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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al.(US 20230207766 A1, hereafter Lin).
Regarding Claim 1, Lin discloses:
A semiconductor light-emitting apparatus(Fig. 17) comprising:
A package substrate(Fig. 17 [210]);
A semiconductor light-emitting element flip-chip(Fig. 17 [220]) bonded on the package substrate(Fig. 17 [210]);
A frame body(Fig. 17 [270]) provided around the semiconductor light-emitting element(Fig. 17 [220]) on the package substrate(Fig. 17 [210]);
A sealing member(Fig. 17 [240]) that covers the semiconductor light-emitting element(Fig. 17 [220]) on the package substrate(Fig. 17 [210]), covers an upper surface of the frame body(Fig. 17 [270]), and has translucency at an emission wavelength of the semiconductor light-emitting element(fluororesin, which has translucency, See paragraph 0033),
Wherein a height of the upper surface of the frame body(Fig. 17 [270]) is smaller than a height of an upper surface of the semiconductor light-emitting element(Fig. 17 [220]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lin further discloses:
A height(See Fig. 4 [T20]) from the upper surface of the semiconductor light-emitting element(Fig. 17 [220]) to an apex portion of the sealing member(Fig. 17 [240]) is smaller(See paragraph 0037) than a height(See Fig. 4 [T31]) from the package substrate(Fig. 17 [210]) to the upper surface of the semiconductor light-emitting element(Fig. 17 [220]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Do et al.(US 20180351059 A1, hereafter Do).
Regarding Claim 2, Lin discloses a frame body(Fig. 17 [270]) with a height between one third and two thirds(See paragraph 0065) the thickness of the semiconductor light-emitting element(Fig. 17 [220]).
This falls within the claimed range of between 20 and 80% of the height of the upper surface of the semiconductor light-emitting element. However, there is an electrode structure(Fig. 17 [230]) that separates the frame body and light-emitting element from the package substrate(Fig. 17 [210]). If the electrode structure(Fig. 17 [230]) in the art is generally thin enough, then the device disclosed by Lin reads upon the claimed limitation. To show that this structure is likely a fairly thin structure, the prior art of Do discloses an analogous electrode structure(Fig. 2 [221]) with a thickness of between 80 and 90 μm(See paragraph 0103). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have arrived at the claimed limitation with the consideration that the electrode structure(Fig. 17 [230]) of Lin is around the thickness as described by Do, due to the fact that the thickness of the semiconductor light-emitting element may be anywhere from 200 to 600 μm, preferably 250 to 300 μm or 420 to 450 μm(See paragraph 0032). The results of this combination between Lin and Do would be predictable as the resulting device would be an embodiment of Lin’s device, just with a laid-out thickness of an electrode structure.
Claim(s) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Jo et al.(US 20220393069 A1, hereafter Jo).
Regarding Claim 4, Lin discloses:
The semiconductor light-emitting element(Fig. 17 [220]) includes an anode electrode(Fig. 3 [2252]) and a cathode electrode(Fig. 3 [2251]) bonded to the package substrate(Fig. 17 [210]), a semiconductor layer(Fig. 3 [2220]) on the anode electrode and the cathode electrode(Fig. 3 [2252/2251]), and a substrate(Fig. 3 [2210]) on the semiconductor layer(Fig. 3 [2220]).
Lin does not explicitly teach or disclose that the height of the frame body is larger than a height of a lower surface of the substrate.
However, Lin discloses the substrate(Fig. 3 [2210]) as between 100 and 500 μm in thickness(Paragraph 0032), which, when compared to the recommendation by Lin of a total element thickness of 150 μm or more(Paragraph 0032), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thickness of the element substrate should be a majority of the thickness of the element, with the other elements comparatively thin. With this information and the knowledge that the frame body(Fig. 17 [270]) is at a height between one third and two thirds of the semiconductor light-emitting element(Fig. 17 [220]), one of ordinary skill in the art looking to reproduce Lin’s device, would naturally come across the possibility of producing a device in which a height of the frame body is larger than a height of a lower surface of the substrate. For example, with a 250 μm-thick semiconductor light-emitting element, a 200 μm-thick element substrate, and a frame body height of 125 μm(50% of the light-emitting element height), the height of the upper surface of the frame body would be greater than a height of a lower surface of the element substrate. Producing the device in this way would generate a predictable result in an embodiment of Lin’s device.
Furthermore, while Lin discloses a substrate that “facilitates epitaxial growth”(See paragraph 0032). However, Lin does not explicitly teach or disclose what material this substrate might be.
In the same field of endeavor, Jo discloses an element substrate being a sapphire substrate(See paragraph 0058 of Jo). This matches the claimed range as while not explicitly described as translucent, it matches the specified substrate material in the application at hand(See paragraph 0014 of the application at hand) as well as being a known transmissive material in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was disclosed to produce Lin’s device along the recommendation of Jo. Firstly, sapphire is an eligible material for the facilitation of epitaxial growth. Secondly, as Jo’s device(For example, See Fig. 4) is an analogous device to Lin’s, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to prior art such as Jo for teaching on substrates in the reproduction of Lin’s device. This modification would have generated a predictable result in the creation of Lin’s device, with a known element substrate material provided by Jo.
Regarding Claim 5,
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(See above).
Lin does not explicitly teach or disclose the height of the upper surface of the frame body is smaller than an intermediate height where a thickness of the translucent substrate is halved.
Lin discloses the substrate(Fig. 3 [2210]) as between 100 and 500 μm in thickness(Paragraph 0032), which, when compared to the recommendation by Lin of a total element thickness of 150 μm or more(Paragraph 0032), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thickness of the element substrate should be a majority of the thickness of the element, with the other elements comparatively thin. With this information and the knowledge that the frame body(Fig. 17 [270]) is at a height between one third and two thirds of the semiconductor light-emitting element(Fig. 17 [220]), one of ordinary skill in the art looking to reproduce Lin’s device, would naturally come across the possibility of producing a device in which a height of the frame body is lower than an intermediate height of a halfway point of the substrate. For example, with a 250 μm-thick semiconductor light-emitting element, a 200 μm-thick element substrate, and a frame body height of 125 μm(50% of the light-emitting element height), the height of the upper surface of the frame body would be lower than a height of a midpoint of the element substrate. Producing the device in this way would generate a predictable result in an embodiment of Lin’s device.
Regarding Claim 6,
Lin discloses a height from the upper surface of the semiconductor light-emitting element to an apex portion of the sealing member is greater than 150 μm(See paragraph 0037). In addition, Lin further discloses the thickness of their element substrate as between 100 and 500 μm(See paragraph 0032). Therefore, the ranges provided by the prior art has considerable overlap with the claimed range. One might have arrived at the claimed range via routine experimentation or technical requirements of the reproduction of Lin’s device, as only in the low end of Lin’s range would this limitation not be satisfied. Producing the device in this way would generate a predictable result in the generation of an embodiment of Lin’s device.
Regarding Claim 7,
Lin discloses the thickness of their element substrate as between 100 and 500 μm(See paragraph 0032). This overlaps with the claimed range of 300 μm or more and 500 μm or less. As these two ranges share considerable overlap, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to arrive at the claimed range based off of Lin’s disclosed range, as in the case of producing a larger packaging(See paragraph 0032 of Lin), one would naturally arrive at a thicker substrate. Producing Lin’s device in this way would have generated a predictable result in the creation of Lin’s device with a certain thickness of their element substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sawada(US 20150364661 A1) discloses a package substrate with a number of protrusions surrounding an LED. Tan(US 20240047623 A1) discloses an LED surrounded by a frame(See figure 33 of Tan).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD whose telephone number is (703)756-1506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 11:00 AM-9:00PM 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights