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 Amendment filed April 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 5 and 9 remain withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected Species.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
-the plurality of active barrier layers that are larger than the plurality of active capping layers of independent claims 1 and 13
- the plurality of active capping layers each having an energy band gap that is wider than the energy band gap of the active well layer having the surface in contact therewith and narrower than the energy band gap of an active barrier layer in contact therewith of independent claims 1 and 13
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the paragraphs and figures, indicated by Applicant as support at the top of page 11, do not provide the support that Applicant asserts.
[0061] of the instant application points to the sub-emission layer and the fact there is no need for a separate barrier layer for the sub-emission layer just a capping layer. The amended limitation is pointing to the active layer on the sub-emission layer.
[0069] of the instant application points to the barrier layer of the active layer having an energy band gap wider than that of the well layer due to lower In content. However, that is just for the active layer and barrier layer. It was known in the art that changes in In and Al content affect the energy band gap.
[0070] of the instant application points to the “not shown” capping layer. There is discussion of different Al content, which would change the energy band gap but the difference would be between the capping layer on the flat surface as compared to the capping portion in the V-pit, as it was known in the arts that changing Al content affects the energy band gap. There is no mention of a energy band gap or thickness (Examiner is interpreting “larger” to mean thicker) difference of the capping layer as compared to the barrier layer. There is also no comparison of the energy band gap between the capping layer and the well layer.
Figs 3A and 3B do show energy band gaps but just for the well layers and barrier layers of the sub-emission layer and active layer of the flat surface and in the V-pit. [0076]-[0082] appear to be the paragraphs referring to those figures and they do not point out any thickness difference or energy band gap difference of capping layers as required by the amended limitations.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 are also rejected as they are dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, for reasons similar to claim 1, the paragraphs and figures, indicated by Applicant as support at the top of page 11, do not provide the support that Applicant asserts.
[0061] of the instant application points to the sub-emission layer and the fact there is no need for a separate barrier layer for the sub-emission layer just a capping layer. The amended limitation is pointing to the active layer on the sub-emission layer.
[0069] of the instant application points to the barrier layer of the active layer having an energy band gap wider than that of the well layer due to lower In content. However, that is just for the active layer and barrier layer. It was known in the art that changes in In and Al content affect the energy band gap.
[0070] of the instant application points to the “not shown” capping layer. There is discussion of different Al content, which would change the energy band gap but the difference would be between the capping layer on the flat surface as compared to the capping portion in the V-pit, as it was known in the arts that changing Al content affects the energy band gap. There is no mention of a energy band gap or thickness (Examiner is interpreting “larger” to mean thicker) difference of the capping layer as compared to the barrier layer. There is also no comparison of the energy band gap between the capping layer and the well layer.
Figs 3A and 3B do show energy band gaps but just for the well layers and barrier layers of the sub-emission layer and active layer of the flat surface and in the V-pit. [0076]-[0082] appear to be the paragraphs referring to those figures and they do not point out any thickness difference or energy band gap difference of capping layers as required by the amended limitations.
Claims 14-20 are also rejected as they are dependent on claim 13.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et. al. (CN105870286A), hereinafter Mu, in view of Kim (US20180351039A1), with support from Keeping (“Defining the Color Characteristics of White LEDs,” https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/defining-the-color-characteristics-of-white-leds, 2013), in further view of Ozaki et. al. (JP 2004297098 A), hereinafter Ozaki.
Regarding claim 1, Mu teaches a light emitting diode (Fig 1, [0033] of translation), comprising: an n-type nitride semiconductor layer (Fig 1 n-type layer 130, [0033] of translation); a V-pit generation layer (Fig 1 multilayer structure 141, [0033] of translation) disposed on the n-type nitride semiconductor layer (Fig 1 n-type layer 130, [0033] of translation) and having V-pits (Fig 1 V-pits 143, [0033] of translation);a sub-emission layer (Fig 3 light emitting region 242A, [0046] of translation) disposed on the V-pit generation layer (Fig 3 multilayer structure 241, [0046] of translation is the same as Fig 1 multilayer structure 141, [0033] of translation) and including a plurality of well layers (Fig 3 well layer 242AW, [0046] of translation) and a plurality of capping layers (Fig 3 barrier layer 242AB as the capping layer, [0046] of translation); an active layer (Fig 3 light emitting regions 242B and 242C, [0046] of translation) disposed on the sub-emission layer (Fig 3 light emitting region 242A, [0046] of translation) and having a first well region (Fig 3 flat portions around v-pit) formed along a flat surface of the V-pit generation layer (Fig 3 multilayer structure 241, [0046] of translation is the same as Fig 1 multilayer structure 141, [0033] of translation) and a second well region (Fig 3 region inside of v-pit) formed in the V-pit of the V-pit generation layer (Fig 3 multilayer structure 241, [0046] of translation is the same as Fig 1 multilayer structure 141, [0033] of translation), wherein each of the first well region (Fig 3 flat portions around v-pit) and the second well region (Fig 3 region inside of v-pit) includes a plurality of active well layers (Fig 3 well layer 242AW and 242CW, [0046] of translation), a plurality of active barrier layers (Fig 3 barrier layer 242BB and 242CB as the barrier layer, [0046] of translation); and a p-type nitride semiconductor layer (Fig 1 p-type layer 150, [0033] of translation) disposed on the active layer (Fig 3 light emitting regions 242B and 242C, [0046] of translation).
Mu fails to teach an energy band gap of the sub-emission layer is wider than that of the first well region, and a combination of the sub-emission layer and the active layer emits light having at least three different peak wavelengths at a single chip level, where a peak wavelength of the at least three different peak wavelengths that has a greatest peak intensity of greater than 520nm; and a plurality of active capping layers, and a plurality of active barrier layers that are larger than the plurality of active capping layers and formed after corresponding active capping layers have been grown; and the plurality of active capping layers each having an energy band gap that is wider than the energy band gap of the active well layer having the surface in contact therewith and narrower than the energy band gap of an active barrier layer in contact therewith; the plurality of active capping layers are formed of AIGaN or AIInGaN, and the plurality of capping layers contact with a surface of each active well layer of the plurality of active well layers that is positioned closest to the n- type nitride semiconductor layer.
However, Kim teaches an energy band gap of the sub-emission layer (Fig 1 well layer Q2, [0050]) is wider (Fig 3, [0068] corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 light emitting region 242A, [0046] of translation) than that of the first well region (Fig 1 well layer Q1, [0050] corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 flat portions around v-pit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mu to incorporate the teachings of Kim by having an energy band gap of the sub-emission layer being wider than that of the first well region. This would allow for more than one color to be emitted from the light emitting diode.
It is noted for clarity of the record that Examiner chose Fig 1 of Kim to show the layers. Kim teaches a V-pit with light emitting layers but does not show the different sub layers of the light emitting layers, thus Fig 1 was chosen for clarity of the sub-layers. Further, Mu teaches the light emitting region 242A emits blue and 242B emits green ([0046] of translation). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that for those colors to be emitted the energy band gap of the sub-emission layer should be wider than the energy band gap of the first well region.
Regarding a combination of the sub-emission layer and the active layer emits light having at least three different peak wavelengths at a single chip level, where a peak wavelength of the at least three different peak wavelengths that has a greatest peak intensity of greater than 520nm. Mu teaches having at least three different peak wavelengths ([0047] of translation) at a single chip level ([0047] of translation). Further, Mu teaches the color temperature and color rendering can be adjusted ([0007] of translation). Keeping shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the combination of wavelengths for a light source has an effect on the color temperature. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have chosen at least three different peak wavelengths and adjusted them as taught by Mu, to have the greatest peak intensity have a peak, at the single chip level, greater than 520 nm. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
Mu and Kim fail to teach a plurality of active capping layers, and a plurality of active barrier layers that are larger than the plurality of active capping layers and formed after corresponding active capping layers have been grown; and the plurality of active capping layers each having an energy band gap that is wider than the energy band gap of the active well layer having the surface in contact therewith and narrower than the energy band gap of an active barrier layer in contact therewith; the plurality of active capping layers are formed of AIGaN or AIInGaN, and the plurality of capping layers contact with a surface of each active well layer of the plurality of active well layers that is positioned closest to the n- type nitride semiconductor layer.
However, Ozaki teaches a plurality of active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation), and a plurality of active barrier layers (Fig 2 barrier layer 13, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 barrier layer 242BB and 242CB as the barrier layer, [0046] of translation) that are larger than (the thickness of the intermediate layer is smaller than the thickness of the barrier layer, [0022] of translation) the plurality of active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) and formed after corresponding active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) have been grown ([0006] of translation); and the plurality of active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) each having an energy band gap that is wider (larger than well layer. [0091] of translation) than the energy band gap of the active well layer (Fig 2 well layer 11, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 well layer 242AW and 242CW, [0046] of translation) having the surface in contact therewith and narrower than (smaller than barrier layer, [0091] of translation) the energy band gap of an active barrier layer (Fig 2 barrier layer 13, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 barrier layer 242BB and 242CB as the barrier layer, [0046] of translation) in contact therewith; the plurality of active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) are formed of AIGaN ([0041] of translation) or AIInGaN, and the plurality of capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) contact with a surface of each active well layer (Fig 2 well layer 11, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 well layer 242AW and 242CW, [0046] of translation) of the plurality of active well layers (Fig 2 well layer 11, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 well layer 242AW and 242CW, [0046] of translation) that is positioned closest to the n- type nitride semiconductor layer (Fig 2 n-type light guide layer 105, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 1 n-type layer 130, [0033] of translation).
The language, term, or phrase “formed after corresponding active capping layers have been grown”, is directed towards the process of making a plurality of active barrier layers on a plurality of active capping layers. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language “formed after corresponding active capping layers have been grown” only requires a plurality of active barrier layers on a plurality of active capping layers, which does not distinguish the invention from Mu who teaches the structure as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mu and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Ozaki by having a capping layer. This would improve the threshold voltage by preventing the effects of In decomposition in the well layer during processing ([0006] of translation).
Regarding claim 10, Mu as modified in claim 1 teaches the active layer (Fig 3 light emitting regions 242B and 242C, [0046] of translation) emits light having at least two different peak wavelengths (Fig 3 242B emits green and 242C emits yellow, [0046] of translation) at a single chip level ([0047] of translation).
Regarding claim 11, Mu as modified in claim 10 teaches the first well region emits light having a peak wavelength within a region of wavelengths longer than that of light emitted from the second well region.
With regards to the first well region emits light having a peak wavelength within a region of wavelengths longer than that of light emitted from the second well region, Mu teaches the well layers are thinner in the v-pit, resulting in larger bandgaps ([0015] of translation). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a wider bandgap would mean the color emitted would have a shorter wavelength. Thus, the light emitted from the first region has a peak wavelength that would be longer the peak wavelength of the light emitted from the second well region.
Regarding claim 12, Mu as modified in claim 11 teaches the first well region (Fig 3 flat portion of light emitting region 242C, [0046]) emits yellow light (yellow, [0046]), and the second well region emits blue light.
Regarding the second well region emitting a blue light, Mu teaches the sub-emission layer emitting a blue light (Fig 3 242A, [0046] of translation). Mu also teaches that varying In content in a well can change the light emitted ([0041] of translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the In content in a different layer of the active layer such that the second well region emits a blue light. This would allow one to adjust the colors as desired for the application ([0022] of translation).
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et. al. (CN105870286A), hereinafter Mu, in view of Kim (US20180351039A1), with support from Keeping (“Defining the Color Characteristics of White LEDs,” https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/defining-the-color-characteristics-of-white-leds, 2013), in further view of Park et. al. (US 20180261724 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 2, Mu as modified in claim 1 teaches the sub-emission layer (Fig 3 light emitting region 242A, [0046] of translation) emits blue light (blue, [0046] of translation) or green light.
Mu and Kim fail to teach wherein the sub-emission layer functions as a superlattice layer that reduces a difference in lattice constants between the V-pit generation layer and the active layer.
However, Park teaches the sub-emission layer (Fig 2 super-lattice layer 300, [0031] corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 light emitting region 242A, [0046] of translation) functions as a superlattice layer ([0032]) that reduces a difference in lattice constants between the V-pit generation layer (Fig 2 n-type semiconductor 230, [0028] corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 multilayer structure 241, [0046] of translation is the same as Fig 1 multilayer structure 141, [0033] of translation) and the active layer (Fig 2 active layer 400, [0020] corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 light emitting regions 242B and 242C, [0046] of translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mu and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Park by having the sub-emission layer function as a superlattice layer that reduces a difference in lattice constants between the V-pit generation layer and the active layer. This would improve the quality of the active layer ([0032]).
