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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the limitation "the translucent member" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purposes of a prompt examination the examiner reads claim 6 as the following:
6. The semiconductor light-emitting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the [[sealing member has a dome shape.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al., US2023/0307766 (corresponding to US12,541,422).
In re Claim 1, Lin discloses a semiconductor light-emitting apparatus comprising: a package substrate 210 (Fig. 4); a semiconductor light-emitting element flip-chip 220 bonded on the package substrate 210; and a sealing member 240 that covers the semiconductor light-emitting element 220 on the package substrate 210 and has translucency at an emission wavelength of the semiconductor light-emitting element 220 (Fig. 3), wherein the semiconductor light-emitting element 220 includes an anode electrode 2252 and a cathode electrode 2251 bonded to the package substrate 210, a semiconductor layer 2220 on the anode electrode 2252 and the cathode electrode 2251, and a translucent substrate 220 on the semiconductor layer 2220 (Fig. 4), wherein the translucent substrate 220 has an upper surface US (Fig. A) in contact with the sealing member 240 and a side surface SS in contact with the sealing member 240 between the upper surface US and the semiconductor layer 2200, and an area of the side surface SS is equal to or less than an area of the upper surface US. (Figs. 1-4, 7-15; [0028 – 0076]).
In re Claim 6, Lin discloses the semiconductor light-emitting apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the [[translucent]] sealing member 240 has a dome shape (Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A. Lin’s Fig. 4 annotated to show the details cited
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.
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin as applied to claim 1 above.
In re Claim 2, Lin discloses all limitations of Claim 2 except for that the area of the side surface SS is equal to or more than 0.4 times the area of the upper surface US.
It is known in the art that an area is a result effective variable – because volume depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the area of the side surface SS is equal to or more than 0.4 times the area of the upper surface US, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 3, Lin discloses all limitations of Claim 3 except for that a thickness T31 of the sealing member 240 covering the upper surface US , in a direction normal to the upper surface US, is equal to or more than 0.5 times and equal to or less than twice a thickness T20 of the translucent substrate 220 (Fig. 4).
It is known in the art that thickness is a result effective variable – because mass depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the thickness T31 of the sealing member 240 covering the upper surface US , in a direction normal to the upper surface US, is equal to or more than 0.5 times and equal to or less than twice a thickness T20 of the translucent substrate 220, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP2144.04.IV.A).
In re Claim 4, Lin discloses all limitations of Claim 4 except for that the thickness of the sealing member 240 that covers the upper surface US, in the direction normal to the upper surface US, is equal to or more than 100 μm and equal to or less than 250 μm.
It is known in the art that thickness of the sealing member is a result effective variable – because its mass depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the thickness of the sealing member 240 that covers the upper surface US, in the direction normal to the upper surface US, is equal to or more than 100 μm and equal to or less than 250 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
In re Claim 5, Lin discloses all limitations of Claim 5 except for that the thickness of the translucent substrate 220 is equal to or more than 100 μm and equal to or less than 250 μm. It is known in the art that X is a result effective variable – because Y depends on it. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the thickness of the translucent substrate 220 is equal to or more than 100 μm and equal to or less than 250 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP2144.05.I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights