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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 01/23/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Notably, in the foregoing referenced IDS, the document listed in the section entitled “Non Patent Literature Documents” is not in the English language and no translation or concise explanation of the relevance of such document has been provided.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are withdrawn.
Claim 20 is canceled.
Claims 16 is currently amended.
Claims 17-19 are original.
Claims 16-19 are rejected herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-19 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. See, e.g., Lee (KR 2021-0008206 A).
Notably, Lee discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) a light emitting element (300) including a first semiconductor layer (310), a second semiconductor layer (370) and a light emitting layer (360) disposed therebetween, wherein a side surface (i.e., a left side surface) of the first semiconductor layer (310) and a side surface (i.e., a left side surface) of the light emitting layer (360) are aligned in a line (i.e., a vertical line), a length of the first semiconductor layer (310) is greater than a length of the light emitting layer (360) along the line (i.e., the vertical line) and the length of the light emitting layer (360) is greater than a length of the second semiconductor layer (370) along the line (i.e., the vertical line).
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 16-19 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the side surface of the second semiconductor layer" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the foregoing limitation shall be read as "a."
Claims 17-19 depend from claim 16 and are likewise rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munkholm (US 10573781 B1) in view of Iguchi (US 20200343410 A1) and Lee (KR 2021-0008206 A).
Note, while the current rejection(s) herein rely on Lee (KR 2021-0008206 A), references herein to Lee shall cite to US 12,342,664 B2, which is the corresponding US equivalent of the KR document and is taken as an English language translation thereof.
[AltContent: textbox (440’)][AltContent: textbox (450’)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: textbox (L)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (460’)]
PNG
media_image1.png
472
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
ANNOTATED FIG. 4 OF MUNKHOLM
Regarding claim 16, Munkholm discloses (see generally, FIG. 6, along with annotated FIG. 4 herein):
A light emitting element (400), comprising:
a first semiconductor layer (460) having a first conductivity type (n-type);
a second semiconductor layer (440) disposed on the first semiconductor layer (460) and having a second conductivity type (p-type); and
a light emitting layer (450) disposed between the first semiconductor layer (460) and the second semiconductor layer (440), wherein the light emitting element (400) extends in a direction (note, the light emitting element (400) is a three-dimensional structure and hence necessarily extends in a direction),
a side surface (460’) of the first semiconductor layer (460) and a side surface (450’) of the light emitting layer (450) are aligned in a line (L), and
in a cross-sectional view perpendicular in the direction to the second semiconductor layer (440), a concentration of hydrogen (H) included in the second semiconductor layer (440) has a concentration gradient increasing from a side surface (440’) of the second semiconductor layer (440) to a center (C) of the second semiconductor layer (440).
Note, Munkholm (see, e.g., FIG. 4) discloses a light emitting element (400) including a first semiconductor layer (460) as claimed, a second semiconductor layer (440) as claimed and a light emitting layer (450) as claimed. As also disclosed by Munkholm, an upper surface (i.e., top surface) of the second semiconductor layer (440) is covered by layers (430, 420, 410) and the lower surface (i.e., bottom surface) of the second semiconductor layer (440) is cover by the light emitting layer (450), leaving only the side surfaces of the second semiconductor layer (440) exposed through which hydrogen diffuses, escapes and/or otherwise exits out from the second semiconductor layer (440) as a result of the annealing process. See, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 6, along with col. 6, ll. 1-12 and 33-67. Accordingly, the “path of least resistance” for the hydrogen to escape and/or exit from the second semiconductor layer (440) during the annealing process is radially from the center (C) of the second semiconductor layer (440) out through the side surface (440’) of the second semiconductor layer (440), e.g., as depicted in FIG. 4. Moreover, since the top and bottom surfaces of the second semiconductor layer (440) are covered during the annealing (see, e.g., FIGS. 4 and 6), the hydrogen nearer the exposed side surface (440’) of the second semiconductor layer (440) will be driven, diffuse, escape and/or otherwise exit out from the side surface (440’) of the second semiconductor layer (440) before, faster and/or to a greater extent than the hydrogen nearer the center (C) of the second semiconductor layer (440). Consequently, a concentration gradient of hydrogen is necessarily formed (i.e., to at least some degree at some point in time during the annealing) in the second semiconductor layer (440), with the hydrogen content increasing from the side surface (440’) of second semiconductor layer (440) to a center (C) of second semiconductor material layer (440).
Significantly, the arrangement of the second semiconductor layer (440) of Munkholm is the same as the arrangement of the second semiconductor layer used by Applicant, i.e., the top and bottom surfaces of the second semiconductor layer are covered with only the side surface being exposed through with hydrogen exits out of the second semiconductor layer; and the process applied in Munkholm is also the same process, i.e., annealing, which is used by Applicant to remove, diffuse and/or drive hydrogen out of the second semiconductor layer through the side surface thereof. Accordingly, the arrangement of the second semiconductor layer (440) of Munkholm (i.e., covered on top and bottom surfaces and having only the side surface exposed – the same as Applicant) processed according to the process of Munkholm (i.e., which is the same as that disclosed by Applicant, namely, annealing) will necessarily result in the same property (i.e., the claimed hydrogen concentration gradient) being exhibited and/or formed in the second semiconductor layer (440) to at least some degree at some point in time during the annealing.
Munkholm further discloses a length of the first semiconductor layer (460) is greater than a length of the light emitting layer (450) along the line (L). See, e.g., annotated FIG. 4 herein.
Munkholm does not explicitly disclose:
an edge of the second semiconductor layer protruding outward relative to the light emitting layer such that the side surface of the second semiconductor layer is slanted relative to the side surface of the light emitting layer.