It is noted for clarity of the record that while Park shows a single layer (Fig 2) for the super-lattice layer 300, there are multiple layers ([0031]). Further, these layers can emit light similar to the sub-emission layer of Mu since the super-lattice structure can have a stacked structure in which InGaN layers and GaN layers are alternately stacked one above another ([0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Mu as modified in claim 2 teaches the plurality of well layers
(Fig 3 well layer 242AW, [0046] of translation) emits light having a peak wavelength within a region of wavelengths shorter than a peak wavelength of light emitted from the first well region (Fig 3 flat portions around v-pit), and emits light having a peak wavelength within a region of wavelengths longer than a peak wavelength of light emitted from the second well region (Fig 3 region inside of v-pit).
Regarding the wavelength relationships, Mu teaches the well layers are thinner in the v-pit, resulting in larger bandgaps ([0015] of translation). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a wider bandgap would mean the color emitted would have a shorter wavelength. This would result in the light having a peak wavelength from the plurality of well layers being be a mixture of the light from both the first and second well regions. Thus, the peak wavelength of the mixture would have a peak wavelength shorter than the peak wavelength of light emitted from the first well region and longer than the peak wavelength of light emitted from the second well region since the light being emitted would.
Regarding claim 4, Mu as modified in claim 2 teaches the plurality of well layers (Fig 3 well layer 242AW, [0046] of translation) of the sub-emission layer (Fig 3 light emitting region 242A, [0046] of translation) includes a first well layer (Fig 3 first layer of a plurality of layers 242AW, [0046] of translation), a second well layer (Fig 3 second layer of a plurality of layers 242AW, [046] of translation), and a third well layer (Fig 3 third layer of a plurality of layers 242AW, [0046] of translation).
Regarding claim 6, Mu as modified in claim 4 teaches at least one of the first through third well layers has an energy band gap different from those of other well layers.
With regards to at least one of the first through third well layers has an energy band gap different from those of other well layers, Mu teaches that the bandgap width varies with the In component ([0041] of translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the In concentration in one of the well layers to vary the energy bandgap to allow for better adjustment of colors as desired for the application ([0022] of translation).
It is noted for clarity of the record that the shift in the bandgap in the v-pit region taught by Mu should shift the bandgap for each of the layers proportionally such that the layer with a different energy band gap will still have the same difference in energy band gap regardless of if the bandgap is view viewed in the area of the first well region or the area of the second well region.
Regarding claim 7, Mu as modified in claim 6 teaches the plurality of well layers emits light having a peak wavelength within the region of wavelengths longer than the peak wavelength of light emitted from the second well region, and emits light having a peak wavelength within the region of wavelengths shorter than the peak wavelength of light emitted from the first well region.
Regarding the wavelength relationships, Mu teaches the well layers are thinner in the v-pit, resulting in larger bandgaps ([0015] of translation). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that a wider bandgap would mean the color emitted would have a shorter wavelength. This would result in the light having a peak wavelength from the plurality of well layers being be a mixture of the light from both the first and second well regions. Thus, the peak wavelength of the mixture would have a peak wavelength shorter than the peak wavelength of light emitted from the first well region and longer than the peak wavelength of light emitted from the second well region since the light being emitted would.
Regarding claim 8, Mu as modified in claim 7 teaches an energy band gap of the third well layer is narrower than those of the first well layer, the second well layer, and the second well region, and wider than that of the first well region.
With regards to an energy band gap of the third well layer is narrower than those of the first well layer, the second well layer, Mu teaches that the bandgap width varies with the In component ([0041] of translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the In concentration in the third well layer to vary the energy bandgap of the third well layer so that the energy band gap is narrower than those of the first well layer, the second well layer, and the second well region, and wider than that of the first well region to allow for better adjustment of colors as desired for the application ([0022] of translation).
Claims 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et. al. (CN105870286A), hereinafter Mu, in view of Liao et. al. (US20060049415A1), hereinafter Liao, with support from Keeping (“Defining the Color Characteristics of White LEDs,” https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/defining-the-color-characteristics-of-white-leds, 2013), in further view of Ozaki et. al. (JP 2004297098 A), hereinafter Ozaki.
Regarding claim 13, Mu teaches a light emitting diode (Fig 1, [0033] of translation), comprising: an n-type nitride semiconductor layer (Fig 1 n-type layer 130, [0033] of translation); a V-pit generation layer (Fig 1 multilayer structure 141, [0033] of translation) disposed on the n-type nitride semiconductor layer (Fig 1 n-type layer 130, [0033] of translation) and having V-pits (Fig 1 V-pits 143, [0033] of translation); a sub-emission layer (Fig 3 light emitting region 242A, [0046] of translation) disposed on the V-pit generation layer (Fig 3 multilayer structure 241, [0046] of translation is the same as Fig 1 multilayer structure 141, [0033] of translation) and having a plurality of well layers (Fig 3 well layer 242AW, [0046] of translation) and a plurality of capping layers (Fig 3 barrier layer 242AB as the capping layer, [0046] of translation); an active layer (Fig 3 light emitting regions 242B and 242C, [0046] of translation) disposed on the sub-emission layer (Fig 3 light emitting region 242A, [0046] of translation) and having a first well region (Fig 3 flat portions around v-pit) formed along a flat surface of the V-pit generation layer (Fig 3 multilayer structure 241, [0046] of translation is the same as Fig 1 multilayer structure 141, [0033] of translation) and a second well region (Fig 3 region inside of v-pit) formed in the V-pit (Fig 1 V-pits 143, [0033] of translation) of the V-pit generation layer (Fig 3 multilayer structure 241, [0046] of translation is the same as Fig 1 multilayer structure 141, [0033] of translation), wherein each of the first well region (Fig 3 flat portions around v-pit) and the second well region (Fig 3 region inside of v-pit) includes a plurality of active well layers (Fig 3 well layer 242AW and 242CW, [0046] of translation), a plurality of active barrier layers (Fig 3 barrier layer 242BB and 242CB as the barrier layer, [0046] of translation) formed after the corresponding active capping layers have been grown; and a p-type nitride semiconductor layer (Fig 1 p-type layer 150, [0033] of translation) disposed on the active layer (Fig 3 light emitting regions 242B and 242C, [0046] of translation).
Mu fails to teach a combination of the sub-emission layer and the active layer emits light having at least three different peak wavelengths at a single chip level, where a peak wavelength of the at least three different peak wavelengths that has a greatest peak intensity of greater than 520nm, and an intensity of light at a peak wavelength disposed in a middle among the at least three different peak wavelengths is located between intensities of light at peak wavelengths disposed at both sides; and a plurality of active capping layers, and a plurality of active barrier layers that are larger than the plurality of active capping layers and formed after corresponding active capping layers have been grown; and the plurality of active capping layers each having an energy band gap that is wider than the energy band gap of the active well layer having the surface in contact therewith and narrower than the energy band gap of an active barrier layer in contact therewith; the plurality of active capping layers are formed of AIGaN or AIInGaN, and the plurality of capping layers contact with a surface of each active well layer of the plurality of active well layers that is positioned closest to the n- type nitride semiconductor layer.
With regards to an intensity of light at a peak wavelength disposed in a middle among the at least three different peak wavelengths is located between intensities of light at peak wavelengths disposed at both sides, Liao teaches that “the number of quantum wells and barriers and their thickness(es) may be adjusted to controllably vary the intensity ratio of the emitted photons of different energies (wavelengths).” ([0033]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have modified Mu with the teachings of Liao by changing the number of quantum wells and barriers such that an intensity of light at a peak wavelength disposed in a middle among the at least three different peak wavelengths is located between intensities of light at peak wavelengths disposed at both sides with the results of the combination being predictable. MPEP 2143(I)(A)
Regarding a combination of the sub-emission layer and the active layer emits light having at least three different peak wavelengths at a single chip level, where a peak wavelength of the at least three different peak wavelengths that has a greatest peak intensity of greater than 520nm. Mu teaches having at least three different peak wavelengths ([0047] of translation) at a single chip level ([0047] of translation). Further, Mu teaches the color temperature and color rendering can be adjusted ([0007] of translation). Keeping shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the combination of wavelengths for a light source has an effect on the color temperature. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have chosen at least three different peak wavelengths and adjusted them as taught by Mu, to have the greatest peak intensity have a peak, at the single chip level, greater than 520 nm. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
Mu and Liao fail to teach a plurality of active capping layers, and a plurality of active barrier layers that are larger than the plurality of active capping layers and formed after corresponding active capping layers have been grown; and the plurality of active capping layers each having an energy band gap that is wider than the energy band gap of the active well layer having the surface in contact therewith and narrower than the energy band gap of an active barrier layer in contact therewith; the plurality of active capping layers are formed of AIGaN or AIInGaN, and the plurality of capping layers contact with a surface of each active well layer of the plurality of active well layers that is positioned closest to the n- type nitride semiconductor layer.
