DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on February 6, 2026 and February 9, 2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(a), Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered but do not fully resolve the new matter issues.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant’s amendments and arguments have resolved the prior indefiniteness issues. However, Applicant’s amendments introduce new indefiniteness issues as discussed hereafter.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and further search and consideration have prompted the new grounds of rejections presented herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 includes “such that, under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks that laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths” and this is considered a typographical error of “such that, under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths” (where the word “that” was deleted, consistent with claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-10, 12-21 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.
Claims 1 (and similarly claim 12 includes) “wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers, such that, under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths” and this limitation is not supported by the instant application as it is more specific than the disclosure of the instant application.
Applicant references paragraph [0043] of the instant application for support, and this paragraph states “The emission characteristics are also modified due to the Indium percentage formed in the various identified regions, forming a range of possible color emission from blue to red.” Accordingly, the composition of the entire multiple quantum well structure, including the transition regions, the regions within the V-grooves, the regions outside the V-grooves as discussed in [0042], i.e., generically the parallel layers are responsible for the different wavelengths of emitted light whereas Applicant is claiming the transition regions and the declining indium concentration from the transition regions to other portions are specifically doped to result in the claimed shorter wavelengths under increasing current density. Applicant’s claim is therefore more specific than what is supported by the generic disclosure of the instant application.
Further, there is no support for “under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths.” Applicant argues that each current density produces its own discrete emission peak and these peaks shift to shorter wavelength as current increases. This clarifies the Applicant’s intent but this language is not part of the claim nor is it part of any definition. Under at least one broad reasonable interpretation, the limitation means there are discrete individual emission peaks (plural) at one current density, and under an increasing current density, the discrete individual emission peaks laterally shift and this is not supported by the instant application as discussed further below.
Paragraph [0043] of the instant application discloses that FIG. 4 shows a graph of various current densities used to produce different color emissions. In FIG. 4, at a current / current density of 2µA, there are no discrete, individual emission peaks (plural), there is just an emission peak (singular). As the current / current density increases to 3µA, the emission peak (singular) laterally shifts to output shorter wavelengths.
The Examiner recommends amending the above limitation to recite “wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers, wherein the parallel layers generate a discrete individual emission peak that laterally shifts to output shorter wavelengths in response to an increase in the driving current density.” This would be consistent with Applicant’s remarks and with the instant application as originally filed.
Claims 2-10 and 13-21 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1 or 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-10, 12-21 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 1 includes “wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers, such that, under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths” and it is unclear if this means that at one current density, there are multiple (i.e. more than one) discrete individual emission peaks, and as the current density increases, the multiple discrete individual emission peaks laterally shift, or if this means that at one current density there is one discrete individual emission peak, and as the current density increases, the discrete individual emission peak laterally shifts, and when looking at the overall shifting, multiple discrete individual peaks have shifted to result in one discrete individual peak. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers, such that, under increasing current density, a discrete individual emission peak laterally shifts and outputs shorter wavelengths.”
Claim 12 is similarly unclear, as it includes “wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers, such that, under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks that laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths” and it is believed the word “that” is a typographical error. Accordingly, this limitation is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1, and will be interpreted to mean “wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers, such that, under increasing current density, a discrete individual emission peak laterally shifts and outputs shorter wavelengths.”
Claims 2-10 and 13-21 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1 or 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8, 12-15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20180083160A1 (“Meyer”) in view of US20060097269A1 (“Lester”) in view of Yapparov, Rinat, et al., “Variations of light emission and carrier dynamics around V-defects in InGaN quantum wells”, J. Appl. Phys. 128, 225703, 2020 (“Yapparov”), in view of Dupuis, Russell, "Novel Approaches to High-Efficiency III-V Nitride Heterostructure Emitters for Next-Generation Lighting Applications,” Jun. 2007. https://doi.org/10.2172/939688 (“Dupuis”).
RE: Claim 1, Meyer discloses A monolithic LED system (component in FIG. 4 is a light emitting diode chip, [0004]), the system comprising:
an n-type region (2 in FIG. 4, [0034], [0036]-[0037]; The first semiconductor layer 1 and the second semiconductor layer 2 are p- and n-conductive respectively, [0034]);
a p-type region (1);
a multiple quantum well (MQW) region (3 including 31 and/or 32, [0034], [0036]-[0037]; 3 includes a multiple quantum well structure, [0037]) formed between the n-type region and the p-type region, wherein the MQW region comprises:
parallel layers comprising GaN each doped with a percentage of Indium to enable light emission (parallel layers of 31, 32; 31 are quantum well layers, [0042]; 32 are barrier layers, [0042]; quantum well layers and barrier layers comprise GaN with indium, [0025]; 3 is an active zone, [0037]; the active zone generates electromagnetic radiation, [0004]), and
one or more V-grooves (V-shaped grooves formed by 31, 32 in recesses 4, [0044]) formed within a portion of the parallel layers,
wherein a portion of the parallel layers in each of the one or more V-grooves has a lower concentration of the doped percentage of the Indium than other portions (leftmost portion of 3 in FIG. 4) of the parallel layers (The quantum well layers 31 have a lower indium content and/or smaller layer thickness in the regions inside the recess 4 compared to regions outside the recess 4, [0050]),
wherein transition regions (regions of 3 immediately outside V-grooves in 4 and between V-grooves in 4 and leftmost portion of 3 in FIG. 4; “transition regions” are not defined in the instant specification; the term “transition” is defined as “something that links one state, subject, place, etc. to another : a connecting part or piece,” see definition 2 by Merriam-Webster available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transition; accordingly, under a broad reasonable interpretation, regions of 3 immediately outside V-grooves in 4 and between V-grooves in 4 and leftmost portion of 3 connect the leftmost portion of 3 to the V-grooves in 4 and are therefore considered transition regions) between the portion of the parallel layers in each of the one or more V-grooves and the other portions of the parallel layers have a higher concentration of the doped percentage of the Indium (The quantum well layers 31 have a lower indium content and/or smaller layer thickness in the regions inside the recess 4 compared to regions outside the recess 4, [0050]; Accordingly, regions of 3 immediately outside the recess 4 would have a higher concentration of indium than regions of 3 inside 4), and
wherein the p-type region is planarized to form a surface along a continuous plane extending over the one or more V-grooves (FIG. 4 shows the p-type region 1 is planarized to form a top planar surface along a continuous plane over the V-grooves in 4).
Meyer does not explicitly disclose:
the LED system is configured to emit a variety of peak wavelengths of light in response to variations in a driving current density;
the light emission is a range of light emission between 400 and 600 nm;
wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers, such that, under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths.
In the same field of endeavor, Lester discloses Graph 410 in FIG. 4 shows the shift of dominant wavelength with the forward drive current. For InGaN LEDs the wavelength shifts towards shorter wavelengths as the drive current increases, [0013]; To obtain the desired dominant wavelength at the highest forward drive current, quantum well active regions are grown with the appropriate composition of InGa(Al)N, [0013].
Lester further discloses FIG. 5 shows the relative efficiency as a function of wavelength for a constant drive current of about 20 mA, [0013].
FIG. 5 shows light is emitted with a variety of peak wavelengths between 400nm and 600nm based on varying the Indium (In) content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to grow the parallel layers with the appropriate composition of InGaN so that a variety of dominant wavelengths of light is emitted in response to an increasing current as taught by Lester in order to vary the spectrum of light emitted. As a result, a range of light emission between 400 and 600nm would be enabled.
In the same field of endeavor, Yapparov discloses wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers (In the defect-free area (planar QWs), the average In content in the QWs is 22%. In the semipolar QWs, which are on the sidewalls of the V-defect, the In content is less than 10%. In the regions of the c-plane QWs surrounding the defects, the In content is increased up to 30% showing that In atoms that are not incorporated into the sidewall QWs segregate around the V-defect, pg. 5, last paragraph in righthand column; see FIG. 7 on pg. 6).
Accordingly, as Yapparov discloses the above features for a multiple quantum well structure made of InGaN (see pg. 5, first and second paragraphs in lefthand column, see caption for FIG. 7 on pg. 6), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Indium not incorporated into the V-grooves in Meyer would segregate around the V-defect / V-grooves in 4 resulting in an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declining with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers.
Note 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not, see MPEP 2112.01.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the indium concentration in the transition regions of the active zone 3 immediately outside the V-grooves in recess 4 as taught by Yapparov in order to widen the spectrum of light emitted by the device. As a result, the indium concentration in the transition regions of 3 would be larger than that of the leftmost region of 3 in FIG. 4, and would decline with distance from the V-grooves of 3 in 4 to the level of Indium doping in the leftmost portion of 3 in FIG. 4 of Meyer.
