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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 10 and 15 are 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.
Regarding claim 10 and 15. Claims 10 and claim 15 recite identical subject matter and do not differ substantially from each other in scope (See 37 C.F.R. 1.75 and MPEP 2173.05). At least one of the two claims should be canceled or amended in a manner such that they do not overlap substantially in scope with each other or any other pending 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.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170025574 A1 to Eckert et al. in view of US 20200408977 A1 to Eisenhammer.
Regarding Claim 1. Eckert discloses a semiconductor chip comprising: a semiconductor layer sequence with an active region configured to generate incoherent radiation (See at least Fig. 1 chip 1 and para 53); and a filter layer sequence (Fig. 1A filter layer 22).
Eckert does not specifically disclose that at least one first layer of the filter layer sequence comprises amorphous silicon.
However, Eisenhammer discloses that at least one first layer of a filter layer sequence comprises amorphous silicon (para 49), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that at least one first layer of the filter layer sequence comprises amorphous silicon.
Regarding Claim 2. Eisenhammer further discloses that the amorphous silicon is hydrogenated at least in regions (para 76).
Regarding Claim 3. Eisenhammer further discloses the filter layer sequence (4) comprises at least one second layer (42) comprising a dielectric material (See para 49).
Regarding Claim 4. Eisenhammer further discloses a refractive index of the at least one second layer is smaller than a refractive index of the at least one first layer (see at least para 2-3).
Regarding Claim 5. Eisenhammer further discloses a refractive index of the at least one second layer is at most 3 (See at least para 2).
Regarding Claim 6. Eckert further discloses the active region is configured to emit radiation with a peak wavelength in the near infrared range (See at least Fig. 4A-4B and para 66-67).
Regarding Claim 7. Eckert further discloses the filter layer sequence is configured to block radiation in the visible range (See Fig. 5 and para 68).
Regarding Claim 8. Eisenhammer further discloses the filter layer sequence is configured as an angle-selective filter (See at least para 13).
Regarding Claim 9. Eckert further discloses the filter layer sequence is configured as a bandpass filter (See at least para 17).
Regarding Claim 10. Eckert further discloses the filter layer sequence is deposited on the semiconductor layer sequence (as shown in Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 11. Eckert discloses a method of producing a plurality of semiconductor chips comprising: a) providing a semiconductor chip assembly comprising a semiconductor layer sequence with an active region configured to generate radiation (See at least Fig. 1 chip 1 and para 53); b) forming a filter layer sequence on the semiconductor chip assembly (Fig. 1A filter layer 22); and c) singulating the semiconductor chip assembly with the filter layer sequence in the plurality of semiconductor chips (para 73).
Eckert does not specifically disclose that at least one first layer of the filter layer sequence comprises amorphous silicon.
However, Eisenhammer discloses that at least one first layer of the filter layer sequence comprises amorphous silicon (para 49), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that at least one first layer of the filter layer sequence comprises amorphous silicon.
Regarding Claim 12. Eckert further discloses forming the filter layer sequence includes depositing the filter layer sequence on the semiconductor chip assembly (as shown in Fig. 1A).
Regarding Claim 13. Eisenhammer further discloses the filter layer sequence is deposited on the semiconductor chip assembly in step b) by plasma-assisted reactive magnetron sputtering (as described in para 51).
Regarding Claim 15. Eckert discloses a semiconductor chip comprising: a semiconductor layer sequence with an active region configured to generate incoherent radiation (See at least Fig. 1 chip 1 and para 53); and a filter layer sequence (Fig. 1A filter layer 22), and wherein the filter layer sequence is deposited on the semiconductor layer sequence (See Fig. 1A).
Eckert does not specifically disclose that at least one first layer of the filter layer sequence comprises amorphous silicon.
However, Eisenhammer discloses that at least one first layer of a filter layer sequence comprises amorphous silicon (para 49), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that at least one first layer of the filter layer sequence comprises amorphous silicon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights