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 .
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. For example, a more descriptive title could be, “LIGHT EMITTING MODULE AND APPARATUS HAVING LIGHT EMITTING ELEMENT WITH PROTRUSIONS HAVING DIFFERENT REFRACTIVE INDICES”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shatalov et al. (US 2013/0056770 A1; hereinafter, “Shatalov”)
PNG
media_image1.png
534
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1-3, 5, 6, 12 and 13:
re claim 1, Shatalov discloses (in Exhibit A and Fig. 1) a light emitting device, comprising:
a substrate 12 (e.g., silicon [0031]) including a first protrusion pattern 40 [0038] on its top surface;
a base layer 14 [0029] formed on a top of the substrate;
a first electrode layer 28 [0032] formed on a top of the base layer;
a light emitting layer 18 [0031] formed on a top [side] of the first electrode layer; and
a second electrode layer 24 [0032] formed on a top of the light emitting layer,
wherein a second protrusion pattern 50B (which is part of the base layer 14 that can be AlGaN/AlN [0031]) having a refractive index different from that of the first protrusion pattern 40 (which is part of the silicon substrate 12) is disposed between the base layer 14 and the first electrode layer 28;
re claim 2, the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein:
the first protrusion pattern 40 and the second protrusion pattern 50B have a repeating protrusion pattern, respectively, and
a unit feature of the second protrusion pattern 50B is different in size from that of the first
protrusion pattern 40 (Fig. 1 and Exhibit A);
re claim 3, the light emitting device of claim 1,
wherein a cross-sectional height of the second protrusion pattern 50B is lower than a cross-sectional height of the first protrusion pattern 40 (Fig. 1 and Exhibit A);
re claim 5, the light emitting device of claim 1,
wherein a top surface of the base layer 14 (Exhibit A and Fig. 1) comprises a first region (pointed regions) where the second protrusion pattern 50B is formed and a second region (flat regions) where the second protrusion pattern is not formed;
re claim 6, the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein:
a shape of the second protrusion pattern 50B (Exhibit A) is formed to have different left and right inclination angles (e.g., the pointed protrusions have positive and negative slopes), and a difference between the left inclination angle and the right inclination angle is formed to be within 5% of a larger inclination angle among the left inclination angle and the right inclination (i.e., the pointed protrusion are essentially symmetrical, accordingly, a difference between left and right inclination angles is within 5% of a larger inclination angle);
re claim 12, the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the second protrusion pattern 50B includes protrusion features (Fig. 11A and [0053-0054]) having different shapes from one another between the unit protrusion features; and
re claim 13, the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the unit protrusion feature of the second protrusion pattern has a shape including one or more of a cone shape (Figs. 1, 11A, 11B), a hemispherical shape, a top truncated cone shape, and a top truncated.
Therefore, Shatalov anticipates claims 1-3, 5, 6, 12 and 13.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatalov in view of KR 10-2013-0037333 A (hereinafter, “KR333”, which is prior art of record listed on the IDS filed 09/03/2024).
Regarding claim 4:
Shatalov anticipates claim 1 but does not disclose a pitch of the second protrusion is smaller than that of the first protrusion.
KR333 teaches, in a similar device, a pitch d2 (Fig. 1) of second protrusions 112 is smaller than a pitch d1 of first protrusions 166. KR333 discloses lateral light emission is improved by such a structure (see English abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shatalov to have a smaller pitch for the second protrusion, as taught by KR333, in order to improve lateral light emission.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatalov in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0334059 A1; hereinafter, “Chen”).
Regarding claim 7:
Shatalov anticipates claim 1 but does not disclose the limitations in the current claim.
Chen teaches, in a similar device, between a top of a protrusion pattern 102c (Fig. 1A and [0013]) and a first electrode layer 120 [0012], an epitaxial layer 104/140 (Fig. 1A and [0013]) made of a material (AlN for layer 104, [0013]) having one or more elements in common with that of Shatalov’s base layer 14 (which can be AlGaN/AlN [0031] of Shatalov), wherein the second protrusion pattern is made of a material (e.g., Shatalov’s base layer 14 comprises AlN, [0031]) having a fourth refractive index that is lower than a first refractive index (of AlGaN/AlN) of Shatalov’s base layer and a second refractive index of the epitaxial layer 104/140 (which comprises GaN 140, i.e., refractive index of AlN is lower than that of GaN), but higher than a third refractive index, which is a refractive index of air. Chen discloses such a structure improves the light-emitting efficiency of the device [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shatalov by incorporating an epitaxial layer, as taught by Chen, in order to improve the light-emitting efficiency of the device.
Regarding claims 8-10:
re claim 8, Shatalov (in view of Chen) discloses, between a bottom of the epitaxial layer and the top of the second protrusion pattern, a buffer layer 104 (Chen, Fig. 4) formed along the second protrusion pattern 50B (Shatalov, Fig. 1 and Exhibit A);
re claim 9, Chen (Fig. 1A) discloses the buffer layer 104 is formed on both a first region (pointed regions) where the second protrusion pattern is formed and a second region (flat regions) where the second protrusion pattern is not formed, on the top of the base layer 14 (of Shatalov, Fig. 1 and Exhibit A).
re claim 10, Chen discloses wherein the buffer layer 104 is formed of a material (AlN) having a refractive index in a range between the fourth refractive index (e.g., Shatalov’s base layer 14 comprises AlN, [0031]) and the second refractive index (of GaN 140 in Chen, i.e., GaN has a higher refractive index, accordingly, a refractive index of Chen’s AlN buffer layer 104 at least falls within a refractive index of Shatalov’s AlN layer 14 and Chen’s GaN layer 140).
Therefore, Shatalov (in view of Chen) renders claims 8-10 obvious.
Claim(s) 11 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shatalov in view of Kim et al. (US 2016/0372643 A1; hereinafter, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 11:
Shatalov anticipates claim 1 but does not disclose the second material pattern is made of material having a first and second refractive indices.
Kim teaches, in a similar device, a protrusion pattern U (Fig. 1 and [0056]) is made of a material R having a first refractive index up to a first height, and a material P having a second refractive index [0009-0010] above the first height, based on a plane forming an interface with a base layer. Kim discloses such a structure enhances light extraction efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shatalov by incorporating protrusions having different refractive indices, as taught by Kim, in order to enhance light extraction efficiency of the device.
Regarding claim 14:
Shatalov discloses a light emitting module, comprising:
[A] light emitting device (in Exhibit A and Fig. 1), including:
a substrate 12 (e.g., silicon [0031]) including a first protrusion pattern 40 [0038] on its top surface;
a first nitride-based epitaxial layer 14 [0044] formed on a top of the substrate;
a second nitride-based epitaxial layer 16 [0031] formed on a top of the first nitride-based epitaxial layer;
a first electrode layer 28 [0032] formed on a top of the second nitride-based epitaxial layer;
a light emitting layer 18 [0031] formed on a top of the first electrode layer; and
a second electrode layer 24 [0032] formed on a top of the light emitting layer,
wherein a second protrusion pattern 50B (which is part of the base layer 14 that can be AlGaN/AlN [0031]) made of a material different from that of the first protrusion pattern 40 (which is part of the silicon substrate 12) is included between the first nitride-based epitaxial layer 14 and the second nitride-based epitaxial layer 16.
Shatalov does not disclose exactly how the light emitting device is incorporated into the light emitting module; accordingly, Shatalov does not disclose the lined-through limitations.
Kim teaches a light emitting device incorporated into a light emitting module, comprising:
a circuit board 331 (Fig. 12, [0112]) including a conductive material 335a/335b [0112] for electrical connections; and
a package 300 [0110] bonded to the circuit board through the conductive material,
the package, including:
one or more lead members 332a/332b;
a housing 365 [0114] including a cavity (the package 300 form a cavity in housing 365); and
a light emitting device S (Fig. 12 and [0055]) disposed in the cavity and electrically connected to the lead members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Shatalov’s light emitting device into a light emitting module, as taught by Kim, because Kim’s module is ideal for a light emitting device disclosed by Shatalov.
