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 § 103
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) 1- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2019-0086143 A, hereinafter refer to Kim).
KR 2019-0086143 A (hereinafter refer to Kim) is relied upon solely for the English language translation of KR 2019-0086143 A.
Regarding Claim 1: Kim discloses a light-emitting device (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown below and abstract), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
343
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
443
719
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
425
737
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a light-emitting element (120) including a first surface, a second surface positioned at a side opposite to the first surface, and a plurality of third surfaces positioned between the first surface and the second surface (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above), the light-emitting element (120) comprising:
a first conductive member (121) and a second conductive member (122) positioned at the second surface and arranged in a first direction (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above);
a covering member (110A/160/115) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above) comprising:
a first covering part (160/115) covering a region of the second surface between the first conductive member (121) and the second conductive member (122) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above), and
a second covering part (110A) covering the plurality of third surfaces, wherein: the covering member (110A/115/160) does not cover at least a portion of the first conductive member (121) and at least a portion of the second conductive member (122) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above);
a first metal film (111B) covering a portion of the first covering part (115), the first metal film (111B) being electrically connected to the first conductive member (121) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above); and
a second metal film (113B) separated from the first metal film (111B), the second metal film (113B) covering a portion of the first covering part (115), the second metal film (113B) being electrically connected to the second conductive member (112) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
Kim is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein: in a second direction from the second surface toward the first surface, a maximum length of the first covering part is greater than a maximum length of the first conductive member, and a maximum length of the first metal film is greater than the maximum length of the first conductive member.
However, Kim teaches wherein: in a second direction from the second surface toward the first surface, a maximum length of the first covering part (115/160) is greater or equal to a maximum length of the first conductive member (121), and a maximum length of the first metal film (111B) is greater or equal to the maximum length of the first conductive member (121) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the maximum length of the first covering part with respect to the maximum length of the first conductive member and the maximum length of the first metal film with respect to the maximum length of the first conductive member through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the maximum length of the first covering part with respect to the maximum length of the first conductive member and the maximum length of the first metal film with respect to the maximum length of the first conductive member is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 2: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 1 as above. Kim is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein: in the second direction, the maximum length of the first covering part is not less than 2 times and not more than 50 times the maximum length of the first conductive member.
However, Kim teaches wherein: in the second direction, the maximum length of the first covering part (115/160) is not less the maximum length of the first conductive member (121) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the maximum length of the first covering part with respect to the maximum length of the first conductive member in the second direction through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the maximum length of the first covering part with respect to the maximum length of the first conductive member in the second direction is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 3: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 1 as above. Kim is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein: in the second direction, the maximum length of the first metal film is not less than 0.7 times and not more than 1.2 times the maximum length of the first covering part.
However, Kim teaches wherein: in the second direction, the maximum length of the first metal film (111) is not less the maximum length of the first covering part (115/160) (see Kim, Fig.15 as shown above).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the maximum length of the first metal film with respect to the maximum length of the first covering part in the second direction through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the maximum length of the first metal film with respect to the maximum length of the first covering part in the second direction is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 4: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 1 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: the first covering part (115/160) overlaps a portion of the first conductive member (121) and a portion of the second conductive member (122) in the second direction (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 5: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 1 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: the covering member further comprises a third covering part (a portion of 115 which is in direct contact with the light-transmitting member (190)) overlapping the first covering part (160 and a portion of 115) in the first direction and overlapping the second covering part (110A) in the second direction (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above); and
the first metal film (111b) covers at least a portion of the third covering part (a portion of 115 which is in direct contact with the light-transmitting member (190)) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 6: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 5 as above. Kim further teaches wherein a light-transmitting member (190) positioned between the second covering part (110a) and the third surface of the light-emitting element (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above);
wherein: the third covering part (a portion of 115 which is in direct contact with the light-transmitting member (190)) overlaps the light-transmitting member (190) in the second direction (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 7: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 5 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: a length of the third covering part (a portion of 115 which is in direct contact with the light-transmitting member (190)) in the first direction is longer at a side proximate to the light-emitting element in the second direction than at a side distant to the light-emitting element in the second direction (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 8: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 5 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: a recessed portion defined by the first covering part and the third covering part is open at two ends of the covering member in a third direction that is orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction (see Kim, Fig.15 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 9: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 1 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: a portion of the first metal film (111B) covering the first conductive member (121) protrudes with respect to a periphery (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 10: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 1 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: a surface roughness of a portion of the first metal film (111B) covering the first conductive member (121) is less than a surface roughness of a portion of the first metal film (11B) covering the second covering part (110A) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
NOTE: the discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.
Regarding Claim 11: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 1 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: the second covering part (110A) includes:
a first outer surface overlapping at least a portion of the third surfaces of the light-emitting element in a third direction, the third direction being orthogonal to the first direction and the second direction (see Kim, Fig.15 as shown above), and
a second outer surface positioned at a side opposite to the first outer surface (see Kim, Fig.15 as shown above); and
the first metal film (111) is positioned to be separated from the first outer surface (see Kim, Fig.15 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 12: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 11 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: the second covering part (110A) includes:
a third outer surface overlapping the first conductive member (121) in the third direction (see Kim, Fig.15 as shown above), and
a connecting surface connecting the first outer surface and the third outer surface (see Kim, Fig.15 as shown above);
a length from the first outer surface to the second outer surface in the third direction is greater than a length from the third outer surface to the second outer surface in the third direction (see Kim, Fig.15 as shown above); and
at least a portion of the connecting surface is not covered with the first metal film (111) (see Kim, Fig.15 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 13: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 1 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: a portion of the second covering part (110A) covers a portion of the second surface (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above);
a groove (TH) is provided in the portion of the second covering part (110A) that covers the portion of the second surface (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above);
the first conductive member (121) includes an exposed portion not covered with the second covering part (110A) in the groove (TH) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above); and
the exposed portion is electrically connected to the first metal film (111B) (see Kim, Fig.12 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 14: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting device as set forth in claim 1 as above. Kim further teaches a light-emitting module (see Kim, Fig.7 as shown above), comprising:
the light-emitting device according to claim 1; a substrate (201) including a mounting surface (see Kim, Fig.7 as shown above), the substrate (201) comprising:
a first terminal (211) and a second terminal (213) positioned on the mounting surface (see Kim, Fig.7 as shown above); and
a first connection member (121) contacting the first terminal (211) and the first metal film (11B) (see Kim, Fig.7 as shown above);
wherein: the first metal film (111B) comprises a first portion covering the first conductive member (121), the first portion comprising a first region contacting the first connection member (121) (see Kim, Fig.7 as shown above);
the first metal film (111B) comprises a second portion covering the second covering part (110A), the second portion comprising a second region contacting the first connection member (121) (see Kim, Fig.7 as shown above).
Kim is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein a first proportion of the first region in the first portion is greater than a second proportion of the second region in the second portion.
However, Kim teaches a first proportion of the first region in the first portion is equal to or less than an a second proportion of the second region in the second portion (see Kim, Fig.7 as shown above).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the first proportion of the first region in the first portion with respect to the second proportion of the second region in the second portion through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the first proportion of the first region in the first portion with respect to the second proportion of the second region in the second portion is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Regarding Claim 15: Kim as modified teaches a light-emitting module as set forth in claim 14 as above. Kim further teaches wherein: a length of the first connection member (121) in a fourth direction perpendicular to the mounting surface has a maximum at the first portion of the first metal film (111B) (see Kim, Fig.7 as shown above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BITEW A DINKE whose telephone number is (571)272-0534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/BITEW A DINKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights