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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure does not teach “a second side of the first insulation layer disposed opposite to the first side at the first patterned removed region have substantially a same thickness” (claims 1 and 8).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogihara (PG Pub 2007/0069220 A1), Bhut (PG Pub 2005/0274956 A1), Hussell et al (PG Pub 2016/0293811 A1), and Wanlass et al (PG Pub 2003/0160251 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ogihara teaches a light emitting package comprising: a substrate (101, fig. 2) including a front surface and a rear surface; at least one light emitting device disposed on the front surface of the substrate; wherein the light emitting device includes: a light emitting layer disposed on the substrate; a multi-layered insulation layer disposed on the light emitting layer and including a first insulation layer (140 or unlabeled layers pointed with arrows, see fig. 2 below) and a second insulation layer (104); and a plurality of pads disposed on the light emitting layer and including a first pad and a second pad (two of layers 105 to 109), wherein the light emitting layer includes: a first layer disposed on the substrate; a second layer disposed on the first layer; and a third layer disposed on the second layer; wherein the first insulation layer is disposed on the light emitting layer and includes a first patterned removed region that exposes the first layer (110a or 110d) for contact with the first pad (105), wherein a first side of the first insulation layer disposed at the first patterned removed region, and wherein the second insulation layer is disposed on the first insulation layer in a region and includes a second patterned removed region that exposes the second (110f) or third layer (130b) for contact with the second pad (107).
PNG
media_image1.png
780
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ogihara does not teach what materials the unlabeled layers are made of.
It would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the unlabeled layers of an insulating material for the known benefit of preventing shunting current from the light-emitting layers (110b, 110e, and 130c) and thus allowing the bias voltage to be applied across the light-emitting diodes to emit light.
Ogihara does not teach the at least one light emitting device is configured to emit light in a direction toward the front surface. However, it is implied from the drawing that the light is emitted in a direction toward the front surface since there is a reflective layer (102) to reflect light upward (paragraph [0060]).
Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor, Bhut teaches a flip-chip to allow light to exit the device through the substrate, for the benefit of avoiding light being blocked by wiring/metal on the light emitting device (paragraph [0034]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make configure the at least one light emitting device to emit light a direction toward the front surface and to extract light through the substrate for the benefit of avoiding light being blocked by wiring/metal on the light emitting device.
Ogihara does not teach a molding layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Hussell teaches a molding layer (106, fig. 1C) disposed on the substrate (104) and covering the light emitting device (102a/102b), for the benefit of increasing contrast (paragraph [0045]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose a molding layer on the substrate and covering the light emitting device, for the benefit of increasing contrast.
Note that the word “removed” in “a first patterned removed region” and in “a second patterned removed region” is a manufacturing step: forming a layer then removing a portion of it. The manufacturing step does not carry patentable weight in the current claim because it does not impart a structural feature that distinguishes the device from that in the prior art. “[E]ven though product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a process of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Ogihara does not teach a second side of the first insulation layer disposed opposite to the first side at the first patterned removed region have substantially a same thickness.
In the same field of endeavor, Wanlass teaches to make to make the thickness of an insulating layer (428, fig. 5) uniform for the benefit of providing electrical insulation (paragraph [0103]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make a second side of the first insulation layer disposed opposite to the first side at the first patterned removed region to have substantially a same thickness, for the benefit of providing electrical insulation.
Regarding claim 2, Hussell teaches the molding layer includes a region having a thickness less than 100 micrometers in height (140, fig. 1C, paragraph [0054]) form the rear surface.
Regarding claim 3, Hussell teaches the light emitting package of claim 1, wherein the molding layer includes a substantially flat region (fig. 1C).
Regarding claim 4, Hussell does not explicitly teach the molding layer has an external light reflectance, an external light scattering rate, or an external light absorbance of 50% or more.
Hussell teaches the molding layer to be made of a black material to increase contrast (paragraph [0045]). It is well known that a black material has light absorbance (internal or external light) of 50% or more. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make the molding material to have light absorbance of 50% or more, for the benefit of increasing contrast.
Regarding claim 5, Bhut teaches the substrate is formed of a light transmissive insulation material (sapphire, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Ogihara teaches the light emitting package of claim 1, wherein the multi-layered insulation layer is disposed on a region of a side surface and an upper surface of the light emitting layer (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Ogihara teaches the light emitting package of claim 1, wherein at least two of the first layer, the second layer, and the third layer have different energy bands: It is well known that n-GaN (110a), p-GaN (110f), and n-GaAs (130b) have different energy bands.
Regarding claim 8, Ogihara in view of Bhut and Hussell teaches (see claim 1) a light emitting package comprising: a substrate including a front surface and a rear surface; at least one light emitting device disposed on the front surface of the substrate and configured to emit light in a direction toward the front surface; and a molding layer disposed on the substrate and covering the light emitting device, wherein the light emitting device includes: a light emitting layer disposed on the substrate and including a first epitaxial structure and a second epitaxial structure (the semiconductor layers in the device shown in fig. 2 are epitaxial layers, paragraph [0078] of Ogihara); a multi-layered insulation layer disposed on the light emitting layer and including a first insulation layer and a second insulation layer; and a plurality of pads disposed on the light emitting layer and including a first pad and a second pad, wherein the first epitaxial structure and the second epitaxial structure are sequentially disposed on the front surface of the substrate in a first direction (vertical direction in fig. 2), wherein a region of the second insulation layer and a region of the first insulation layer overlap each other in the first direction, wherein the first insulation layer includes a first patterned removed region that provides an electrical contact between the first epitaxial structure and the first pad, wherein a first side of the first insulation layer disposed at the first patterned removed region, and wherein the second insulation layer includes a second patterned removed region that provides an electrical contact between the second epitaxial structure and the second pad (fig. 2).
Ogihara does not teach a second side of the first insulation layer disposed opposite to the first side at the first patterned removed region have substantially a same thickness.
In the same field of endeavor, Wanlass teaches to make to make the thickness of an insulating layer (428, fig. 5) uniform for the benefit of providing electrical insulation (paragraph [0103]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make a second side of the first insulation layer disposed opposite to the first side at the first patterned removed region to have substantially a same thickness, for the benefit of providing electrical insulation.
Regarding claim 9, Bhut teaches the light emitting package of claim 8, wherein the substrate is formed of a light transmissive insulation material (fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Ogihara teaches the light emitting package of claim 8, wherein the multi-layered insulation layer is disposed on a region of the light emitting layer in a second direction that is different form the first direction (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Ogihara teaches the light emitting package of claim 8, wherein the light emitting layer includes at least one of a first semiconductor layer (110a, fig. 2), a second semiconductor layer (110c), and an active layer (110b).
Regarding claim 12, Hussell teaches the light emitting package of claim 8, wherein the molding layer includes a substantially flat region (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Ogihara teaches the light emitting package of claim 8, wherein each of the plurality of pads are spaced apart from one another (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Ogihara teaches the light emitting package of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of pads are insulated from one another (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogihara (PG Pub 2007/0069220 A1), Bhut (PG Pub 2005/0274956 A1), and Stefanov et al (PG Pub 2005/0230700 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ogihara in view of Bhut and Hussell teaches (see claims 1 and 8) a light emitting device comprising a substrate including a front surface and a rear surface; a light emitting layer disposed on the front surface of the substrate and configured to emit light in a direction toward the front surface; and wherein the light emitting layer includes: a multi-layered layer disposed on the substrate and including a first epitaxial structure and a second epitaxial structure (semiconductor, paragraphs [0002][0078]); a multi-layered insulation layer (104/140 and layers indicated by an arrow in fig. 2 attached below) disposed on the light emitting layer and including a first insulation layer (the layer indicated by the arrow) and a second insulation layer (140); and a plurality of pads disposed on the light emitting layer and including a first pad (105) and a second pad (one of 106 - 109), wherein the first epitaxial structure and the second epitaxial structure are sequentially disposed on the front substrate in a first direction, wherein the first insulation layer includes a first patterned removed region (at 105), wherein the second insulation layer includes a second patterned removed region (at 105) overlapped with a region of the first pad (105) in a second direction different (horizontal direction in fig. 2) from the first direction (vertical direction), wherein the first pad is disposed on the first patterned removed region and a region of the first insulation layer, and wherein a region of the first pad is disposed between the first insulation layer and the second insulation layer in the second direction (fig. 2).
Ogihara does not explicitly teaches the layer indicated by the arrow in fig. 2 below to be insulating. It would have been obvious to make the layer insulating for the benefit of preventing shorting the n and p regions of LED 110a to 110c.
PNG
media_image2.png
666
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ogihara does not teach wherein a side of the first insulation layer disposed at the first patterned removed region is inclined at a non-zero angle.
In the same field of endeavor, Stefanov teaches to make sidewalls of a light emitting device, and thus, those of a first insulation layer (60, abstract), incline at a non-zero angle (32, fig. 4) for the benefit of optimizing light extraction (paragraph [0024]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to make a side of the first insulation layer disposed at the first patterned removed region incline at a non-zero angle for the benefit of optimizing light extraction.
Regarding claim 16, Bhut teaches the light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the substrate is formed of a light transmissive insulation material (fig.10).
Regarding claim 17, Ogihara teaches (fig. 2) the light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the multi-layered insulation layer is disposed on a region of the light emitting layer in the second direction.
Regarding claim 18, Ogihara teaches (fig. 2) the light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the light emitting layer includes at least one of a first semiconductor layer, a second semiconductor layer, and an active layer.
Regarding claim 19, Ogihara teaches (fig. 2) the light emitting device of claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of pads are spaced apart from one another.
Regarding claim 20, Ogihara teaches (fig. 2) the light emitting device of claim 19, wherein each of the plurality of pads are insulated from one another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states, without pointing to specific drawings or particular portions of the specification, that (4th paragraph, page 8, remarks)
The Specification clearly depicts a first insulation layer formed as a substantially uniform layer and patterned to define a removed region for electrical contact. As shown in the drawings, the insulation layer remains on opposing sides of the removed region with substantially the same thickness. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand from the figures and accompanying description that the patterned removed region is formed in a planar insulation layer without introducing asymmetric thickness differences between opposing sides.
In response, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(c), each claim amendment must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the amendment (i.e., support for all changes made in the claim(s), whether insertions or deletions). Applicant has failed to provide a drawing number or paragraph number in which the features are supported. Furthermore, the added features do not seem to be taught in any drawing or the text.
Applicant states that (3rd paragraph, page 9, remarks)
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite, in part:
"wherein a first side of the first insulation layer disposed at the first
patterned removed region and a second side of the first insulation layer disposed opposite to the first side at the first patterned removed region have substantially
a same thickness." (Emphasis added.)
In response, fig. 2 of Ogihara teaches all quoted features except “substantially a same thickness.” See fig. 2 below. Wanlass teaches to make an insulation layer to have uniform thickness. Thus, the skilled in the art would have made the first side and second side to have uniform thickness to result in a same thickness.
PNG
media_image3.png
795
1075
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant states that (3rd paragraph, page 9, remarks)
Independent claim 15 recites, in part:
" wherein a region of the first pad is disposed between the first insulation
layer and the second insulation layer in the second direction." (Emphasis
added.)
Applicant respectfully submits that Ogihara, Bhat, Hussell, Wanlass and Stefanov, either individually or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest at least the aforementioned features recited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
In response, fig. 2 of Ogihara teaches the quoted features. See fig. 2 below.
PNG
media_image4.png
685
776
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm 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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights