DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The examiner appreciates the applicants attempt to place the claims in condition for allowance. Since the applicant states, “Applicant does not believe or acquiesce that the patentability of the claims is dependent on the features as stated by the Examiner.” The examiner will further clarify their role hereinafter. MPEP 1202.14 states, “In determining whether reasons for allowance should be recorded, the primary consideration lies in the first sentence of 37 CFR 1.104(e) which states: If the examiner believes that the record of the prosecution as a whole does not make clear his or her reasons for allowing a claim or claims, the examiner may set forth such reasoning. (Emphasis added).” Furthermore, “Conversely, where the record is not explicit as to reasons, but allowance is in order, then a logical extension of 37 CFR 1.111 and 1.133 would dictate that the examiner should make reasons of record and such reasons should be specific.” At that time of examination, the examiner could not reasonably make a rejection for the limitation in question. The statement was not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance but put forth an attempt to advance prosecution.
At this time, the applicant has not included any statement on the record that would persuade the examiner of a new/inventive concept or unexpected result. The examiner would appreciate in the next response arguments explaining the inventive concept that is enabling the LED to obtain a high external quantum efficiency because at this time it is unclear in view of the prior art being relied upon in the rejection below.
When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP § 716.07. Therefore, applicant’s remarks, see pages 7-9, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 11-15 and 17-20 under 103 have been fully considered in view of the relied upon prior art at the time. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kang et al. (KR 20190023765 A) and Nakamura et al. (US 20120313077 A1).
Additionally, note the pertinent art section below where the examiner provides additional facts from Liu (US 20220367561 A1) who discloses, “external quantum efficiency (EQE) in the range of 50-80% can be commonly measured under current densities of 1-26 A/cm.sup.2 for large area indium gallium nitride (InGaN) blue quantum well LEDs with lateral dimensions on the order of tens to hundreds of micrometers,” in [0003].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 states, “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,” which appears to be broader than independent claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 21, 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20180261724 A1) in view of Kang et al. (KR 20190023765 A) and Nakamura et al. (US 20120313077 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses a light emitting device, comprising:
A light emitting diode, comprising
a substrate (100); ([0017], Fig.2) and
a nitride semiconductor layer (210) grown on the substrate (100),
a first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer (230);
a V-pit generation layer (230) disposed on the first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer (230) and having V-pits;
an active layer (400) disposed on the V-pit generation layer (230);
a stress relief layer (300) disposed between the V-pit generation layer (230) and the active layer (400) and providing a relief of strain; ([0032], Fig. 2) and
a second conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer (600) disposed on the active layer (400), ([0018], Fig. 2)
wherein the substrate has a c-growth plane (per [0021]), and the nitride semiconductor layer (210) is grown on the c-growth plane of the substrate (100), (Fig. 2)
Park does not disclose:
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 between 7 A/cm2 and 53 A/cm2 while emitting light of a plurality of peaks based on a difference of amount of Indium, wherein an external quantum efficiency increases and then decreases as current densities increase, 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, Kang discloses:
while emitting light of a plurality of peaks based on a difference of amount of Indium, 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. (see Kang inserted disclosure below)
Kang states, “The indium content of the third semiconductor layer 17 may be approximately 1% to approximately 3%. By such a content range, recesses 18 such as V-pits can be formed more easily and film quality of uniform thickness can be obtained.
When the fourth semiconductor layer 19 is used as a stress relieving layer, the indium content may be approximately 3% to approximately 6%. By such a content range, the current can be rapidly diffused,
When the fourth semiconductor layer 19 is used as a current diffusion layer, the indium content may be approximately 6% to approximately 12%. By such a content range, the stress can be relaxed and defects such as cracks of the semiconductor element can be prevented.
Only one of the stress relieving layer and the current diffusing layer may be included in the fourth semiconductor layer 19 or both the stress relieving layer and the current diffusing layer may be included.”
“The indium content of the active layer 21 may be approximately 12% to approximately 16%. With this content range, light of the main luminescence peak wavelength, for example, blue wavelength light, can be generated.”
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Park and Kang for while emitting light of a plurality of peaks based on a difference of amount of Indium, 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 since “the first and second sub-semiconductor layers 17a and 17b of the third semiconductor layer 17 are periodically grown through temperature control, thickness control, and indium content control, the recesses 18 can be formed easily and precisely” so as to “realize a white light beam having high efficiency” (Kang, Background section and searching “indium” within the translated document)
And Nakamura discloses:
wherein an external quantum efficiency (EQE) increases and then decreases as current densities increase, (Fig. 3 and 4)
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. ([0056]-[0058] Fig. 1b-9)
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose:
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 between 7 A/cm2 and 53 A/cm2.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Park, Kang and Nakamura to achieve 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 between 7 A/cm2 and 53 A/cm2 since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura discloses the light emitting device of claim 11. Nakamura does not explicitly disclose 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 while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Park, Kang and Nakamura to achieve 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 while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Nakamura discloses the light emitting device of claim 11. Nakamura does not explicitly disclose 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 while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Park, Kang and Nakamura to achieve 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 while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura discloses the light emitting device of claim 11. Nakamura does not disclose 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 while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Park, Kang and Nakamura to achieve 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 while emitting the light of the plurality of peaks since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 21, Park discloses the light emitting diode of claim 11, wherein the stress relief layer (300) is a superlattice layer. ([0031], Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 23, Kang discloses the light emitting diode of claim 11, further comprising: a gap layer (19) between the stress relief layer (17) and the active layer (21),wherein the gap layer (19) has a lattice constant smaller than an average lattice constant of the stress relief layer. (see kang disclosure below)
Kang discloses, “The indium content of the third semiconductor layer 17 may be approximately 1% to approximately 3%. By such a content range, recesses 18 such as V-pits can be formed more easily and film quality of uniform thickness can be obtained.
When the fourth semiconductor layer 19 is used as a stress relieving layer, the indium content may be approximately 3% to approximately 6%. By such a content range, the current can be rapidly diffused,
The indium content of the active layer 21 may be approximately 12% to approximately 16%”
Which leads the examiner to believe that due to the increase of indium constant effects the lattice constant between these layers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Park and Kang to arrive at the claimed invention in order to “realize a white light beam having high efficiency” (Kang)
Regarding claim 24, Park discloses the light emitting diode of claim 11, wherein: the stress relief layer has a structure where a first layer and a second layer are alternately stacked, ([0031]) an energy band gap of the first layer is smaller than an energy band gap of the second layer, ([0031])
Park does not explicitly disclose:
and a lattice constant of the first layer is greater than a lattice constant of the V-pit generation layer and smaller than a lattice constant of a well layer of the active layer.
However, Park does disclose:
“[0032] The super-lattice layer 300 can prevent propagation of defects such as dislocation by relieving stress and strain applied to the active layer 400 due to lattice mismatch between the nitride semiconductor layers and the substrate 100 having a different crystal structure than the nitride semiconductor layers. Accordingly, the super-lattice layer 300 can improve crystal quality of the active layer 400.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Park for a lattice constant of the first layer is greater than a lattice constant of the V-pit generation layer and smaller than a lattice constant of a well layer of the active layer in order to “secure a sufficient luminous region while improving an ESD prevention effect.” (Park, [0076])
Regrading claim 25, Park discloses the light emitting diode of claim 24. Park does not disclose wherein: each of the first layer of the stress relief layer, the intermediate layer, and the well layer of the active layer is a nitride semiconductor layer containing In, and the first layer of the stress relief layer contains the least amount of In, and the well layer of the active layer contains the most amount of In, among the first layer of the stress relief layer, the intermediate layer, and the well layer of the active layer.
However, Kang discloses:
each of the first layer (17) of the stress relief layer, the intermediate layer (19), and the well layer (21) of the active layer is a nitride semiconductor layer containing In, and the first layer of the stress relief layer contains the least amount of In, and the well layer of the active layer contains the most amount of In, among the first layer of the stress relief layer, the intermediate layer, and the well layer of the active layer. (see Kang disclosure inserted below)
Kang discloses, “The indium content of the third semiconductor layer 17 may be approximately 1% to approximately 3%. By such a content range, recesses 18 such as V-pits can be formed more easily and film quality of uniform thickness can be obtained.
When the fourth semiconductor layer 19 is used as a stress relieving layer, the indium content may be approximately 3% to approximately 6%. By such a content range, the current can be rapidly diffused,
When the fourth semiconductor layer 19 is used as a current diffusion layer, the indium content may be approximately 6% to approximately 12%. By such a content range, the stress can be relaxed and defects such as cracks of the semiconductor element can be prevented.
The indium content of the active layer 21 may be approximately 12% to approximately 16%. With this content range, light of the main luminescence peak wavelength, for example, blue wavelength light, can be generated”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Park and Kang to arrive at the claimed invention in order to “realize a white light beam having high efficiency” (Kang)
Regarding claim 26, Kang discloses the light emitting diode of claim 25, wherein the amount of In contained in the intermediate layer is closer to the amount of In contained in the first layer of the stress relief layer than the amount of In contained in the well layer of the active layer.
Regrading claim 27, Kang discloses the light emitting diode of claim 11, further comprising: a wavelength conversion material (inside 341) disposed on the second conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer (25 in 100), wherein: the second conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer (25 in 100) has a concave groove (22) on a surface thereof, and the wavelength conversion material (inside 341) is disposed in the concave groove (22). (see Kang disclosure below)
Kang discloses, “A molding member 341 may be disposed in the cavity 315 of the body 311. The molding member 341 may comprise a light-transmitting resin layer such as silicon or epoxy. The molding member 341 may be formed as a single layer or multiple layers. The molding member 341 may include a phosphor for changing the wavelength of light emitted on the semiconductor element 100. The phosphor may excite a part of light emitted from the semiconductor element 100 to emit light of a different wavelength . The phosphor may be selectively formed from YAG, TAG, silicate, nitride, and oxy-nitride materials. The phosphor may include at least one of a red phosphor, a yellow phosphor, and a green phosphor, but is not limited thereto. The surface of the molding member 341 may be formed in a flat shape, a concave shape, a convex shape, or the like, but is not limited thereto.”
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Kang to arrive at the claimed invention for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Regarding claim 28, Kang discloses the light emitting diode of claim 27, wherein the wavelength conversion material (inside 341) includes quantum dots emitting red light (phosphor). (see Kang disclosure below)
Kang discloses, “The phosphor may include at least one of a red phosphor”
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to use the teachings of Kang to arrive at the claimed invention for similar reasons mentioned beforehand.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20180261724 A1) in view of Kang et al. (KR 20190023765 A) and Nakamura et al. (US 20120313077 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Katona et al. (US 20140027789 A1)
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Kang and Nakamura disclose the light emitting device of claim 11. Park in view of Kang and Nakamura do 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 Park in view of Kang, Nakamura 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 17 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.
Claims 18-20 and 22 are objected to for being dependent on claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al (US 20220367561 A1) discloses:
“external quantum efficiency (EQE) in the range of 50-80% can be commonly measured under current densities of 1-26 A/cm.sup.2 for large area indium gallium nitride (InGaN) blue quantum well LEDs with lateral dimensions on the order of tens to hundreds of micrometers,” in [0003]. Which leads the examiner to believe a high external quantum efficiency is common to those skilled in the art to obtain.
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
Prosecution Insights