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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 defines in the preamble “transferring a light-emitting element from a first substrate to a second substrate” but in the body of the claim there is no mention about how or where this transferring happens. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 defines in line 6 “the second surface” has antecedent issues.
Claim 1 defines “a maximum intensity of the intensity distribution is 150% or less of the minimum intensity” is indefinite. As “less” can be interpreted as 100% which would make the maximum intensity equal to the minimum intensity which would make the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 defines “ a maximum intensity of the intensity distribution is 150% or less of the minimum intensity” is ambiguous as it is not clear why or where the maximum intensity is used/applied with respect to the minimum intensity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ryu et al. (KR 20230073454 A) in view of Mizutani et al. (WO 2021117753 A1)
Regarding claim 1: Ryu teaches in 5 about a method for transferring a light-emitting element 130 from a first substrate 120 to a second substrate 150, the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
602
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
providing the light-emitting element 130 fixed to a first surface of the first substrate via a release layer 124; and
removing the release layer by irradiating the release layer with laser light 170 from a side of the second surface, opposite the first surface, through the first substrate (as shown), wherein:
an intensity distribution of the laser light on the first surface is, in the entire release layer, equal to or higher than a minimum intensity at which the release layer can be removed (Ryu teaches in Fig. 4 Since the laser irradiation unit 160 only needs to remove the laser absorption layer of the portion where the light emitting diode chip 130 is attached, a top hat-shaped laser beam having a size similar to that of the light emitting diode chip 130 is applied to the first substrate 120. , or a laser beam in the form of a top hat having a size smaller than the size of the light emitting diode chip 130 is irradiated to the first substrate 120 by scanning), and a maximum intensity of the intensity distribution is 150% or less of the minimum intensity.
Ryu does not explicitly talk about a maximum intensity of the intensity distribution is 150% or less of the minimum intensity.
Mizutani teaches in an analogous method in Fig. 3 and 14 about a top hat-shaped laser beam intensity distribution profile while transferring a chip component by a laser lift-off process by adjusting the height of a collection lens of the laser beam profiler device.
PNG
media_image2.png
582
841
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the feature as claimed from the teachings of Mizutani with routine experiment and optimization since the intensity is critical to lift-off the chip component in order to control to obtain good transfer quality by optimizing a laser light intensity distribution at a processing surface that is the interface between the chip component and the transfer substrate according to the teaching of Mizutani (Abstract). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 2: Ryu teaches wherein: a transmittance for the laser light of the release layer is in a range from 40% to 60% (Ryu teaches the laser transmission layer 122 is made of a material that transmits more than 90% of the laser beam. The laser absorption layer 124 is formed on the laser transmission layer 122 and is made of an adhesive material while absorbing 70% or more of the laser beam).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3: Ryu teaches wherein: a transmittance for the laser light of the release layer is 70% or less of a transmittance for the laser light of the first substrate (Ryu teaches the laser transmission layer 122 is made of a material that transmits more than 90% of the laser beam. The laser absorption layer 124 is formed on the laser transmission layer 122 and is made of an adhesive material while absorbing 70% or more of the laser beam).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4: Ryu in view of Mizutani teaches wherein: in a plan view (would have obvious from the cross-sectional views shown), an outer edge of the release layer is located inside an outer edge of the light-emitting element (Ryu teaches a laser beam in the form of a top hat having a size smaller than the size of the light emitting diode chip 130 is irradiated to the first substrate 120 by scanning), a first region on the first surface in which an intensity of the laser light is the minimum intensity or more is located inside the light-emitting element, and a second region on the first surface in which the intensity of the laser light is 95% or more of the maximum intensity is located inside the release layer (Mizutani teaches as marked above).
Regarding claim 5: Ryu in view of Mizutani teaches wherein: a length of the second region is in a range from 50% to 80% of a length of the first region in a direction parallel to the first surface (would have obvious from the cross-sectional views shown).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6: As explained in claims 1-3 above, Ryu in view of Mizutani teaches wherein: assuming that a transmittance for the laser light of the release layer is 100%, the intensity distribution of the laser light on a surface of the release layer on a side of the light-emitting element is the minimum intensity or more in the entire release layer, and the maximum intensity of the intensity distribution is 150% or less of the minimum intensity.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ryu et al. (KR 20230073454 A) in view of Mizutani et al. (WO 2021117753 A1) and further in view of Miyagoshi et al. (US PGPUB 2020/022748 A1)
Regarding claim 7: Ryu in view of wherein: assuming that a transmittance for the laser light of the release layer is 100%, a thickness of the release layer is in a range from 0.01% to 0.1% with respect to a focal depth that allows a plane in which the intensity distribution of the laser light is, in the entire release layer, the minimum intensity or more and the maximum intensity of the intensity distribution is 150% or less of the minimum intensity, in a direction from the second surface toward the first surface.
Miyagoshi teaches in [0044] –[047] the thickness of the adhesive layer 22b is 1-10 micrometer and the size of LED’s and interval between LED’s.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the feature as claimed from the teachings of Miyagoshi with routine xperiment and optimization since the thickness is critical to lift-off the chip component depending on the size of chip components, laser intensity and distance between chip components according to the teaching of Miyagoshi (Abstract). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 8: Ryu in view of Mizutani does not explicitly talk about further comprising: disposing the second substrate parallel to the first substrate before the removing the release layer, wherein (i) a position of the second substrate with respect to the first substrate in a first direction parallel to the first surface and a second direction parallel to the first surface and inclined with respect to the first direction, and (ii) an angle of the second substrate with respect to the first substrate with a straight line extending in a third direction from the second surface toward the first surface as a rotation axis, are adjusted with reference to alignment portions provided respectively on the first substrate and the second substrate.
Miyagoshi teaches in [0071], [0073] the substrate is held to be parallel to a plane including the Y-axis and the Z-axis, and the laser light L is emitted in the horizontal direction parallel to the Y-axis, but the present invention is not limited to this. For example, the substrate 22 may be held to be parallel to a plane including the X-axis and the Y-axis, and the laser light L may be emitted in a direction parallel to the Z-axis. As long as the surface of the substrate 22 is substantially perpendicular to the laser light L, the surface of the substrate 22 is not limited to a plane including the Y-axis and the Z-axis or a plane including the X-axis and the Y-axis, and the substrate 22 may be held to be parallel to a plane at any angle to the horizontal plane.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the feature as claimed from the teachings of Miyagoshi with routine experiment and optimization so that the laser light L is radiated to only the specific element 23a, but the radiation direction of the laser light L may be controlled so that the laser light L is radiated to only the specific element 23a using, for example, galvanometer mirror and Fθ lens. The mechanism with galvanometer mirror and Fθ lens may be similar to the mechanism with laser scanning, but controlling the movement of the substrate stage 24 can further simplify an apparatus configuration as a whole according to the teaching of Miyagoshi, [0073]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ryu et al. (KR 20230073454 A) in view of Mizutani et al. (WO 2021117753 A1) and further in view of Miyagoshi et al. (US PGPUB 2020/022748 A1)
Regarding claim 9: As explained in claim 8, Ryu in view of Mizutani and Miyagoshi teaches wherein: in the step of disposing the second substrate parallel to the first substrate, (i) a distance to the second substrate from the first substrate in the third direction, (i) an angle of the second substrate with respect to the first substrate with a straight line extending in the first direction as a rotation axis, and (iii) an angle of the second substrate with respect to the first substrate with a straight line extending in the second direction as a rotation axis, are adjusted by measuring a distance between the first substrate and the second substrate at two or more points.
Ryu in view of Mizutani and Miyagoshi doe not teach (i) a distance to the second substrate from the first substrate in the third direction is adjusted by measuring a distance between the first substrate and the second substrate at two or more points.
Mizuno teaches in Fig. 1A-1C about adjusting/measuring a distance to the second substrate from the first substrate in the third direction.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the feature as claimed from the teachings of Mizuno with routine experiment and optimization so that the uniform plane in the intensity distribution with respect to the irradiation position of the stripping layer 3 symmetrically according to the teaching of Mizuno [0041]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 10: Ryu in view of Mizutani, Miyagoshi and Mizuno teaches wherein: the laser light is emitted from a laser light source, is diffracted by a diffraction grating, is expanded in diameter by a beam expander mechanism, has an optical path selected by a galvanometer mirror, is collimated by a telecentric lens, and is incident on the first substrate.
It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited-structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961)
Regarding claim 11: Ryu in view of Mizutani, Miyagoshi and Mizuno teaches wherein: an angle formed by a traveling direction of the laser light having exited from the telecentric lens with respect to an optical axis of the telecentric lens is 1 degree or less.
Regarding claim 12: Ryu in view of Mizutani, Miyagoshi and Mizuno teaches about a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device, the method comprising: transferring the light-emitting element from the first substrate to the second substrate by the method according to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm EST.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights