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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application and are examined on merits herein.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claims 12-14 recite: “the wavelength conversion member positioned between the plurality of semiconductor parts”, which is not taught by the specification of the application.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
In re Claim 1: Lines 10-11 of Claim 1 recite: “disposing a resin member covering the plurality of semiconductor parts and the first surface positioned between the plurality of semiconductor parts”. The recitation is unclear with respect to the first surface that is“positioned between the plurality of semiconductor parts”, since Claim 1 earlier (lines 5-6) recites: “a plurality of semiconductor parts arranged on the first surface”.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation of lines 10-11 is interpreted as: “disposing a resin member covering the plurality of semiconductor parts and portions of the first surface positioned under regions separating adjacent semiconductor parts”.
In re Claim 1: Lines 21 -22 recite: “directly bonding a wavelength conversion member to the upper surface of the dielectric layer that has been caused to approach flat”. The recitation is unclear, since lines 18-20 of Claim 1 recite: “causing an upper surface of the dielectric layer to approach flat; selectively removing the dielectric layer located on the portion of the resin member”, and a combination of limitations of lines 18-22 leads to a question: Was a wavelength conversion member bonded to the upper surface of the dielectric layer before selective removal of parts of the dielectric layer or after?
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the limitations of lines 18-22 were interpreted as:
“causing an upper surface of the dielectric layer to approach flat; selectively removing parts of the dielectric layer located on the portion of the resin member; and directly bonding a wavelength conversion member to the upper surface of a remaining part of the dielectric layer that has been caused to approach flat, the wavelength conversion member covering the plurality of semiconductor parts”.
In re Claim 2: In view of interpretation of Claim 1, a limitation of Claim 2: “the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer located on”, for this Office Action, was interpreted as: “the step of selectively removing parts of the dielectric layer located on”.
In re Claim 5: Claim 5 recites (lines 6-14): “the method further comprises forming a covering member covering the dielectric layer and the portion at which the resin member is removed, the step of causing the upper surface of the dielectric layer to approach flat comprises performing chemical mechanical polishing of the dielectric layer and the covering member, etc.”. The recitation is unclear because the limitation of the “covering member” belongs to a second embodiment shown in Figs. 12-14, where the covering member is shown by number 40 (Fig. 13), but the second embodiment does not have a wavelength conversion member 23 cited by Claim 1, while Claim 5 depends on Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, Claim 5 was interpreted by omitting all the recitations of lines 6-14 from consideration.
In re Claims 6-8: In view of interpretation of Claim 1, for this Office Action, the recitation of Claims 6-8: “the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer located on the portion of the resin member” was interpreted as: “the step of selectively removing the parts of the dielectric layer located on the portion of the resin member”.
In re Claims 12-14: Claims 12-14 recite: “cleaving the wavelength conversion member positioned between the plurality of semiconductor parts”. The recitation is unclear, since conflicts with such limitation of Claim 1 (on which Claims 12-14 depend) as: “the wavelength conversion member covering the plurality of semiconductor parts”, and the specification does not teach that covering includes positioning between these parts.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted in accordance with the specification of the application as: “cleaving the wavelength conversion member positioned over regions with the selectively removed parts of the dielectric layer”.
In re Claims 3-4 and 9-11: Claims 3-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 1.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (JP 2022/117270) in view of Akimoto et al. (US 2014/0191258).
In re Claim 1, Nishiyama teaches a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device (Abstract), the method comprising:
providing (Fig. 1) a wafer comprising:
a first substrate 11 (page 2 paragraph 2) including a first surface (being an upper surface), and
a plurality of semiconductor parts 10 (page 2 paragraph 2) arranged on the first surface,
the plurality of semiconductor parts 10 being separated from each other – by groove 17 (page 3, paragraph 2),
each of the plurality of semiconductor parts 10 comprising a light-emitting part 10a (page 2 paragraph 3);
disposing (in a step between steps having intermediate structures shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) a resin member 18 (page 4, last paragraph and page 5, first paragraph; resin member 18 is shown in Fig. 2) covering the plurality of semiconductor parts 10 and the first surface of the first substrate 11 positioned between the plurality of semiconductor parts 10;
disposing (in the step between steps with intermediate structures shown in Figs. 1 and 2) a second substrate 21 on the resin member 18 (substrate 21 is shown in Fig. 2, page 4, last paragraph);
exposing (as shown in Fig. 2 turned upside down, and based on the last paragraph of page 4 and first three paragraphs of page 5) portions of the plurality of semiconductor parts 10 (e.g., portions 10n) by removing the first substrate 11;
forming (Fig. 2, page 5 last paragraph) a dielectric layer 22 continuously covering the portions of the plurality of semiconductor parts 10 and (obviously covering) the portion of the resin member 18 - under insulations 15, 16 or both 15 and 16;
causing an upper surface of the dielectric layer 22 to approach flat – by using a CMP (Fig. 3, page 5 last paragraph);
selectively removing the dielectric layer 22 located on the portion of the resin member 18 (Fig. 6B, paragraph 2); and
directly bonding a wavelength conversion member 23 (Fig. 4, page 6, paragraphs 2-3) to the upper surface of the dielectric layer 22 that has been caused to approach flat, the wavelength conversion member 23 covering the plurality of semiconductor parts 10.
