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 Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1-14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has argued (Remarks, pg.22-23) that Sato does not teach the formation of a protrusion in layer 12a.
The Examiner notes that the previous Office action mapped “a first compound semiconductor layer” to “fig.1 #11+12a” (non-final, pg.5) of Sato. When the first compound semiconductor is considered as #11+12a then the protrusion #11a is seen to be clearly located in a base surface on a side of the first surface (lower surface of #11+12a) of the first compound semiconductor layer (#11+12a) as is outlined in the current claim language.
Further, for arguments sake, even if ONLY layer #12a were considered to be “a first semiconductor layer”, the language in claim 1 describing the protrusion simply limits the location to be “a base surface located on a side of the first surface of the first compound semiconductor layer has a region including a protruding portion”. This language, put another way, is simply stating there is a base surface with a protruding portion “on a side of” the first surface of the first compound semiconductor layer. As seen in fig.1 of Sato, if the base surface were to be equated to be the bottom of layer #11, containing the protruding portion #11a, this identified base surface and protruding portion are each “on a side of the first surface of the first compound semiconductor layer” as they are located on the same lower side of the device as the first surface. Finally, note that “on” is not equated to direct physical contact as Merriam-Webster’s defines “on” to be “in close proximity”.
The argument is therefore not found persuasive.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
The Examiner notes the previous confusion surrounding figures 15/16 was related to the use of “91a” and “91b” as compared to the use of “91A” and “91B” in figure 1 to represent different elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to the current amendments.
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.
Claim 1 and claims 2, and 4-7 via dependency 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to in the second to last line to change a closed grouping using “consisting” to an open grouping using “includes”. The specification as originally filed is only found to teach the closed grouping of figures and is not found to teach an open grouping of figures. Therefore, it is not clear that this claimed open grouping was in possession of the Applicant at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/2 as being anticipated by Sato et al. (WO 2018/221042; US 2020/0112141 used as a translation thereof).
With respect to claim 1, Sato discloses a light emitting element (fig.1) comprising: a laminated structure that includes a first compound semiconductor layer (fig.1 #11+12a, [0039]) that includes a first surface (fig.1 #11 lower)and a second surface (fig.1 #12a upper) different from the first surface, wherein the second surface of the first compound semiconductor layer faces the first surface of the first compound semiconductor layer, an active layer (fig.1 #12b) that faces the second surface of the first compound semiconductor layer, and a second compound semiconductor layer (fig.1 #12c, [0039]) that includes a first surface (fig.1 #12c lower) and a second surface (fig.1 #12c upper), wherein the first surface of the second compound semiconductor layer faces the active layer, the second surface of the second compound semiconductor layer faces the first surface of the second compound semiconductor layer, and the first compound semiconductor layer, the active layer, and the second compound semiconductor layer are laminated (fig.1 layered atop each other); a first light reflecting layer (fig.1 #18); and a second light reflecting layer (fig.1 #16) on a side of the second surface of the second compound semiconductor layer, wherein the second light reflecting layer has a flat shape (fig.1 #16 central region), a base surface is on a side of the first surface of the first compound semiconductor layer, the base surface includes a first region (fig.1 near #11a) and a second region (fig.1 surfaces to left/right of #11a) different from the first region, the first region of the base surface includes a protruding portion (fig.1 #11a), the protruding portion protrudes in a direction away from each of the active layer and the second region of the base surface, the second region of the base surface surrounds the first region of the base surface, the second region of the base surface includes a flat surface (fig.1 surfaces to left/right of #11a), the first region of the base surface includes a first-A region (see annotated fig.11 below) and a first-B region (see annotated fig.11 below) different from the first-A region, the first-A region includes a top portion of the protruding portion (see annotated fig.11 below), the first-B region surrounds the first-A region (see annotated fig below), the first light reflecting layer is on at least the first-A region (fig.1 #18 on center of #11a), the first-A region includes a first curve, the first-A region is on the base surface that is in a cross-sectional shape, the base surface is cut along a virtual plane in a direction of the laminated structure, the first curve corresponds to an upwardly convex smooth curve (see annotated fig, curved area in first-A region), the first-B region includes a second curve, a complementary angle theta_CA of an angle (see annotated fig.11 below) is at an intersection of the second curve and a straight line, the second region of the base surface includes the straight line, a value of the complementary angle theta_CA of the angle is greater than 0 degrees (see annotated fig below, theta_CA larger than 0), the second curve includes at least a figure selected from a group of figures, and the group of figures includes a combination of a downwardly convex curve, a line segment, and a third curve (curves in first-B regions are similar to in first-A, and can be considered a third, undefined, curve with line segment).
PNG
media_image1.png
600
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Sato teaches a light emitting element (fig.1) comprising: a laminated structure that includes a first compound semiconductor layer (fig.1 #11+12a,[0039]) that includes a first surface (fig.1 bottom of #11) and a second surface (fig.1 top of #12) different from the first surface, wherein the second surface of the first compound semiconductor layer faces the first surface of the first compound semiconductor layer, an active layer (fig.1 #12b) that faces the second surface of the first compound semiconductor layer, and a second compound semiconductor layer (fig.1 #12c, [0039]) that includes a first surface (fig.1 #12c lower) and a second surface (fig.1 #12c upper) different from the first surface, wherein the first surface of the second compound semiconductor layer faces the active layer, the second surface of the second compound layer faces the first surface of the second compound semiconductor layer, and the first compound semiconductor layer, the active layer, and the second compound semiconductor layer are laminated (fig.1 layered atop each other); a first light reflecting layer (fig.1 #18); and a second light reflecting layer (fig.1 #16) on a side of the second surface of the second compound semiconductor layer (fig.1 center of #16), wherein the second light reflecting layer has a flat shape (fig.1 center of #16), a base surface is on a side of the first surface of the first compound semiconductor layer, the base surface includes a first region (fig.1 #11a) and a second region different from the first region (fig.1 area to left/right of #11a), the first region of the base surface includes a protruding portion (fig.1 #11a), the protruding portion protrudes in a direction away from each of the active layer and the second region of the base surface, the second region of the base surface surrounds the first region of the base surface (fig.1 area to left/right of #11a), the second region of the base surface includes a flat surface (fig.1 area to left/right of #11a), the first light reflecting layer is at least on a top portion of the first region of the base surface (fig.1 #18 on #11a), a complementary angle theta_CA of an angle is at an intersection of a curve and a straight line, the first region of the base surface includes the curve, the second region of the base surface includes the straight line, and the base surface is cut along a virtual plane in a direction of the laminated structure.
With respect to claim 4, Sato teaches a curvature radius R1 of the top portion of the first region of the base surface is greater than 1.5 x 10-5 m and less than 2 x 10-4 m (fig.3).
With respect to claim 5, Sato teaches a height H1 of the first region with respect to the flat surface of the second region is greater than 1 um and less than 5 um (fig.3 left edge of top curve).
With respect to claim 7, Sato teaches a diameter D1 of the first region of the base surface is greater than 3 x 10-6 m and less than 1 x 10-4 m ([0050]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Park et al. (US 2002/0105988).
With respect to claim 2, Sato teaches the device outlined above, including the adaptation of the lens height and the radius of curvature (fig.3), wherein changing the radius of curvature necessarily changes the angle at which the curved surface intersects the flat surface, but Sato does not teach the complementary angle theta_CA is greater than 1 ° and less than 6. Park teaches a related VCSEL integrated with a lens (fig.2) and further teaches that the radius of curvature is a result effective variable allowing for control of the shape of the laser light (fig.4/5, [0038]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the radius of curvature of the lens of Sato such that the complementary angle falls within 1-6 degrees as Park has demonstrated the radius of curvature to be a result effective variable allowing for control of the shape of the laser light and selection of a radius allowing for a 1-6 degree angle would allow for selection of a desired shape of the light (see also MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Please note the additional art cited in the Conclusion section below further demonstrating the lens edge characteristic to be a result effective variable.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato.
With respect to claim 6, Sato teaches the device outlined above, including the radius of curvature to be larger than the resonator length ([0045]) such that the optical field confinement is modified. Sato does not teach the light emitting element satisfies 1
≤
R1/LOR
≤
10, the R1 corresponds to a curvature radius of the top portion of the first region of the base surface, and the Lor corresponds to a resonator length of the light emitting element. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to modify the device of Sato such that the radius of curvature divided by the resonator length is from 1-10 as Sato has demonstrated this ratio to be a result effective variable and a value falling within 1-10 would allow for selection of a desired field confinement and light loss amount ([0045]; see also MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9465143 (col.7 lines 32-42), 11437785 (col.4 lines 15-24) and 2007/0295972 ([0028]) are found to further demonstrate the radius of curvature/lens edge portions to be result effective variables.
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 TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828