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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claim 1, the cancellation of claims 9, 10, 13, 15, and addition of claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 4 appears to have a typographical error of “type,20” which is understood to more correctly read as “type,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsubara et al. (US 2016/0156157) in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 5696289).
With respect to claim 1, Matsubara teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor component (fig.3) comprising: a first semiconductor layer of a p-conductivity type (fig.3 #17 [0070]); an active zone for generating electromagnetic radiation (fig.3 #15 [0077], function of active region to facilitate electron/hole recombination to produce light); a second semiconductor layer of an n-conductivity type (fig.3 #13 [0076]), the second semiconductor layer and the active zone comprising a material of an AlGaAs material system ([0074,79]) or an InGaAlP material system; an n-doped current spreading layer (fig.3 #12 [0070], function of the contact to spread current from the electrode to the layer stack) directly adjacent to the second semiconductor layer (fig.3 #12 directly adjacent #13); and a transparent substrate (fig.3 #11, [0072], GaAs at least partially transparent at 850nm [0079]; also note the claim does not define what wavelength ‘transparency’ is with respect to, such that any wavelength could be selected and further noting that GaAs is transparent at multiple wavelengths) which is arranged directly adjacent to the n-doped current spreading layer (fig.3 #11 directly adjacent #12), the transparent substrate being located on a side of the n-doped second semiconductor layer facing away from the first semiconductor layer (fig.3 #11 beneath #13), wherein the transparent substrate is made of an insulating material ([0072, 90]). Matsubara further teaches the current spreading contact material is not particularly limited ([0073]) as well as the use of an electrode on the n-material which does not extend fully across (fig.3 #52). Matsubara does not teach the n-doped current spreading layer contains ZnSe. Ishikawa teaches a related light emitter (title, fig.15; laser – fig.12-14, 40) which is made of both GaAs and ZnSe materials (col.14 lines 46-47), includes an n-doped current spreading layer (fig.15 #217/218, noting the contact #218 is the same ZnSe material) which is made of ZnSe (col.14 lines 51-52) and which is placed between the electrode (fig.15 #219) and the remainder of the device, and wherein the electrode does not extend fully across the emitter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of n-doped ZnSe material for the current spreading layer #12 of Matsubara as Ishikawa has demonstrated that such a layer used with a similar family of materials and with similar positioning and similar electrode extent beneficially allows for adequate diffusing of the current from the electrode and an increase in the luminous efficiency (Ishikawa, col.16 lines 33-38) and has clearly demonstrated the material to be suitable for the current spreading purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 2, Matsubara, as modified, further teaches a first (fig.3 #17) and a second (fig.3 #13) resonator mirror ([0070]).
With respect to claim 3, Matsubara, as modified, further teaches the first semiconductor layer is part of the first resonator mirror (fig.3 #17 forms first mirror) and the second semiconductor layer is part of the second resonator mirror (fig.3 #13 forms second mirror).
With respect to claim 8, Matsubara further teaches the optoelectronic semiconductor component is a surface emitting semiconductor laser component ([0070]).
With respect to claim 23, Matsubara teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor component (fig3.) comprising: a first semiconductor layer of a p-conductivity type (fig.3 #17 [0070]); an active zone for generating electromagnetic radiation (fig.3 #15 [0077], function of active region to facilitate electron/hole recombination to produce light); a second semiconductor layer of an n-conductivity type (fig.3 #13 [0076]), the second semiconductor layer and the active zone comprising a material of an AlGaAs material system ([0074,79]) or an InGaAIP material system, a first main surface of the second semiconductor layer being remote from the active zone (fig.3 #13 lower surface); an n-doped current spreading layer (fig.3 #12 [0070], function of the contact to spread current from the electrode to the layer stack) and is directly adjacent to the first main surface of the second semiconductor layer (fig.3 #12 directly adjacent lower surface of #13); and a transparent substrate (fig.3 #11, [0072], GaAs at least partially transparent at 850nm [0079]; also note the claim does not define what wavelength ‘transparency’ is with respect to, such that any wavelength could be selected and further noting that GaAs is transparent at multiple wavelengths) which is located on a side of the n-doped current spreading layer facing away from the first semiconductor layer and from the second semiconductor layer (fig.3 #11 beneath #13), wherein the transparent substrate is made of an insulating material ([0072, 90]). Matsubara further teaches the current spreading contact material is not particularly limited ([0073]) as well as the use of an electrode on the n-material which does not extend fully across (fig.3 #52). Matsubara does not teach the n-doped current spreading layer contains ZnSe. Ishikawa teaches a related light emitter (title, fig.15; laser – fig.12-14, 40) which is made of both GaAs and ZnSe materials (col.14 lines 46-47), includes an n-doped current spreading layer (fig.15 #217/218, noting the contact #218 is the same ZnSe material) which is made of ZnSe (col.14 lines 51-52) and which is placed between the electrode (fig.15 #219) and the remainder of the device, and wherein the electrode does not extend fully across the emitter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of n-doped ZnSe material for the current spreading layer #12 of Matsubara as Ishikawa has demonstrated that such a layer used with a similar family of materials and with similar positioning and similar electrode extent beneficially allows for adequate diffusing of the current from the electrode and an increase in the luminous efficiency (Ishikawa, col.16 lines 33-38) and has clearly demonstrated the material to be suitable for the current spreading purpose (see MPEP 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art was not found to teach or make obvious the further combination of the limitations of claim 1 with the substrate being further patterned into a lens based at least on the opposite side emission of Matsubara.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828