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 .
Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0248414) of record, in view of Chao (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0128004), in view of Pfeiffer (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0187694).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 10 of Kim discloses a light source using a photonic crystal structure comprising: a substrate (SUB51); a heterojunction structure including a first encapsulation layer (IN52), a graphene layer (GNM53), and a second encapsulation layer (IN53) sequentially stacked on the substrate; photonic crystal holes (H1) vertically penetrating the first encapsulation layer, the graphene layer, and the second encapsulation layer; and first (S51) and second (D51) electrodes respectively connected to both end portions of the heterojunction structure, wherein the heterojunction structure comprises a first buffer area (directly under G51 connecting S51) between the first electrode and the photonic crystal holes, a second buffer area (directly under G51 connecting S51) between the second electrode and the photonic crystal holes and an emission area between the first and second buffer areas, wherein the photonic crystal holes are provided in the emission area, wherein the first and second electrodes are spaced apart from each other in a first direction parallel to a top surface of the substrate, wherein the first buffer area and the second buffer area are spaced apart from each other in the first direction.
Kim is silent with respect to “the photonic crystal holes are provided in the emission area and not provided in each of the first buffer area and the second buffer area” and “when measured in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction parallel to the top surface of the substrate, a first width of each of the first encapsulation layer, the graphene layer, and the second encapsulation layer of the emission area is smaller than each of a second widths of each of the first encapsulation layer, the graphene layer, and the second encapsulation layer of the first buffer area and a third width of each of the first encapsulation layer, the graphene layer, and the second encapsulation layer of the second buffer areas”.
FIG. 3 of Chao discloses a similar heterojunction structure, wherein the photonic crystal holes (34) are provided in the emission area and not provided in each of the first buffer area and the second buffer area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim, as taught by Chao. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in the above manner for purpose of preventing the total reflection at the interface and controlling the collimation property of the light beams (Para 6 of Chao).
Modified Kim is silent with respect to “measured in the second direction, the second width of each of the first encapsulation layer, the graphene layer, and the second encapsulation layer of the first buffer area decreases toward the first direction, and wherein, when measured in the second direction” and “when measured in the second direction, the third width of each of the first encapsulation layer, the graphene layer, and the second encapsulation layer of the second buffer area decreases toward a opposite direction of the first direction”.
FIG. 4 of Pfeiffer discloses a similar graphene layer, wherein when measured in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction parallel to the top surface of the substrate, a width of the active area (44.1) of the graphene layer is smaller than widths of the first (44.2) and second (44.3) buffer areas.
With respect to “when measured in the second direction, the width of the second buffer area decreases toward a opposite direction of the first direction”, it is known in the art that gradually changing width would avoid stress concentration and micro-crack (CN 209561439 and CN 219960868 provide documentary evidences).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim, as taught by Pfeiffer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in the above manner for purpose of concentrating light emission and improving electrical contact to electrodes.
Claims 2 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Chao and Pfeiffer, in view of Shepard (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0240692) of record
Regarding Claim 2
Kim as modified by Chao and Pfeiffer discloses Claim 1.
Kim as modified by Chao and Pfeiffer is silent with respect to “the first encapsulation layer and the second encapsulation layer comprise hexagonal boron nitride (hBN)”.
FIG. 6 of Shepard discloses a similar heterojunction structure, comprising: a substrate (208, FIG. 2); a heterojunction structure including a first encapsulation layer (608), a graphene [0075] layer (602), and a second encapsulation layer (606) sequentially stacked on the substrate; and first (604) and second electrodes respectively connected to both end portions of the heterojunction structure, wherein the first encapsulation layer and the second encapsulation layer comprise hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) [0076]. The limitation “a junction of each of the first encapsulation layer and the second encapsulation layer and the graphene layer is a van der Waals heterojunction” is related to material property. The device of Shepard is identi-cal or substantially identical in structure or composi-tion as the claimed invention. Where the claimed and prior art products are identi-cal or substantially identical in structure or composi-tion, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either antici-pation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP2112.01.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim, as taught by Shepard. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in the above manner for purpose of improving lattice matching.
Regarding Claim 11
The recitation “an operating voltage of the light source is proportional to a length of the emission area in the first direction, wherein an operating current of the light source is proportional to a width of the emission area in the second direction” is only a statement of the inherent properties of the device. The device of Shepard is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention. When the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention, then the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Or 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. See MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 3-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Chao and Pfeiffer, in view of Fei (CN 110426777) of record
Regarding Claim 3
Kim as modified by Chao and Pfeiffer discloses Claim 1.
Kim as modified by Chao and Pfeiffer is silent with respect to “a plurality of optical waveguides provided between the substrate and the heterojunction structure, wherein the optical waveguides are spaced apart from each other”.
FIG. 2 of Fei discloses a similar light source, comprising a plurality of optical waveguides (6) provided between the substrate and the heterojunction structure, wherein the optical waveguides are spaced apart from each other (text: a triangular lattice periodic arrangement of silicon column 6 form a waveguide structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim, as taught by Fei. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in the above manner for purpose of realizing broadband circular polarization (Abstract of Fei).
Regarding Claim 4
Fei discloses the optical waveguides (silicon column 6) comprise silicon or silicon nitride.
Regarding Claim 5
FIG. 2 of Fei discloses at least some of the optical waveguides vertically overlap the emission area.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Chao and Pfeiffer, in view of in view of Hwang (KR 20120047107) of record
Regarding Claim 6
Kim as modified by Chao and Pfeiffer discloses Claim 1, wherein the photonic crystal holes have a constant radius.
Kim is silent with respect to “a distance between centers of the photonic crystal holes adjacent to each other is defined as a first lattice constant, wherein the first lattice constant is constant in the emission area”.
FIG. 3 of Hwang discloses a similar photonic crystal, wherein a distance between centers of the photonic crystal holes adjacent to each other is defined as a first lattice constant (text: The photonic crystal structure refers to a structure capable of controlling the transmission and generation of electromagnetic waves by artificially creating a periodic lattice structure having different refractive indices), wherein the first lattice constant is constant in the emission area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim, as taught by Hwang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in the above manner for purpose of improving the light extraction efficiency (Abstract of Hwang).
Claims 7 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Chao and Pfeiffer, in view of Nakamura (JP 2005250398) of record
Regarding Claim 7
Kim as modified by Chao and Pfeiffer discloses Claim 6.
Kim is silent with respect to “the radius of the photonic crystal holes is 50 nm to 150 nm”.
Nakamura discloses a similar light source, wherein the radius of the photonic crystal holes is 50 nm to 150 nm (the air hole diameter, lattice constant ratio r / a = 0.30, lattice constant a1 = 360 nm, and a2 = 340 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim, as taught by Nakamura. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in the above manner for purpose of improving the transmission efficiency (Tech-Solution of Nakamura).
Regarding Claim 10
Nakamura discloses a distance between centers of the photonic crystal holes adjacent to each other is defined as a second lattice constant, wherein the second lattice constant is 300 nm to 400 nm, wherein radii of the photonic crystal holes are determined in proportion to the second lattice constant (the air hole diameter, lattice constant ratio r / a = 0.30, lattice constant a1 = 360 nm, and a2 = 340 nm).
Claims 8 and 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Chao and Pfeiffer, in view of Nagatomo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0269224) of record, further in view of Ogawa (EP 1500434) of record and Peng (CN 101881856) of record for documentary evidences
Regarding Claim 8
Kim as modified by Chao and Pfeiffer discloses Claim 1, wherein the photonic crystal holes have a hexagonal boundary (FIG. 2 of Kim).
Kim is silent with respect to “the photonic crystal holes have different sizes in each of the hole areas”.
Nagatomo discloses a similar photonic crystal holes, wherein the photonic crystal holes have different sizes in each of the hole areas (Claim 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kim, as taught by Nagatomo. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kim in the above manner such that the diffraction occurs at different positions (Para 55 of Nagatomo).
Regarding Claim 9
The configuration of the claimed “a size of the photonic crystal holes decreases from an edge of the emission area toward a center of the emission area” was a matter of choice, because the size of the photonic crystal holes determines the lattice constant and the emission wavelength resonance (FIG. 5 of Ogawa and [0008] of Peng provide documentary evidence), as well as the light coupling efficiency (FIG. 9 of Nagatomo provides documentary evidence).
Pertinent Art
CN 108110605 discloses the shape of semiconductor light emitting chip has gradually changed width. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0033409 discloses when measured in the second direction, the width of the graphene layer decreases toward a opposite direction of the first direction. CN 101996853 discloses photonic crystal holes. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0051907. Pertinent art also includes Choi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0014630) and Amold (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0201201).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897