Nishiyama does not teach that removing the first substrate exposes portions of the resin member, since his resin member 18 was not formed extending to the first substrate – it was formed being separated from the first substrate 11 by portions of semiconductor parts, and, in addition, it was separated from the first substrate also by portions of insulating layers 15, 16, or both of them.
Akimoto teaches forming a resin member 18 (paragraph 0032) extending to a top surface of a first substrate 5 and leveled with a corresponding surface of a semiconductor part 11 (Fig. 6A), where removal of the first substrate 5 (in a step made between intermediate structures shown in Figs. 6C and 7A) leads not only to an exposure of portions of the semiconductor parts 11, but also to exposure of a portion of a resin member 18.
Nishiyama and Akimoto teach analogous arts directed to a method of manufacturing a light-emitting device, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Nishiyama device method in view of the Akimoto device and method, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Akimoto method created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Nishiyama device and method by exposing portions of the resin member during a step of removal the first substrate (per Akimoto) wherein it is desirable creating the light-emitting device having a structure in which a top of the resin member is level with a top level of semiconductor parts and the top surface of the resin member is initially created in contact with the first substrate and leveled with a corresponding surface of the semiconductor parts. With this modification, the step of forming the dielectric layer would create the dielectric layer such that its portions would be in direct contact with portions of the resin member.
In re Claim 2, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 1 as cited above.
Nishiyama further teaches that the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer 22 located on the portion of the resin member 18 (the step shown in Fig. 6B) is performed after the step of causing the upper surface of the dielectric layer 22 to approach flat (the step shown in Fig. 3)
In re Claim 3, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 2 as cited above.
Nishiyama further teaches that the step of causing the upper surface of the dielectric layer to approach flat comprises performing chemical mechanical polishing of the dielectric layer, as shown for Claim 1.
Although Nishiyama does not state that in the step of performing chemical mechanical polishing of the dielectric layer, an etching rate of the resin member is less than an etching rate of the dielectric layer – this feature is inherent for the Nishiyama’ resin layer 18 made from epoxy resin, acrylic resin, or polyimide (page 5, first paragraph) and his dielectric layer 22 made from silicon oxide (page 9, paragraph 2): inherency is based on use of the same materials in the current application: resin member is made of the same materials as Nishiyama teaches (see paragraph 0041 of the current application), while dielectric 22 is made from silicon oxide (paragraph 0055 of the current application). Please, note that an etching rate ratio is a parameter, and in accordance with the MPEP MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims, I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT: “
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In re Claim 4, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 1 as cited above.
Nishiyama does not teach that the step of causing the upper surface of the dielectric layer to approach flat is performed after the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer located on the portion of the upper surface of the resin member – he making the surface of the dielectric layer flat before the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer located on the portions of the upper surface of resin layer. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale [R-11. 2013]. IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGRADIENTS. C. Changes in Sequence of Adding Ingredients: “Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”: Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959), In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to making the upper surface of the dielectric flat after the step of selectively removing portions of the dielectric layer located on the portion of the upper surface of the resin member, when desired by the manufacturer.
In re Claim 5, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 4 as cited above.
For the first embodiment (shown in Figs. 1-6D) Nishiyama does not teach (at least, explicitly) that the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer 22 located on the portion of the upper surface of the resin member 18 (Fig. 6B) comprises continuously removing the resin member exposed after selectively removing the dielectric layer (where the limitations: ‘the method further comprises forming a covering member covering the dielectric layer and the portion at which the resin member is removed, the step of causing the upper surface of the dielectric layer to approach flat comprises performing chemical mechanical polishing of the dielectric layer and the covering member, and in the chemical mechanical polishing of the dielectric layer and the covering member, an etching rate of the covering member is greater than an etching rate of the dielectric layer” – are omitted from consideration in according with the claim interpretation).
But for the second embodiment, shown in Figs. 8A-9 and described on pages 12-14, Nishiyama teaches that the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer comprises continuously removing the resin member exposed after selectively removing the dielectric layer until the light emitting device comprised a plurality of light-emitting devices is singulated into multiple light-emitting devices not connected by any layers.
It would have been obvious to conduct the step in accordance with the second embodiment, when it is desirable to have light-emitting devices having no mechanical connection with other light-emitting devices.
In re Claim 6, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 1 as cited above.
For the first embodiment (shown in Figs. 1-6D) Nishiyama does not teach (at least, explicitly) that the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer 22 located on the portion of the upper surface of the resin member 18 (Fig. 6B) comprises continuously removing the resin member exposed after selectively removing the dielectric layer.
But for the second embodiment, shown in Figs. 8A-9 and described on pages 12-14, Nishiyama teaches that the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer comprises continuously removing the resin member exposed after selectively removing the dielectric layer until the light emitting device comprised a plurality of light-emitting devices is singulated into multiple light-emitting devices not connected by any layers.
It would have been obvious to conduct the step in accordance with the second embodiment, when it is desirable to have light-emitting devices having no mechanical connection with other light-emitting devices.
In re Claim 7, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 2 as cited above.
For the first embodiment (shown in Figs. 1-6D) Nishiyama does not teach (at least, explicitly) that the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer located on the portion of the resin member comprises continuously removing the resin member exposed after selectively removing the dielectric layer.
But for the second embodiment, shown in Figs. 8A-9 and described on pages 12-14, Nishiyama teaches that the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer comprises continuously removing the resin member exposed after selectively removing the dielectric layer until the light emitting device comprised a plurality of light-emitting devices is singulated into multiple light-emitting devices not connected by any layers.
It would have been obvious to conduct the step in accordance with the second embodiment, when it is desirable to have light-emitting devices having no mechanical connection with other light-emitting devices.
In re Claim 8, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 3 as cited above.
For the first embodiment (shown in Figs. 1-6D), Nishiyama does not teach that the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer located on the portion of the resin member comprises continuously removing the resin member exposed after selectively removing the dielectric layer.
But for the second embodiment, shown in Figs. 8A-9 and described on pages 12-14, Nishiyama teaches that the step of selectively removing the dielectric layer comprises continuously removing the resin member exposed after selectively removing the dielectric layer until the light emitting device comprised a plurality of light-emitting devices is singulated into multiple light-emitting devices not connected by any layers.
It would have been obvious to conduct the step in accordance with the second embodiment, when it is desirable to have light-emitting devices having no mechanical connection with other light-emitting devices.
In re Claim 9, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 1 as cited above, including creation of an upper surface of the resin member leveled with an upper surface of the semiconductor parts.
Nishiyama/Akimoto further teaches the step of exposing the portions of the plurality of semiconductor parts and the portion of the resin member (as shown for Claim 1), and Nishiyama teaches (Fig. 2, page 5, paragraph 3) roughening the exposed portions of the plurality of semiconductor parts 11.
In re Claim 10, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 3 as cited above.
Nishiyama/Akimoto further teaches the step of exposing the portions of the plurality of semiconductor parts and the portion of the resin member (as shown for Claim 1), and Nishiyama teaches (Fig. 2, page 5, paragraph 3) roughening the exposed portions of the plurality of semiconductor parts 11.
In re Claim 11, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 4 as cited above.
Nishiyama/Akimoto further teaches the step of exposing the portions of the plurality of semiconductor parts and the portion of the resin member (as shown for Claim 1), and Nishiyama teaches (Fig. 2, page 5, paragraph 3) roughening the exposed portions of the plurality of semiconductor parts 11.
In re Claim 12, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 1 as cited above and further comprising (Nishiyama, Figs. 5-6A, pages 6-7): after the step of directly bonding the wavelength conversion member 23, cleaving the wavelength conversion member 23 positioned between the plurality of semiconductor parts.
In re Claim 13, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 3 as cited above and further comprising: (Nishiyama, Figs. 5-6A, pages 6-7): after the step of directly bonding the wavelength conversion member 23, cleaving the wavelength conversion member 23 positioned between the plurality of semiconductor parts.
In re Claim 14, Nishiyama/Akimoto teaches the method of Claim 4 as cited above and further comprising: (Nishiyama, Figs. 5-6A, pages 6-7): after the step of directly bonding the wavelength conversion member 23, cleaving the wavelength conversion member 23 positioned between the plurality of semiconductor parts.
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 07/21/26
Prosecution Insights