give criticality to this range in the within disclosure.
Regarding Claim 16, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
The combination of Yang/Hsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein a minimum distance between two adjacent mesas of the plurality of the mesas ranges from 5 µm to 50 µm.
However, in analogous art, Hong discloses wherein a minimum distance between two adjacent mesas of the plurality of the mesas ranges from 5 µm to 50 µm (Hong: [0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the light-emitting device as disclosed in Yang/Hsu such that the minimum distance between two adjacent mesas ranges from 5 µm to 50 µm, as disclosed by Hong. One would be motivated to do so in order to optimize the size of the overall size of the light-emitting device and the resolution of the light being emitted.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Hsu as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Hosokawa, et al. (US 20230352629 A1; hereinafter referred to as Hosokawa).
PNG
media_image4.png
679
1068
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
The combination of Yang/Hsu fails to disclose wherein the first current spreader comprises a protrusion located outside the plurality of mesas, wherein the third opening is located on the protrusion, and the first electrode pad is filled in the third opening and connected to the protrusion.
However, in analogous art, Hosokawa discloses wherein the first current spreader (Hosokawa: side contact electrode 41, [0046], Fig. 2) comprises a protrusion located outside the plurality of mesas (Hosokawa: Fig. 2),
wherein the third opening is located on the protrusion (Hosokawa: see Annotated Fig. 2), and the first electrode pad (Hosokawa: pad electrode 60, [0043], Fig. 2) is filled in the third opening and connected to the protrusion (Hosokawa: see Annotated Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the display device of Yang/Hsu such that the first current spreader comprises a protrusion and the first electrode pad is filled in the third opening and connected to the protrusion as disclosed by Hosokawa. One would be motivated to do so because this structure allows for improved light-emitting efficiency for the semiconductor light-emitting element (Hosokawa: [0036]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yang/Hsu/Hosokawa discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 10, wherein in a plan view, the first semiconductor layer comprises an edge (Hosokawa: Fig. 1) and the first electrode pad is disposed along the edge (Hosokawa: Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Hsu as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Chang, et al. (US 20230077761 A1; hereinafter referred to as Chang).
Regarding Claim 13, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
The combination of Yang/Hsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein a minimum distance between the second contact parts and an edge of the second semiconductor layer is greater than 5 µm.
However, in analogous art, Chang discloses wherein a minimum distance between the second contact parts and an edge of the second semiconductor layer (Chang: distance d5, [0068], Fig. 12) is greater than 5 µm (Chang: [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second contact parts as disclosed by Yang/Hsu such that there is a minimum distance between the second contact parts and an edge of the second semiconductor layer greater than 5 µm as disclosed by Chang. One would be motivated to do so because a larger distance may prevent an electrostatic breakdown at an edge of the mesa (Chang: [0068]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Hsu as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Chang, et al. (US 20230077761 A1; hereinafter referred to as Chang) and further in view of Chen, et al. (US 20210305456 A1; hereinafter referred to as Chen).
Regarding Claim 14, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
The combination of Yang/Hsu fails to disclose wherein a minimum distance between the second contact parts and an edge of the second semiconductor layer is greater than a minimum distance between one of the first contact part and one of the mesas.
However, in analogous art, Chang discloses wherein a minimum distance between the second contact parts and an edge of the second semiconductor layer (Chang: distance d5, [0068], Fig. 12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the second contact parts as disclosed by Yang/Hsu such that there is a minimum distance between the second contact parts and an edge of the second semiconductor layer greater than 5 µm as disclosed by Chang. One would be motivated to do so because a larger distance may prevent an electrostatic breakdown at an edge of the mesa (Chang: [0068]).
The combination of Yang/Hsu/Chang fails to explicitly disclose that the minimum distance is greater than a minimum distance between one of the first contact part and one of the mesas.
However, in analogous art, Chen discloses a minimum distance between one of the first contact part and one of the mesas is distance d1 (Chen: [0018]). Said distance d1 is between 1 µm and 10 µm (Chen: [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the light-emitting device of Yang/Hsu/Chang such that the minimum distance between the second contact parts and an edge of the second semiconductor layer is greater than the minimum distance between one of the first contact parts and one of the mesas. Chen discloses that the minimum distance between one of the first contact parts and one of the mesas is between 1 µm and 10 µm, which is less than the minimum distance as disclosed in Chang. One would be motivated to make distance d1 sufficiently small in order to reduce the size of the device while still maintaining a distance so as not to short circuit the device (Chen: [0018]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang/Hsu as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8, 12, 15, and 18 above, and further in view of Zhang, et al. (US 20230075707 A1; hereinafter referred to as Zhang).
Regarding Claim 17, Yang/Hsu discloses the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
The combination of Yang/Hsu fails to explicitly disclose wherein in a plan view, one of the plurality of the mesas has a maximum width ranging from 20 µm to 500 µm.
However, in analogous art, Zhang discloses wherein in a plan view, one of the plurality of the mesas has a maximum width ranging from 20 µm to 500 µm (Zhang: [0063]). Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists prior to the effective filing date of the instant application in order to modify the maximum width of one of the plurality of mesas due to the overlapping ranges between Zhang and the instant application. Additionally, the instant application does not claim criticality for the range provided and, therefore, the overlapping range of Zhang would render obvious the within limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Kususe, et al. (US 20140225143 A1); discloses an analogous light-emitting device
(b) Tsuji (US 20120199861 A1); discloses an analogous light-emitting device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah C. Robertson whose telephone number is (571) 317-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM (Eastern Time Zone).
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, William B Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/Noah C. Robertson/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights