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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 12-13 of the response, applicant contends Aldaz does not expressly or inherently describe at least “the base surface has a first region including the protrusion and a second region surrounding the first region and having a flat surface…wherein the first layer and the second layer together form a cross-sectional shape of the protrusion”. The Office disagrees. The Office has outlined how Aldaz shows these features in the annotated Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
730
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On page 13 of the response, applicant contends Sato does not expressly or inherently describe at least “the base surface has a first region including the protrusion and a second region surrounding the first region and having a flat surface”. The Office disagrees. The Office has outlined how Sato shows these features in the annotated Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image2.png
563
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
On page 13 of the response, applicant contends Mitomo and Sato does not expressly or inherently describe at least “the base surface has a first region including the protrusion and a second region surrounding the first region and having a flat surface”. The Office disagrees. As is outlined above, Sato discloses the claimed limitation. The Office has outlined how Mitomo shows these features in the annotated Fig. 22 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
357
462
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 06/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/11/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/29/2022 and 07/17/2025 were filed on or after the national stage entry date of this application on 06/29/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 5, 6, and 10 recite a number of ranges, however, the exponents are not properly formatted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aldaz et al. (US20030169797A1), hereafter Aldaz.
Regarding claim 7, Aldaz discloses a light emitting element (Title) comprising: a stacked structure (Fig. 4 elements 160-176) comprising a first compound semiconductor layer having a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface (Fig. 4 elements 176, 168, 164; [0037]), an active layer facing the second surface of the first compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 4 element 160), and a second compound semiconductor layer having a first surface facing the active layer and a second surface opposing the first surface of the second compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 4 elements 162 and 166; [0037]); a first light reflecting layer (Fig. 4 element 158); and a second light reflecting layer on a second surface side of the second compound semiconductor layer wherein the second light reflecting layer has a flat shape (Fig. 4 element 156), wherein a base surface positioned on a first surface side of the first compound semiconductor layer has a protrusion protruding in a direction away from the active layer (Fig. 4 element 152 and 180), the base surface has a first region including the protrusion and a second region surrounding the first region and having a flat surface (See annotated Fig. 4 above), the protrusion is constituted by a first layer on the first surface of the first compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 4 element 152) and a second layer covering the first layer (Fig. 4 element 180), wherein the first layer and the second layer together form a cross-sectional shape of the protrusion (See annotated Fig. 4 above), a cross-sectional shape of the protrusion in a case where the base surface is cut along a virtual plane including a stacking direction of the stacked structure includes a smooth curve ([0056]), and the first light reflecting layer is formed on at least the protrusion (Fig. 4 element 158).
Regarding claim 13, Aldaz further discloses the first light reflecting layer is on at least a portion of the first region (Fig. 4 element 158).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (WO2018083877A1)1, hereafter Sato.
Regarding claim 5, Sato discloses a light emitting element (Title) comprising: a stacked structure (Fig. 1) in which a first compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 1 element 21) having a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface (Fig. 1 elements 21a and 21b), an active layer facing the second surface of the first compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 1 element 23), and a second compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 1 element 22) having a first surface facing the active layer and a second surface opposing the first surface are stacked (Fig. 1 elements 22a and 22b); a first light reflecting layer (Fig. 1 element 41); and a second light reflecting layer formed on a second surface side of the second compound semiconductor layer and having a flat shape (Fig. 1 element 42; Abstract), wherein a base surface positioned on a first surface side of the first compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 1 element 11) has a protrusion protruding in a direction away from the active layer (Fig. 1 element 45A) the base surface has a first region including the protrusion and a second region surrounding the first region and having a flat surface (See annotated Fig. 1 above), a cross-sectional shape of the protrusion in a case where the base surface is cut along a virtual plane including a stacking direction of the stacked structure includes a smooth curve ([0119]), the first light reflecting layer is formed on at least the protrusion (Fig. 1 element 41), and where a diameter of the protrusion is D1 ([0070]), a height of the protrusion is H1 (Fig. 28), a radius of curvature of a top portion of the protrusion is R1 ([0070]), a surface roughness of the protrusion is RaPj ([0134]), and the resonator length of the light emitting element is Lor (Fig. 1 element Lor). Sato does not explicitly disclose 2x10-6 m≤ D1 ≤2.5x10-5 m, 1x10-8 m ≤ H1 ≤ 5x10-7 m, 1x10-4 ≤ R1, andRaPj ≤ 1.0 nm. However, Sato discloses optimizing the diameter of the protrusion ([0070]; [0119]), the height of the protrusion (Fig. 28; [0070]; [0119]), the radius of curvature of the protrusion ([0070]; [0119]) and the surface roughness of the protrusion ([0134]). An advantage is to reliably perform laser oscillation while decreasing diffraction losses and reducing heat saturation ([0010]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato with 2x10-6 m≤ D1 ≤2.5x10-5 m, 1x10-8 m ≤ H1 ≤ 5x10-7 m, 1x10-4 ≤ R1, and RaPj ≤ 1.0 nm, since Sato discloses optimizing the diameter of the protrusion, the height of the protrusion, the radius of curvature of the protrusion, and the surface roughness of the protrusion in order to reliably perform laser oscillation while decreasing diffraction losses and reducing heat saturation and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Sato discloses a light emitting element (Title) comprising: a stacked structure (Fig. 1) in which a first compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 1 element 21) having a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface (Fig. 1 elements 21a and 21b), an active layer facing the second surface of the first compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 1 element 23), and a second compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 1 element 22) having a first surface facing the active layer and a second surface opposing the first surface are stacked (Fig. 1 elements 22a and 22b); a first light reflecting layer (Fig. 1 element 41); and a second light reflecting layer formed on a second surface side of the second compound semiconductor layer and having a flat shape (Fig. 1 element 42; Abstract), wherein a base surface positioned on a first surface side of the first compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 1 element 11) has a protrusion protruding in a direction away from the active layer (Fig. 1 element 45A) the base surface has a first region including the protrusion and a second region surrounding the first region and having a flat surface (See annotated Fig. 1 above), a cross-sectional shape of the protrusion in a case where the base surface is cut along a virtual plane including a stacking direction of the stacked structure includes a smooth curve ([0119]), the first light reflecting layer is formed on at least the protrusion (Fig. 1 element 41), and where a diameter of the protrusion is D1 ([0070]), a height of the protrusion is H1 (Fig. 28), a radius of curvature of a top portion of the protrusion is R1 ([0070]), a surface roughness of the protrusion is RaPj ([0134]), and the resonator length of the light emitting element is Lor (Fig. 1 element Lor). Sato does not explicitly disclose 2x10-3 m≤ D1, 1x10-3 ≤ R1, and RaPj ≤ 1.0 nm. However, Sato discloses optimizing the diameter of the protrusion ([0070]; [0119]), the height of the protrusion (Fig. 28; [0070]; [0119]), the radius of curvature of the protrusion ([0070]; [0119]) and the surface roughness of the protrusion ([0134]). An advantage is to reliably perform laser oscillation while decreasing diffraction losses and reducing heat saturation ([0010]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato with 2x10-3 m≤ D1, 1x10-3 ≤ R1, and RaPj ≤ 1.0 nm, since Sato discloses optimizing the diameter of the protrusion, the height of the protrusion, the radius of curvature of the protrusion, and the surface roughness of the protrusion in order to reliably perform laser oscillation while decreasing diffraction losses and reducing heat saturation and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Sato further discloses the first light reflecting layer is on at least a portion of the first region (Fig. 1 element 41).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Mitomo et al. (WO2018190030A1)2, hereafter Mitomo.
Regarding claim 8, Sato does not explicitly disclose a wavelength conversion material layer is provided in a region of the light emitting element where light is emitted. However, Mitomo discloses a wavelength conversion material layer is provided in a region of the light emitting element where light is emitted (Fig. 1 element 19; [0058]). An advantage is to output white light based on the intended use of the device ([0058]; [0060]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato with a wavelength conversion material layer is provided in a region of the light emitting element where light is emitted as disclosed by Mitomo in order to output white light based on the intended use of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Mitomo further discloses white light is emitted via the wavelength conversion material layer ([0058]).
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitomo in view of Sato.
Regarding claim 10, Mitomo discloses a light emitting element array (Fig. 22) comprising: a plurality of light emitting elements (Fig. 22 elements 10), wherein each light emitting element includes: a stacked structure in which a first compound semiconductor layer having a first surface and a second surface opposing the first surface (Fig. 22 element 12a), an active layer facing the second surface of the first compound semiconductor layer (Fig. 22 element 12b), and a second compound semiconductor layer having a first surface facing the active layer and a second surface opposing the first surface are stacked (Fig. 22 element 12c); a first light reflecting layer (Fig. 22 element 17); and a second light reflecting layer formed on a second surface side of the second compound semiconductor layer and having a flat shape (Fig. 22 element 16), a base surface (Fig. 22 element 11) positioned on a first surface side of the first compound semiconductor layer has a protrusion protruding in a direction away from the active layer (Fig. 22 element 11A), the base surface has a first region including the protrusion and a second region surrounding the first region and having a flat surface (See annotated Fig. 22 above), a cross-sectional shape of the protrusion in a case where the base surface is cut along a virtual plane including a stacking direction of the stacked structure includes a smooth curve (Fig. 22 element 11A), the first light reflecting layer is formed on at least the protrusion (Fig. 22 element 17), and a resonator length of the light emitting element is LOR (Fig. 22 between elements 16 and 17). Mitomo does not explicitly disclose 2x10-6 m≤ D1 ≤2.5x10-5 m, 1x10-8 m ≤ H1 ≤ 5x10-7 m, 1x10-4 ≤ R1, andRaPj ≤ 1.0 nm, where a diameter of the protrusion is D1, a height of the protrusion is H1, a radius of curvature of a top portion of the protrusion is R1, a surface roughness of the protrusion is RaPj, and a formation pitch PO of the light emitting elements is 3x10-5 m or less. However, Mitomo discloses balancing the size of the device while obtaining the desire output power ([0118]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitomo with a formation pitch PO of the light emitting elements is 3x10-5 m or less in order to balance the size of the device while obtaining the desire output power and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Mitomo still does not disclose 2x10-6 m≤ D1 ≤2.5x10-5 m, 1x10-8 m ≤ H1 ≤ 5x10-7 m, 1x10-4 ≤ R1, and RaPj ≤ 1.0 nm, where a diameter of the protrusion is D1, a height of the protrusion is H1, a radius of curvature of a top portion of the protrusion is R1, a surface roughness of the protrusion is RaPj. However, Sato discloses optimizing the diameter of the protrusion ([0070]; [0119]), the height of the protrusion (Fig. 28; [0070]; [0119]), the radius of curvature of the protrusion ([0070]; [0119]) and the surface roughness of the protrusion ([0134]). An advantage is to reliably perform laser oscillation while decreasing diffraction losses and reducing heat saturation ([0010]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitomo with 2x10-6 m≤ D1 ≤2.5x10-5 m, 1x10-8 m ≤ H1 ≤ 5x10-7 m, 1x10-4 ≤ R1, and RaPj ≤ 1.0 nm, where a diameter of the protrusion is D1, a height of the protrusion is H1, a radius of curvature of a top portion of the protrusion is R1, a surface roughness of the protrusion is RaPj, since Sato discloses optimizing the diameter of the protrusion, the height of the protrusion, the radius of curvature of the protrusion, and the surface roughness of the protrusion in order to reliably perform laser oscillation while decreasing diffraction losses and reducing heat saturation and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Mitomo further discloses the first light reflecting layer is on at least a portion of the first region (Fig. 22 element 17).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, as applied to claims 5 and 6, in view of Kodera et al. (US20090244713A1), hereafter Kodera.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Sato does not explicitly disclose a supplementary angle θCA of an angle formed by a curve formed by the first region and a straight line formed by the second region in the cross-sectional shape of the base surface at an intersection of the curve and the straight line is 1 degree or more and 6 degrees or less. However, Kodera discloses a supplementary angle θCA of an angle formed by a curve formed by the first region and a straight line formed by the second region in the cross-sectional shape of the base surface at an intersection of the curve and the straight is small (Fig. 2 element 17 forms a supplementary small angle with the flat portion at ED due to its concave shape; Abstract). An advantage is to achieve the desired light path at the periphery of the protrusion (Fig. 5 element 17) and to allow a higher density of devices ([0012]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sato with a supplementary angle θCA of an angle formed by a curve formed by the first region and a straight line formed by the second region in the cross-sectional shape of the base surface at an intersection of the curve and the straight is small as disclosed by Kodera in order to achieve the desired light path at the periphery of the protrusion and to allow a higher density of devices. Sato in view of Kodera do not explicitly disclose the angle is 1 degree or more and 6 degrees or less. However, Kodera discloses the angle of intersection can be optimized in order to achieve the desired light path at the periphery ([0060]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Sato in view of Kodera with the angle is 1 degree or more and 6 degrees or less since Kodera the angle of intersection can be optimized in order to achieve the desired light path at the periphery and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aldaz, as applied to claim 7, in view of Kodera.
Regarding claim 17, Aldaz does not explicitly disclose a supplementary angle θCA of an angle formed by a curve formed by the first region and a straight line formed by the second region in the cross-sectional shape of the base surface at an intersection of the curve and the straight line is 1 degree or more and 6 degrees or less. However, Kodera discloses a supplementary angle θCA of an angle formed by a curve formed by the first region and a straight line formed by the second region in the cross-sectional shape of the base surface at an intersection of the curve and the straight is small (Fig. 2 element 17 forms a supplementary small angle with the flat portion at ED due to its concave shape; Abstract). An advantage is to achieve the desired light path at the periphery of the protrusion (Fig. 5 element 17) and to allow a higher density of devices ([0012]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aldaz with a supplementary angle θCA of an angle formed by a curve formed by the first region and a straight line formed by the second region in the cross-sectional shape of the base surface at an intersection of the curve and the straight is small as disclosed by Kodera in order to achieve the desired light path at the periphery of the protrusion and to allow a higher density of devices. Aldaz in view of Kodera do not explicitly disclose the angle is 1 degree or more and 6 degrees or less. However, Kodera discloses the angle of intersection can be optimized in order to achieve the desired light path at the periphery ([0060]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Aldaz in view of Kodera with the angle is 1 degree or more and 6 degrees or less since Kodera the angle of intersection can be optimized in order to achieve the desired light path at the periphery and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitomo in view of Sato, as applied to claim 10, in further view of Kodera.
Regarding claim 18, Mitomo in view of Sato do not explicitly disclose a supplementary angle θCA of an angle formed by a curve formed by the first region and a straight line formed by the second region in the cross-sectional shape of the base surface at an intersection of the curve and the straight line is 1 degree or more and 6 degrees or less. However, Kodera discloses a supplementary angle θCA of an angle formed by a curve formed by the first region and a straight line formed by the second region in the cross-sectional shape of the base surface at an intersection of the curve and the straight is small (Fig. 2 element 17 forms a supplementary small angle with the flat portion at ED due to its concave shape; Abstract). An advantage is to achieve the desired light path at the periphery of the protrusion (Fig. 5 element 17) and to allow a higher density of devices ([0012]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mitomo in view of Sato with a supplementary angle θCA of an angle formed by a curve formed by the first region and a straight line formed by the second region in the cross-sectional shape of the base surface at an intersection of the curve and the straight is small as disclosed by Kodera in order to achieve the desired light path at the periphery of the protrusion and to allow a higher density of devices. Mitomo in view of Sato in further view of Kodera do not explicitly disclose the angle is 1 degree or more and 6 degrees or less. However, Kodera discloses the angle of intersection can be optimized in order to achieve the desired light path at the periphery ([0060]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Mitomo in view of Sato in further view of Kodera with the angle is 1 degree or more and 6 degrees or less since Kodera the angle of intersection can be optimized in order to achieve the desired light path at the periphery and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSHUA KING whose telephone number is (571)270-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10am-5pm MT.
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, Min Sun 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.
/Joshua King/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828 04/02/2026
1 US20190267774A1 is an English equivalent to WO2018083877A1. Citations have been provided to the US reference where necessary.
2 US20200028325A1 is an English equivalent of WO2018190030A1. Citations have been provided to the US reference where necessary.
Prosecution Insights