In the same field of endeavor, Dupuis discloses (see Annotated FIG. 9 of Dupuis below; FIG. 9 is on pg. 17 of Dupuis) under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths (Annotated FIG. 9 below shows each injection current has its own peak wavelength and the peak wavelength laterally shifts to output shorter wavelengths as injection current increases; As injection current increases, the current density would also increase for the same device).
Dupuis further discloses performing an active region calibration from structural point of view, such as QW and QWB thicknesses and Si doping in QWB, pg. 17, lines 8-12, see upper paragraph on pg. 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate the active region as taught by Dupuis in order to better tune the spectrum of emitted light.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Annotated FIG. 9 from Dupuis)
RE: Claim 2, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis discloses The monolithic LED system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the parallel InGaN layers are each doped with the percentage of the Indium to emit green light (As modified, the parallel layers 3 would be doped with indium to emit light in the wavelength range 500nm-565nm as shown in Annotated FIG. 9 of Dupuis above; US20210353148A1 (“Stewart”) teaches green light has a wavelength of about 500 nm to 565 nm, [0027]; As the parallel layers emit light in this wavelength range, they emit green light).
RE: Claim 3, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis discloses The monolithic LED system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the parallel InGaN layers are each doped with the percentage of the Indium to emit cyan light (As modified, the parallel layers 3 would be doped with indium to emit light at a wavelength of 500nm and at least 490nm-500nm as shown in Annotated FIG. 9 of Dupuis above; Stewart teaches cyan light has a wavelength of about 485 to about 500 nm, [0027]; As the parallel layers emit light in this wavelength range, they emit cyan light).
RE: Claim 4, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis discloses The monolithic LED system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the parallel InGaN layers are each doped with the percentage of the Indium to emit orange light (As modified, the parallel layers 3 would be doped with indium to emit light at a wavelength of 590nm-600nm as shown in Annotated FIG. 9 of Dupuis above; Stewart teaches orange light has a wavelength of about 590 nm to about 625 nm, [0027]; As the parallel layers emit light in this wavelength range, they emit orange light).
RE: Claim 8, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis discloses The monolithic LED system as set forth in claim 1, wherein a percentage of the concentration of the Indium within the one or more V-grooves is between five percent and fifteen percent (Yapparov discloses Along the V-defect sidewall, the Indium (In) content is less than 10%, pg. 5, last paragraph in righthand column; It would have been obvious to modify the In content in the V-grooves of 3 to have less than 10% In such as 5% In in order to widen the spectrum of emitted light; Note in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
RE: Claim 12, Meyer discloses A method for making a monolithic LED system (component in FIG. 4 is a light emitting diode chip, [0004]), the method comprising:
forming one of an n-type region (2 in FIG. 4, [0034], [0036]-[0037]; The first semiconductor layer 1 and the second semiconductor layer 2 are p- and n-conductive respectively, [0034]) or p-type region;
forming a multiple quantum well (MQW) region (3 including 31 and/or 32, [0034], [0036]-[0037]; 3 includes a multiple quantum well structure, [0037]) on the one of the n-type region or the p-type region, wherein the MQW region comprises:
parallel layers comprising GaN each doped with a percentage of Indium to enable light emission (parallel layers of 31, 32; 31 are quantum well layers, [0042]; 32 are barrier layers, [0042]; quantum well layers and barrier layers comprise GaN with indium, [0025]; 3 is an active zone, [0037]; the active zone generates electromagnetic radiation, [0004]); and
one or more V-grooves (V-shaped grooves formed by 31, 32 in recesses 4, [0044]) formed within a portion of the parallel layers;
wherein a portion of the parallel layers in each of the one or more V- grooves has a lower concentration of the doped percentage of the Indium than other portions (leftmost portion of 3 in FIG. 4) of the parallel layers (The quantum well layers 31 have a lower indium content and/or smaller layer thickness in the regions inside the recess 4 compared to regions outside the recess 4, [0050]); and
wherein transition regions (regions of 3 immediately outside V-grooves in 4 and between V-grooves in 4 and leftmost portion of 3 in FIG. 4; “transition regions” are not defined in the instant specification; the term “transition” is defined as “something that links one state, subject, place, etc. to another : a connecting part or piece,” see definition 2 by Merriam-Webster available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transition; accordingly, under a broad reasonable interpretation, regions of 3 immediately outside V-grooves in 4 and between V-grooves in 4 and leftmost portion of 3 connect the leftmost portion of 3 to the V-grooves in 4 and are therefore considered transition regions) between the portion of the parallel layers in each of the one or more V-grooves and the other portions of the parallel layers have a higher concentration of the doped percentage of the Indium (The quantum well layers 31 have a lower indium content and/or smaller layer thickness in the regions inside the recess 4 compared to regions outside the recess 4, [0050]; Accordingly, regions of 3 immediately outside the recess 4 would have a higher concentration of indium than regions of 3 inside 4),
forming the other one of the n-type region or the p-type region (1; The first semiconductor layer 1 and the second semiconductor layer 2 are p- and n-conductive respectively, [0034]; FIG. 4 shows the p-type region 1 is planarized to form a top planar surface along a continuous plane over the V-grooves in 4) on the MQW region and planarized to form a surface along a continuous plane extending over the one or more V-grooves.
Meyer does not explicitly disclose:
the LED system is configured to emit a variety of peak wavelengths of light in response to variations in a driving current density;
the light emission is a range of light emission between 400 and 600 nm;
wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers, such that, under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks that laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths.
In the same field of endeavor, Lester discloses Graph 410 in FIG. 4 shows the shift of dominant wavelength with the forward drive current. For InGaN LEDs the wavelength shifts towards shorter wavelengths as the drive current increases, [0013]; To obtain the desired dominant wavelength at the highest forward drive current, quantum well active regions are grown with the appropriate composition of InGa(Al)N, [0013].
Lester further discloses FIG. 5 shows the relative efficiency as a function of wavelength for a constant drive current of about 20 mA, [0013].
FIG. 5 shows light is emitted with a variety of peak wavelengths between 400nm and 600nm based on varying the Indium (In) content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to grow the parallel layers with the appropriate composition of InGaN so that a variety of dominant wavelengths of light is emitted in response to an increasing current as taught by Lester in order to vary the spectrum of light emitted. As a result, a range of light emission between 400 and 600nm would be enabled.
In the same field of endeavor, Yapparov discloses wherein the transition regions have an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declines with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers (In the defect-free area (planar QWs), the average In content in the QWs is 22%. In the semipolar QWs, which are on the sidewalls of the V-defect, the In content is less than 10%. In the regions of the c-plane QWs surrounding the defects, the In content is increased up to 30% showing that In atoms that are not incorporated into the sidewall QWs segregate around the V-defect, pg. 5, last paragraph in righthand column; see FIG. 7 on pg. 6).
Accordingly, as Yapparov discloses the above features for a multiple quantum well structure made of InGaN (see pg. 5, first and second paragraphs in lefthand column, see caption for FIG. 7 on pg. 6), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Indium not incorporated into the V-grooves in Meyer would segregate around the V-defect / V-grooves in 4 resulting in an Indium concentration that is highest at the periphery of the one or more V-grooves and declining with distance from the one or more V-grooves to the level of Indium doping in the other portions of the parallel layers.
Note 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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not, see MPEP 2112.01.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the indium concentration in the transition regions of the active zone 3 immediately outside the V-grooves in recess 4 as taught by Yapparov in order to widen the spectrum of light emitted by the device. As a result, the indium concentration in the transition regions of 3 would be larger than that of the leftmost region of 3 in FIG. 4, and would decline with distance from the V-grooves of 3 in 4 to the level of Indium doping in the leftmost portion of 3 in FIG. 4 of Meyer.
In the same field of endeavor, Dupuis discloses (see Annotated FIG. 9 of Dupuis below; FIG. 9 is on pg. 17 of Dupuis) under increasing current density, discrete individual emission peaks laterally shift and output shorter wavelengths (Annotated FIG. 9 below shows each injection current has its own peak wavelength and the peak wavelength laterally shifts to output shorter wavelengths as injection current increases; As injection current increases, the current density would also increase for the same device).
Dupuis further discloses performing an active region calibration from structural point of view, such as QW and QWB thicknesses and Si doping in QWB, pg. 17, lines 8-12, see upper paragraph on pg. 17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate the active region as taught by Dupuis in order to better tune the spectrum of emitted light.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Annotated FIG. 9 from Dupuis)
RE: Claim 13, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis discloses The method as set forth in claim 12, wherein the parallel InGaN layers are each doped with the percentage of the Indium to emit green light (As modified, the parallel layers 3 would be doped with indium to emit light in the wavelength range 500nm-565nm as shown in Annotated FIG. 9 of Dupuis above; Stewart teaches green light has a wavelength of about 500 nm to 565 nm, [0027]; As the parallel layers emit light in this wavelength range, they emit green light).
RE: Claim 14, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis discloses The method as set forth in claim 12, wherein the parallel InGaN layers are each doped with the percentage of the Indium to emit cyan light (As modified, the parallel layers 3 would be doped with indium to emit light at a wavelength of 500nm and at least 490nm-500nm as shown in Annotated FIG. 9 of Dupuis above; Stewart teaches cyan light has a wavelength of about 485 to about 500 nm, [0027]; As the parallel layers emit light in this wavelength range, they emit cyan light).
RE: Claim 15, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis discloses The method as set forth in claim 12, wherein the parallel InGaN layers are each doped with the percentage of the Indium to emit orange light (As modified, the parallel layers 3 would be doped with indium to emit light at a wavelength of 590nm-600nm as shown in Annotated FIG. 9 of Dupuis above; Stewart teaches orange light has a wavelength of about 590 nm to about 625 nm, [0027]; As the parallel layers emit light in this wavelength range, they emit orange light).
RE: Claim 19, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis discloses The method as set forth in claim 12, wherein a percentage of the concentration of the Indium within the one or more V-grooves is between five percent and fifteen percent (Yapparov discloses Along the V-defect sidewall, the Indium (In) content is less than 10%, pg. 5, last paragraph in righthand column; It would have been obvious to modify the In content in the V-grooves of 3 to have less than 10% In such as 5% In in order to widen the spectrum of emitted light; Note in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 5-7, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Lester, further in view of Yapparov, further in view of Dupuis as applied to claim 1 or 12, further in view of Nakamura, Shuji, et al. "High Performance Green LEDs for Solid State Lighting," https://doi.org/10.2172/1761272, Aug 2020 (“Nakamura”).
RE: Claim 5, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The monolithic LED system as set forth in claim 1, wherein the parallel layers include a V-groove density of 2x108 cm-2 or more.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses a V-defect density from 2x108 cm -2 to 5x108 cm -2 reduces VF, pg. 18, lines 8-14; Nakamura discloses VF is operating voltage, pg. 17, second paragraph in section titled “V-defect Engineering.”
It would have been obvious to modify the V-groove density to 5x108 cm -2 -as taught by Nakamura in order to reduce the operating voltage and therefore reduce power consumption of the device. Note in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
RE: Claim 6, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The monolithic LED system as set forth in claim 1, wherein each of the one or more V-grooves has a maximum gap width below 10 microns.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses forming large V-defects that are greater than 150nm across, pg. 18, lines 5-7; Nakamura discloses forming small V-defects that are less than 150nm across, pg. 18, lines 6-9; Nakamura discloses large V-defects reduce VF, pg. 18, lines 10-16; Nakamura discloses VF is operating voltage, pg. 17, second paragraph in section titled “V-defect Engineering.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the V-grooves to have a maximum width that is greater than 150nm such as 151nm-160nm as taught by Nakamura in order to reduce the operating voltage; 10 microns is 10,000 nm; Accordingly, 151nm-160nm is below 10 microns. Note in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
RE: Claim 7, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The monolithic LED system as set forth in claim 1, wherein each of the one or more V-grooves has a maximum gap width between 100 and 350 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses forming large V-defects that are greater than 150nm across, pg. 18, lines 5-7; Nakamura discloses forming small V-defects that are less than 150nm across, pg. 18, lines 6-9; Nakamura discloses large V-defects reduce VF, pg. 18, lines 10-16; Nakamura discloses VF is operating voltage, pg. 17, second paragraph in section titled “V-defect Engineering.”
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the V-grooves to have a maximum width that is greater than 150nm such as 151nm-160nm as taught by Nakamura in order to reduce the operating voltage; 10 microns is 10,000 nm; Accordingly, 151nm-160nm is below 10 microns. Note in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
RE: Claim 16, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The method as set forth in claim 12, wherein the parallel layers include a V-groove density of 2x108 cm-2 or more.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses a V-defect density from 2x108 cm -2 to 5x108 cm -2 reduces VF, pg. 18, lines 8-14; Nakamura discloses VF is operating voltage, pg. 17, second paragraph in section titled “V-defect Engineering.”
It would have been obvious to modify the V-groove density to 5x108 cm -2 -as taught by Nakamura in order to reduce the operating voltage and therefore reduce power consumption of the device. Note in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
RE: Claim 17, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The method as set forth in claim 12, wherein each of the one or more V-grooves has a maximum gap width below 10 microns.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses forming large V-defects that are greater than 150nm across, pg. 18, lines 5-7; Nakamura discloses forming small V-defects that are less than 150nm across, pg. 18, lines 6-9; Nakamura discloses large V-defects reduce VF, pg. 18, lines 10-16; Nakamura discloses VF is operating voltage, pg. 17, second paragraph in section titled “V-defect Engineering”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the V-grooves to have a maximum width that is greater than 150nm such as 151nm-160nm as taught by Nakamura in order to reduce the operating voltage; 10 microns is 10,000 nm; Accordingly, 151nm-160nm is below 10 microns. Note in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
RE: Claim 18, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The method as set forth in claim 12, wherein each of the one or more V-grooves has a maximum gap width between 100 and 350 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses forming large V-defects that are greater than 150nm across, pg. 18, lines 5-7; Nakamura discloses forming small V-defects that are less than 150nm across, pg. 18, lines 6-9; Nakamura discloses large V-defects reduce VF, pg. 18, lines 10-16; Nakamura discloses VF is operating voltage, pg. 17, second paragraph in section titled “V-defect Engineering”.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the V-grooves to have a maximum width that is greater than 150nm such as 151nm-160nm as taught by Nakamura in order to reduce the operating voltage; 10 microns is 10,000 nm; Accordingly, 151nm-160nm is below 10 microns. Note in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 9-10 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Lester, further in view of Yapparov, further in view of Dupuis as applied to claim 1 or 12, further in view of US20070120141A1 (“Moustakas”).
RE: Claim 9, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The monolithic LED system as set forth in claim 1, wherein a maximum percentage of the concentration of the Indium at the transition regions is one-hundred percent.
In the same field of endeavor, Moustakas discloses In can be present in amounts varying from at least 10% to 100% of any given III-nitride layer of the device. Increasing the In content results in a red-shift of the electroluminescence spectrum, [0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer of the active zone 3 to be 100% Indium as taught by Moustakas in order to widen the spectrum of light emitted by the device.
RE: Claim 10, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The monolithic LED system as set forth in claim 1, further comprising an electron blocking layer adjacent to the MQW region.
In the same field of endeavor, Moustakas discloses an electron blocking layer (8a in FIG. 5c; Layer 8a can be used with other forms of the invention described herein and functions as an electron blocking layer preventing the loss of electrons. [0095]) adjacent to the MQW region (MQW active region in FIG. 5c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an electron blocking layer adjacent to the active zone 3 as taught by Moustakas in order to prevent the loss of electrons, thereby improving efficiency.
RE: Claim 20, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The method as set forth in claim 12, wherein a maximum percentage of the concentration of the Indium at the transition regions is one-hundred percent.
In the same field of endeavor, Moustakas discloses In can be present in amounts varying from at least 10% to 100% of any given III-nitride layer of the device. Increasing the In content results in a red-shift of the electroluminescence spectrum, [0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a layer of the active zone 3 to be 100% Indium as taught by Moustakas in order to widen the spectrum of light emitted by the device.
RE: Claim 21, Meyer in view of Lester, Yapparov, Dupuis does not explicitly disclose The method as set forth in claim 12, further comprising:
forming an electron blocking layer adjacent to the MQW region.
In the same field of endeavor, Moustakas discloses an electron blocking layer (8a in FIG. 5c; Layer 8a can be used with other forms of the invention described herein and functions as an electron blocking layer preventing the loss of electrons. [0095]) adjacent to the MQW region (MQW active region in FIG. 5c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an electron blocking layer adjacent to the active zone 3 as taught by Moustakas in order to prevent the loss of electrons, thereby improving efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANGUIANO whose telephone number is (703)756-1226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (408) 918-7532. 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.
/MICHAEL ANGUIANO/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899