However, Ozaki teaches a plurality of active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation), and a plurality of active barrier layers (Fig 2 barrier layer 13, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 barrier layer 242BB and 242CB as the barrier layer, [0046] of translation) that are larger than (the thickness of the intermediate layer is smaller than the thickness of the barrier layer, [0022] of translation) the plurality of active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) and formed after corresponding active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) have been grown ([0006] of translation); and the plurality of active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) each having an energy band gap that is wider (larger than well layer. [0091] of translation) than the energy band gap of the active well layer (Fig 2 well layer 11, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 well layer 242AW and 242CW, [0046] of translation) having the surface in contact therewith and narrower than (smaller than barrier layer, [0091] of translation) the energy band gap of an active barrier layer (Fig 2 barrier layer 13, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 barrier layer 242BB and 242CB as the barrier layer, [0046] of translation) in contact therewith; the plurality of active capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) are formed of AIGaN ([0041] of translation) or AIInGaN, and the plurality of capping layers (Fig 2 intermediate layer 12, [0020] of translation) contact with a surface of each active well layer (Fig 2 well layer 11, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 well layer 242AW and 242CW, [0046] of translation) of the plurality of active well layers (Fig 2 well layer 11, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 3 well layer 242AW and 242CW, [0046] of translation) that is positioned closest to the n- type nitride semiconductor layer (Fig 2 n-type light guide layer 105, [0020] of translation corresponds to Mu: Fig 1 n-type layer 130, [0033] of translation).
The language, term, or phrase “formed after corresponding active capping layers have been grown”, is directed towards the process of making a plurality of active barrier layers on a plurality of active capping layers. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language “formed after corresponding active capping layers have been grown” only requires a plurality of active barrier layers on a plurality of active capping layers, which does not distinguish the invention from Mu who teaches the structure as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mu and Liao to incorporate the teachings of Ozaki by having a capping layer. This would improve the threshold voltage by preventing the effects of In decomposition in the well layer during processing ([0006] of translation).
Regarding claim 14, Mu as modified in claim 13 teaches the intensities (not shown) at the at least three different peak wavelengths ([0047] of translation) increase as the wavelength increases.
With regards to the intensities increasing as the wavelength increases, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could use the teachings of Liao to modify the intensities of the peak wavelengths for this configuration. This would allow for the color temperature and color rendering to be adjusted as needed (Mu: [0007] of translation) MPEP 2144.08
Regarding claim 15, Mu as modified in claim 13 teaches the intensities (not shown) at the at least three different peak wavelengths ([0047] of translation) decrease as the wavelength increases.
With regards to the intensities decreasing as the wavelength increases, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could use the teachings of Liao to modify the intensities of the peak wavelengths for this configuration. This would allow for the color temperature and color rendering to be adjusted as needed (Mu: [0007] of translation) MPEP 2144.08
Regarding claim 18, Mu as modified in claim 13 teaches a peak wavelength (not shown) disposed in the middle among the at least three different peak wavelengths ([0047] of translation) is closer to a shorter peak wavelength (not shown) adjacent thereto than a longer peak wavelength (not shown) adjacent thereto.
With regards to the middle peak wavelength being closer to the shorter peak wavelength than the longer peak wavelength, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could adjust the wavelengths of the light emitting diode to satisfy this limitation with predictable results. This would allow for the color temperature and color rendering to be adjusted as needed (Mu: [0007] of translation) MPEP 2144.08
Regarding claim 19, Mu as modified in claim 13 teaches at least three different peak wavelengths ([0047] of translation) have a shortest peak wavelength (not shown) and a longest peak wavelength (not shown), and an intensity change as the wavelengths increase from the longest peak wavelength to the longer wavelength is more gradual than an intensity change as the wavelengths decrease from the shortest peak wavelength to the shorter wavelength.