However, in analogous art, Iguchi discloses (see, e.g., FIG. 1) a light emitting element (100G) comprising a first semiconductor layer (13) having a first conductivity type, a second semiconductor layer (11) having a second conductivity type and a light emitting layer (12) disposed therebetween, wherein the light emitting element (100G) extends in a direction (note, the light emitting element (100G) is a three-dimensional structure and hence necessarily extends in a direction). Iguchi also discloses that a side surface (16S) of the first semiconductor layer (13) and a side surface (16S) of the light emitting layer (12) are aligned in a line (see, e.g., FIG. 1 and paragraph [0087]). Iguchi further discloses an edge (11S) of the second semiconductor layer (11) protruding outward relative to the light emitting layer (12) such that the side surface (11S) of the second semiconductor layer (11) is slanted relative to the side surface (16S) of the light emitting layer (12). See generally, e.g., paragraphs [0088] and [0090]-[0091].
Note, for example, when θb of Iguchi is between 70º and 85º (see, e.g., paragraph [0091]) and θe of Iguchi is between 40º and 55º (see, e.g., paragraph [0088]), the side surface (11S) of the second semiconductor layer (11) is slanted relative to the side surface (16S) of the light emitting layer (12).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the light emitting element (400) of Munknolm with an edge of the second semiconductor layer protruding outward relative to the light emitting layer such that the side surface of the second semiconductor layer is slanted relative to the side surface of the light emitting layer as taught by Iguchi according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to aid in the improvement of light emission efficiency. See, e.g., paragraphs [0027], [0263] and [0265] of Iguchi.
Munkholm does not explicitly disclose:
the length of the light emitting layer is greater than a length of the second semiconductor layer alonq the line.
However, in analogous art, Lee discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) a light emitting element (300) including a first semiconductor layer (310), a second semiconductor layer (370) and a light emitting layer (360) disposed therebetween, wherein a side surface (i.e., a left side surface) of the first semiconductor layer (310) and a side surface (i.e., a left side surface) of the light emitting layer (360) are aligned in a line (i.e., a vertical line), a length of the first semiconductor layer (310) is greater than a length of the light emitting layer (360) along the line (i.e., the vertical line) and the length of the light emitting layer (360) is greater than a length of the second semiconductor layer (370) along the line (i.e., the vertical line).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have thinned the second semiconductor layer (440) of Munknolm such that the length of the light emitting layer is greater than a length of the second semiconductor layer alonq the line as taught by Lee according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, to aid and/or improve light extraction through a thinner second semiconductor layer.
Moreover, changes in size and/or relative dimensions normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence can be considered routine expedients. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions (e.g., the length of the light emitting layer being greater than a length of the second semiconductor layer) of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device may be deemed not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See, e.g., MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). Significantly, there is no evidence on the record that the recited relative dimensions as claimed (i.e., the length of the light emitting layer being greater than the length of the second semiconductor layer) would result in the claimed light emitting element performing differently than the prior art device of Munkholm. Indeed, there is no evidence of record that the length of the light emitting layer being greater than the length of the second semiconductor layer is particularly critical or significantly impacts how the claimed light emitting element would perform differently than the prior art light emitting element disclosed by Munkholm.
Regarding claim 18, Munkholm in view of Iguchi and Lee as applied to claim 16 discloses the light emitting element of claim 16.
Munkholm further discloses:
wherein the first conductivity type is an n type (see, e.g., FIG. 4), and
the second conductivity type is a p type (see, e.g., FIG. 4).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munkholm in view of Iguchi and Lee as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Nikolaev (US 20020053679 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Munkholm in view of Iguchi and Lee as applied to claim 16 discloses the light emitting element of claim 16.
Munkholm does not explicitly disclose wherein a hydrogen concentration of the second semiconductor layer is about 1x1019/cm3 or less.
However, in analogous art, Nikolaev (see, e.g., FIGS. 5, 7 and 16) discloses the use of annealing to drive hydrogen out of a p-type second semiconductor layer (1503) in order to improve the properties and/or lower the resistivity of such a layer (see, e.g., paragraph [0056]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formed the second semiconductor layer (440) of Munkholm with a hydrogen concentration of about 1x1019/cm3 or less according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to lower resistivity and/or otherwise improve properties of the layer by driving out a significant amount of hydrogen from the layer. See, e.g., paragraph [0056] of Nikolaev.
Regarding claim 19, Munkholm in view of Iguchi and Lee as applied to claim 16 discloses the light emitting element of claim 16.
Munkholm further discloses:
wherein the first semiconductor layer (460) is doped with a first conductivity type dopant (n-type), the second semiconductor layer (440) is doped with a second conductivity type dopant (p-type). See, e.g., FIG. 4.
Munkholm does not explicitly disclose an amount of the second conductivity type dopant doped into the second semiconductor layer is about 1.0x1019/cm3 or less.
However, in analogous art, Nikolaev (see, e.g., FIGS. 5, 7 and 16) discloses an amount of the second conductivity type dopant (p-type) doped into the second semiconductor layer (1503) is about 1.0x1019/cm3 or less (see, e.g., paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the second semiconductor layer (440) of Munkholm with an amount of the second conductivity type dopant (p-type) doped into the second semiconductor layer (440) of Munkholm being about 1.0x1019/cm3 or less as taught by Nikolaev according to known methods to yield predictable results, for example, in order to control the conductivity of the second semiconductor layer as desired. See, e.g., paragraph [0062] of Nikolaev.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P CORNELY whose telephone number is (571)272-4172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571) 272-1945. 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.
JOHN P. CORNELY
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/DAVIENNE N MONBLEAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812