Regarding claim 15:
Kim discloses in another package (Fig. 11) wherein a housing 260 is formed of a light-reflective material [0109], and thus, is configured to have a first slope (Fig. 11) on a side surface such that light generated from the light emitting device is reflected upward to be released externally. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further incorporate a reflective housing, as taught by Kim, because a reflective housing would significantly enhance device performance.
Regarding claims 16-17:
re claim 16, Kim discloses a first slope of the housing 260 (Fig. 22) is different from one or more second slopes formed on a side surface of a first protrusion pattern U (Fig. 11, Fig. 6C and [0056]) or a second protrusion pattern; and
re claim 17, Shatalov discloses a second slope includes a third slope formed on the side surface of the second protrusion pattern 50B (Fig. 1) and a fourth slope formed on a side surface of the first protrusion pattern 40 (Fig. 1), and the third slope (slope of patterns in 50B) is formed to be smaller than the fourth slope (slope of patterns in 40).
Therefore, Shatalov (in view of Kim) renders obvious claims 16-17.
` Regarding claim 18:
Shatalov discloses a light emitting module, comprising:
[A] light emitting device (in Exhibit A and Fig. 1), including:
a substrate 12 (e.g., silicon [0031]) including a first protrusion pattern 40 [0038] on its top surface;
a first nitride-based epitaxial layer 14 [0044] formed on a top of the substrate;
a second nitride-based epitaxial layer 16 [0031] formed on a top of the first nitride-based epitaxial layer;
a first electrode layer 28 [0032] formed on a top of the second nitride-based epitaxial layer;
a light emitting layer 18 [0031] formed on a top of the first electrode layer; and
a second electrode layer 24 [0032] formed on a top of the light emitting layer,
wherein a second protrusion pattern 50B (which is part of the base layer 14 that can be AlGaN/AlN [0031]) made of a material different from that of the first protrusion pattern 40 (which is part of the silicon substrate 12) is included between the first nitride-based epitaxial layer 14 and the second nitride-based epitaxial layer 16.
Shatalov does not disclose exactly how the light emitting device is incorporated into the light emitting apparatus; accordingly, Shatalov does not disclose the lined-through limitations.
Kim teaches a light emitting device incorporated into a light emitting apparatus, comprising:
a circuit board 331 (Fig. 12, [0112]) including a conductive material 335a/335b [0112] for electrical connections;
a light emitting device S (Fig. 12, [0055]) electrically connected to the circuit board;
a control device (e.g., 4221 in Fig. 22 and [0162]) that controls driving of the light emitting device; and
a cover 4330 (Fig. 22 and [0167]) disposed over the light emitting device, and transmitting light generated from the light emitting device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Shatalov’s light emitting device into a light emitting module, as taught by Kim, because Kim’s module is ideal for a light emitting device disclosed by Shatalov.
Regarding claims 19 and 20:
Shatalov discloses on a top perspective view of the light emitting device, the light emitting device is configured to include an overlapping region where the first protrusion pattern 40 (Fig. 1 and Exhibit A) and the second protrusion pattern 50B overlap, and a non-overlapping region where the first protrusion pattern and the second protrusion pattern do not overlap (e.g., at a region of the outer sidewalls in Fig. 1); and
wherein, on the top perspective view of the light emitting device, the light emitting device is configured such that center points of unit features of the first protrusion pattern 40 (Fig. 1 and Exhibit A) and center points of unit features of the second protrusion pattern 50B are arranged at a predetermined ratio or less (i.e., ratio obtained by Shatalov is considered to be a predetermined ratio or less).
Therefore, Shatalov (in view of Kim) renders claims 19 and 20 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
