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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/18/2024.
The examiner acknowledges and appreciates the amendments to the withdrawn claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments regarding claim 11 which states, “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office is misapplying the ruling in Dillon to the claimed invention is persuasive however, Jang still teachings that the current invention as being claimed “A light emitting device, comprising: a light emitting diode, comprising: a substrate; and a nitride semiconductor layer grown on the substrate, wherein the substrate has a c-growth plane, and the nitride semiconductor layer is grown on the c-growth plane of the substrate” can achieve a efficiency of 80% in Jang Fig. 22A. However, After further review, Cich alone discloses this exact structure achieving all of the clamed quantum efficiency in the current density ranges which is reflected in the rejection further below.
Regarding the new amendment that recites, “a maximum external quantum efficiency over an entirety of a current density range between 7 A/cm2 and 53 A/cm2” the examiner appreciates the applicant trying to further clarify this limitation however this is not strong enough because Cich shows “a maximum external quantum efficiency over an entirety of a current density range between 7 A/cm2 and 53 A/cm2” in Fig. 4B. Furthermore, regarding applicants’ argument “the Office fails to teach or suggest that the LED "droop" phenomena described in the background of its invention is accomplished in devices that emit light of a plurality of peaks. Moreover, one of the main goals in the invention in Cich is overcoming this LED "droop". To this extent, Cich teaches away from this type of performance in its devices. As such, Cich is improper as a reference.” The examiner disagrees because the examiners’ purpose of using Cich is to show that the limitation “...wherein an external quantum efficiency increases and then decreases as current densities increase” although is being given patentable weight, is not an inventive concept. Cich states that this increasing then decreasing as current density increases is a natural phenomenon called droop and is common knowledge in the art. Now if the applicant is suggesting that the structural differences NOT shown in Jang or Cich i.e. claim 16 as amended “a first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer; a V-pit generation layer disposed on the first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer and having V-pits; an active layer disposed on the V-pit generation layer; a stress relief layer disposed between the V-pit generation layer and the active layer, wherein the stress relief layer provides a relief of strain in the light emitting device; and a second conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer disposed on the active layer, wherein the active layer emits light of a multi-band spectrum, and wherein the relief of strain causes the light emitting diode to maintain the external quantum efficiency over the current density range while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks.” In addition to the structure of claim 11 (similarly to claim 1 as amended) is the reason for a high quantum efficiency as being claimed in claims 11-14 then the examiner would agree that Cich would be improper because neither reference shows THIS structure achieving high quantum efficiency.
Regarding the new limitation “while emitting light of a plurality of peaks based on a difference of amount of Indium,” the examiner agrees neither Jang or Cich recite this limitation however, the examiner will be applying Schubert et al. (US 20120313074 A1) in the rejection below which discloses this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cich et al. (US 20150155439 A1) in view of Schubert et al. (US 20120313074 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Cich discloses a light emitting device, comprising:
A light emitting diode, comprising
a substrate (1); ([0047]), Fig. ) and
a nitride semiconductor layer (2) grown on the substrate (1), the substrate has a c-growth plane (per [0067]), and the nitride semiconductor layer (2) is grown on the c-growth plane of the substrate (1), (Fig. 5) wherein
the light emitting diode is operable to maintain an external quantum efficiency of 80% or more compared to a maximum external quantum efficiency over an entirety of a current density range of 50 between 7 A/cm2 and 53 A/cm2, ([0065], Fig. 4A)
wherein an external quantum efficiency increases and then decreases as current densities increase. (Fig. 4A)
Cich does not disclose:
while emitting light of a plurality of peaks based on a difference of amount of Indium,
However, Schubert discloses:
while emitting light of a plurality of peaks based on a difference of amount of Indium
(see [0020]-[0021] and claim 18)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Cich and Schubert for emitting light of a plurality of peaks based on a difference of amount of Indium in order to make “improvements in light emitting devices to efficiently emit light at wavelengths longer than the blue or violet wavelength ranges” ([0002])
Regarding claim 12, Cich discloses the light emitting device of claim 11, wherein
the light emitting diode maintains an external quantum efficiency of 80% or more compared to a maximum external quantum efficiency over an entirety of a current density range of 100 A/cm2 or more (Fig. 4B)
Cich does not disclose:
while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks.
However, Schubert discloses:
while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks. (see [0020]-[0021] and claim 18)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Cich and Schubert for similar reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 13, Cich discloses the light emitting device of claim 11, wherein
the light emitting diode maintains an external quantum efficiency of 80% or more compared to a maximum external quantum efficiency over an entirety of a current density range between 7 A/cm2 and 137 A/cm2 (Fig. 4B)
Cich does not disclose:
while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks.
However, Schubert discloses:
while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks. (see [0020]-[0021] and claim 18)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Cich and Schubert for similar reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 14, Cich discloses the light emitting device of claim 11, wherein
the light emitting diode maintains an external quantum efficiency of 60% or more compared to a maximum external quantum efficiency over an entirety of a current density range between 3 A/cm2 and 104 A/cm2, inclusive. (Fig. 4B)
Cich does not disclose:
while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks.
However, Schubert discloses:
while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks. (see [0020]-[0021] and claim 18)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Cich and Schubert for similar reasons stated above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cich et al. (US 20150155439 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Katona et al. (US 20140027789 A1)
Regarding claim 15, Cich discloses the light emitting device of claim 11. Cich does not disclose wherein
the light emitting diode emits white light having a different color temperature depending on a current density, and emits white light having a higher color temperature at a higher current density.
However, Katona discloses:
the light emitting diode emits white light (per [0015]) having a different color temperature depending on a current density, and emits white light having a higher color temperature at a higher current density. ([0175]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Cich and Katona for the light emitting diode emits white light having a different color temperature depending on a current density, and emits white light having a higher color temperature at a higher current density in order to produce an acceptable level of light (total lumens), of a desirable appearance (color temperature and CRI), with a high efficacy (lm/W), at a low cost. (Katona, ([0175])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reason for indicating allowable subject matter
Regarding claim 16, Cich disclose the light emitting device of claim 11. Cich does not disclose further comprising:
a first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer;
a V-pit generation layer disposed on the first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer and having V-pits;
an active layer disposed on the V-pit generation layer;
a stress relief layer disposed between the V-pit generation layer and the active layer; and
wherein the stress relief layer provides a relief of strain in the light emitting device; and
a second conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer disposed on the active layer, wherein the active layer emits light of a multi-band spectrum, and wherein
the relief of strain causes the light emitting diode to maintain the external quantum efficiency over the current density range while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks.
However, Park discloses:
a first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer (200); ([0020], Fig. 2)
a V-pit generation layer (α) disposed on the first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer (200) and having V-pits; ([0020], Fig. 2)
an active layer (400) disposed on the V-pit generation layer (α); ([0020], Fig. 2)
a stress relief layer (300) disposed between the V-pit generation layer (α) and the active layer (400); ([0032], Fig. 2) and
wherein the stress relief layer (300) provides a relief of strain in the light emitting device; ([0032], Fig. 2) and
a second conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer (600) disposed on the active layer (400), wherein the active layer (400) emits light of a multi-band spectrum. ([0035], Fig. 2) and wherein
Cich in view of park do not disclose:
the relief of strain causes the light emitting diode to maintain the external quantum efficiency over the current density range while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks.
After further search and consideration, no prior art anticipates or renders obvious this limitation. Claims 17-20 depend on objected claim 16 and therefore are also objected to.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY BLACKWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1508. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-1600.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. 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.
/ASHLEY NICOLE BLACKWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897