With regards to an intensity change as the wavelengths increase from the longest peak wavelength to the longer wavelength is more gradual than an intensity change as the wavelengths decrease from the shortest peak wavelength to the shorter wavelength one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could adjust the intensities of the different wavelengths to satisfy this limitation with predictable results. This would allow for the color temperature and color rendering to be adjusted as needed (Mu: [0007] of translation) MPEP 2144.08
Regarding claim 20, Mu as modified in claim 13 teaches at least two valleys (not shown) are formed between the at least three different peak wavelengths ([0047] of translation), and the at least two valleys (not shown) may have different intensities from each other.
With regards to at least two valleys are formed between the at least three different peak wavelengths, and the at least two valleys may have different intensities from each other, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could adjust the intensities and positions of the wavelengths to satisfy this limitation with predictable results. This would allow for the color temperature and color rendering to be adjusted as needed (Mu: [0007] of translation) MPEP 2144.08
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et. al. (CN105870286A), hereinafter Mu, in view of Liao et. al. (US20060049415A1), hereinafter Liao, with support from Keeping (“Defining the Color Characteristics of White LEDs,” https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/defining-the-color-characteristics-of-white-leds, 2013), in further view of Huang et. al. (“The influence of well thickness on the photoluminescence properties of blue-violet light emitting InGaN/GaN multiple quantum wells,” 2018).
Mu as modified in claim 13 fails to teach a full width at half maximum of an emission spectrum band including a longest wavelength among the at least three different peak wavelengths is greater than those of emission spectrum bands including other peak wavelengths.
With regards to a full width at half maximum of an emission spectrum band including a longest wavelength among the at least three different peak wavelengths is greater than those of emission spectrum bands including other peak wavelengths, Huang teaches that as the quantum well gets thicker the full width at half maximum for the peak wavelength increases (Summary). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have further modified Mu by increasing the thickness of the quantum well layers to increase the full width at half maximum of the desired peak wavelength to allowing for the color temperature and color rendering to be adjusted as needed (Mu: [0007] of translation). The results of this modification would have been predictable and when combined with the teachings of Liao, Mu would have a full width at half maximum of an emission spectrum band including a longest wavelength among the at least three different peak wavelengths is greater than those of emission spectrum bands including other peak wavelengths. MPEP 2143(I)(A)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mu et. al. (CN105870286A), hereinafter Mu, in view of Liao et. al. (US20060049415A1), hereinafter Liao, with support from Keeping (“Defining the Color Characteristics of White LEDs,” https://www.digikey.com/en/articles/defining-the-color-characteristics-of-white-leds, 2013), in further view of in view of Kim (US20180351039A1).
Mu as modified in claim 13 fails to teach an emission spectrum band that includes a
shortest wavelength among the at least three different peak wavelengths has a left-right asymmetric shape with asymmetric left and right slopes.
Regarding the emission spectrum band that includes a shortest wavelength among the at least
three different peak wavelengths has a left-right asymmetric shape with asymmetric left and right slopes. Kim teaches an emission spectrum band composed of two wavelengths near each other (Fig 4). Further, Kim teaches adjusting the full width at half maximum of the two wavelengths to improve the color rendering ([0076]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that when a spectrum band is composed of two wavelengths that are near each other and the full width at half maximum of one of the wavelengths is modified to be wider then there will be a left-right asymmetric shape with asymmetric left and right slopes. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could apply the teaching of Kim to modify Mu, through routine experimentation, such that an emission spectrum band that includes a shortest wavelength among the at least three different peak wavelengths has a left-right asymmetric shape with asymmetric left and right slopes with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 35 USC §112 section on starting on page 9, filed April 17, 2026, with respect to amendments to claims 1 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §112 rejection of claims 1 and 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments , see 35 USC §103 section starting on page 11, filed April 17, 2026, with
respect to the 35 USC §103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Konda (US 11888089 B2) teaches a capping layer and barrier layer on a well layer. The capping layer and barrier layer can be made of AlGaN or AlInGaN.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights