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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the firs electrode" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the metes and bounds of wherein the waveguide tube comprises an extension line, and an incident angle is defined as an angle between the extension line of the waveguide tube and the first electrode, and the incident angle ranges from 45° to 135° is unclear is unclear. The incident angle is defined in the claim , however it does not appear that the incident angle is positively claimed. It is unclear if the incident angle is actually part of the claim.
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.
Claims 1,2,5,8,9,11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Wen (US 20220216370) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190006595).
Regarding claim 1, Hung et al. teach providing a semiconductor device (LED flip chip 10, par. 0069), the semiconductor device having an epitaxial stack, (par. 0076, The epitaxial layer includes a first semiconductor layer 11, an active layer 12 and a second semiconductor layer 13.) a first electrode (14, par. 0076, Fig. 1), and a second electrode (15, par. 0076, Fig. 1), wherein the first electrode and the second electrode being connected to the epitaxial stack; (Note 14 and 15 and layers 11, 12 and 13 of Fig. 1) and
Hung -Wen does not teach noncontact detection ;
applying a microwave to the first electrode to cause the semiconductor device to emit light; and detecting the light emitted from the semiconductor device.
Xu et al. teach noncontact detection, (Note waveguide 10, is in contact with stage 11 and not in contact with OLED 4) applying a microwave to the first electrode to cause the semiconductor device to emit light; (Note par. 0060, The microwave generating member 1 is configured for providing a constant microwave for the OLED device. The microwave generating member, for example, may be implemented by a common microwave generator, which is capable of providing a microwave of a constant wavelength. ) and detecting the light emitted from the semiconductor device. (The optical measuring member 3 is configured for measuring the light brightness of the OLED device) Note par. 0060.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of applying a microwave to the first electrode to cause the semiconductor device to emit light; and detecting the light emitted from the semiconductor device to determine whether or not intrinsic attenuation is present in a light emitting material of the light emitting layer in the OLED devices. (Note par. 0003)
Regarding claim 8, Hung -Wen teach a semiconductor device; (LED flip chip 10, par. 0069)
Hung-Wen does not teach a non-contact detection system, a microwave device for applying a microwave to the semiconductor device to cause the semiconductor device to emit light; and a light collecting device for detecting the light emitted from the semiconductor device.
Xu et al. teach a noncontact detection system (Note waveguide 10, is in contact with stage 11 and not in contact with OLED 4) ,a microwave device for applying a microwave to the semiconductor device to cause the semiconductor device to emit light; (Note par. 0060, The microwave generating member 1 is configured for providing a constant microwave for the OLED device. The microwave generating member, for example, may be implemented by a common microwave generator, which is capable of providing a microwave of a constant wavelength. ) and a light collecting device for detecting the light emitted from the semiconductor device. (The optical measuring member 3 is configured for measuring the light brightness of the OLED device) Note par. 0060.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of a microwave device for applying a microwave to the semiconductor device to cause the semiconductor device to emit light; and a light collecting device for detecting the light emitted from the semiconductor device to determine whether or not intrinsic attenuation is present in a light emitting material of the light emitting layer in the OLED devices. (Note par. 0003)
Regarding claim 2, Hung-Wen teach wherein the semiconductor device is a light-emitting diode. (Note led flip chip 10, par. 0076)
Regarding claim 5, Hung-Wen does not teach providing a microwave device having a waveguide tube, and the microwave is applied to the first electrode by the waveguide tube.
Xu et al. teach providing a microwave device having a waveguide tube, and the microwave is applied to the first electrode by the waveguide tube. ([0066] Moreover, since the microwave stage 11 is capable of carrying the OLED device, and the transmitting terminal of the microwave generating member 1 is connected with the microwave stage 11 through the waveguide tube 10, the microwave stage 11 is also equivalent to an injecting circuit for injecting a constant microwave into the OLED device, and the microwave stage 11 is located in the variable magnetic field.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of providing a microwave device having a waveguide tube, and the microwave is applied to the first electrode by the waveguide tube to determine whether or not intrinsic attenuation is present in a light emitting material of the light emitting layer in the OLED devices. (Note par. 0003)
Regarding claim 9, Hung-Wen does not teach wherein the microwave device comprises a waveguide element.
Xu et al. teach wherein the microwave device comprises a waveguide element. ([0066] Moreover, since the microwave stage 11 is capable of carrying the OLED device, and the transmitting terminal of the microwave generating member 1 is connected with the microwave stage 11 through the waveguide tube 10, the microwave stage 11 is also equivalent to an injecting circuit for injecting a constant microwave into the OLED device, and the microwave stage 11 is located in the variable magnetic field.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of wherein the microwave device comprises a waveguide element to determine whether or not intrinsic attenuation is present in a light emitting material of the light emitting layer in the OLED devices. (Note par. 0003)
Regarding claim 11, Hung-Wen does not teach wherein the microwave device and the light collecting device overlap in a vertical direction.
Xu et al. teach wherein the microwave device and the light collecting device overlap in a vertical direction. (Note Fig. 5)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hing-Wen to include the teaching of wherein the microwave device and the light collecting device overlap in a vertical direction to make the system more symmetrical.
Regarding claim 12, Hung-Wen does not teach wherein the microwave device and the light collecting device do not overlap in a vertical direction.
Xu et al. teach wherein the microwave device and the light collecting device overlap in a vertical direction. (Note Fig. 5) However Xu et al. is silent on the devices not overlapping.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the location of the microwave device and light collecting device to not overlap taught by Xu et al. since it has been held where the where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to rearrange parts In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hing-Wen to include the teaching of wherein the microwave device and the light collecting device overlap in a vertical direction to meet the design specifications of the manufacturer.
Regarding claim 13, Hung-Wen does not teach wherein the waveguide element comprises a waveguide tube.
Xu et al. teach wherein the waveguide element comprises a waveguide tube.( a transmitting terminal of the microwave generating member 1 is connected with the microwave stage 11 through a waveguide tube 10.) Note par. 0064
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of wherein the waveguide element comprises a waveguide tube to determine whether or not intrinsic attenuation is present in a light emitting material of the light emitting layer in the OLED devices. (Note par. 0003)
Regarding claim 14, Hung-Wen does not teach wherein the waveguide tube comprises an extension line , and an incident angle is defined as an angle between the extension line of the waveguide tube and the first electrode,
Xu et al. teach wherein the waveguide tube (10, Fig. 5) comprises an extension line(note 10 extending, Fig. 3), and an incident angle is defined as an angle between the extension line of the waveguide tube and the first electrode, and the incident angle ranges from 45° to 135°.(Note the angle at which the 10 approaches OLED 4 is interpreted as incident angle) Hung-Wen is silent on incident angles ranges from and the incident angle ranges from 45° to 135°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incident angle taught by Xu et al. to be 45° to 135° since it has been held where the where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to test for particular angles of operation and identification of various conditions which are affected by different incident angles.
Regarding claim 18, Hung-Wen teach wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are disposed on opposite sides of the epitaxial stack.(Note 14 on the left side of epitaxial stack and 15 on right side of epitaxial stack)
Claims 3,6,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Wen (US 20220216370) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190006595) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20170179097).
Hung-Wen teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Hung-Wen does not teach wherein the semiconductor device is a wafer having a plurality of light-emitting diodes.
Zhang et al. teach wherein the semiconductor device is a wafer having a plurality of light-emitting diodes. ([0033] FIG. 2A is a cross-sectional view of a first LED wafer 200R, which includes an array of red LEDs 210R fabricated on a substrate 202R.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of the semiconductor device is a wafer having a plurality of light-emitting diodes to determine whether or not intrinsic attenuation is present in a light emitting material of the light emitting layer in the multiple OLED devices. (Note Xu et al. par. 0003)
Regarding claim 7, Hung-Wen does not teach wherein the microwave is applied to the plurality of light-emitting diodes, and the lights emitted from the plurality of light-emitting diodes are detected.
Xu et al. teach wherein the microwave is applied to the plurality of light-emitting diodes, (suggested by [0003] In an OLED device, each OLED circuit includes an anode layer, a cathode layer and an organic layer provided between the anode layer and the cathode layer.) and the lights emitted from the plurality of light-emitting diodes are detected. (The optical measuring member 3 is configured for measuring the light brightness of the OLED device under the first luminous constraint and the light brightness of the OLED device)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of wherein the microwave is applied to the plurality of light-emitting diodes, and the lights emitted from the plurality of light-emitting diodes are detected to determine whether or not intrinsic attenuation is present in a light emitting material of the light emitting layer in the OLED devices. (Note par. 0003)
Regarding claim 3, Hung -Wen does not teach wherein the second electrode is grounded.
Zhang et al. teach wherein the second electrode is grounded.( The n-contact that is associated with the n-layer of each LED is connected to a ground contact 114 via an electrode 217.) Note par. 0048.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of wherein the second electrode is grounded to maintaining consistent voltage levels and preventing fluctuations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Wen (US 20220216370) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190006595) in view of Wang et al. (US 20230335682).
Hung-Wen teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Hung-Wen does not teach wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are disposed on a same side of the epitaxial stack.
Wang et al. teach wherein the first electrode (510, Fig. 9, par. 102) and the second electrode (510, Fig. 9, par. 102) are disposed on a same side of the epitaxial stack (In particular, an epitaxial layer 200 is arranged on the surface of the substrate 100, and the epitaxial layer 200 comprises an N-type semiconductive layer 210, a light-emitting layer 220 and a P-type semiconductive layer 230 arranged on the surface of the substrate 100 layer by layer.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are disposed on a same side of the epitaxial stack to satisfy structural specifications of set forth by the manufacturer.
.
Claim(s) 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Wen (US 20220216370) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190006595) in view of Stowell et al. (US 20150348757).
Hung -Wen teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Stowell et al. teach wherein the microwave comprising a frequency ranging from 2 GHz to 6 GHz (Note claim 17) and a wavelength (Note claim 18) ranging from 1.5 μm to 10 μm.
Stowell et al. is silent on the wavelength ranging from 1.5 μm to 10 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the wavelength taught by Stowell et al. to range from 1.5 μm to 10 μm since it has been held where the where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). One would be motivated to make such a modification in order to test for particular wavelengths of operation and identification of various conditions under which certain wavelength result in any difference in the results.
Regarding claim 20, Hung-Wen does not teach a shielding element between the semiconductor device and the microwave device.
Stowell et al. teach a shielding element between the semiconductor device and the microwave device. (Note conductive shield 122, par. 0030)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of a shielding element between the semiconductor device and the microwave device to protect the microwave device from damage.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Wen (US 20220216370) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190006595) in view of Knapp et al. (US 20150382424).
Hung-Wen teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Hing-Wen does not teach a signal-amplifying device electrically connected to the light collecting device.
Knapp et al. teach a signal-amplifying device (145, Fig. 20) electrically connected to the light collecting device (photo detector 128, Fig. 20) .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of a signal-amplifying device electrically connected to the light collecting device to convert the current of the photodetector to voltage to be utilized by other components in the circuit.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Wen (US 20220216370) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190006595) in view of Lin et al. (US 20230184819).
Hung-Wen teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 16, Hung-Wen does not teach an optical splitter coupling to the light collecting device.
Lin et al. teach an optical splitter (224, par. 0031 and Fig. 4a) coupling to the light collecting device (230, par. 0031 and Fig. 4A).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of an optical splitter coupling to the light collecting device to enables the division of optical signals into multiple paths for tasks such as routing, amplification, and data manipulation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Wen (US 20220216370) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190006595) in view of Bang (US 20250258214).
Hung-Wen teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Hung-Wen does not teach a stage for placing the semiconductor device, wherein the light collecting device is disposed above the stage.
Bang teach a stage (530, for placing the semiconductor device, wherein the light collecting device (600, Fig. 1) is disposed above the stage.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of a stage for placing the semiconductor device, wherein the light collecting device is disposed above the stage to hold the device that is being tested.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung-Wen (US 20220216370) in view of Xu et al. (US 20190006595) in view of ONO (US 20070245189).
Hung-Wen teach the instant invention except the following claim limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Hung-Wen does not teach an electrical measurement device for testing the semiconductor device.
ONO teach an electrical measurement device (tester 24, par. 0059) for testing the semiconductor device.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hung-Wen to include the teaching of an electrical measurement device for testing the semiconductor device to determine if the tested device is functioning properly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-3441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 5:30-1:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/DEMETRIUS R PRETLOW/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858