DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment received on 05/14/2026.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), 365(a) or (b), or 386(a) based upon an application filed in FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY on 11/21/2019.
Election/Restrictions
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/02/2025.
Specification
The amendment filed 05/14/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Figure 1D showing a top view of the optoelectronic component wherein the non-intermixed region (#43) completely laterally surrounds the intermixed region (#44) since the previous drawings showed support only for the non-intermixed region partially surrounding the intermixed region.
In the remarks filed on 05/14/2026, applicant argues on pages 7-8 that the identified drawing does not represent new matter since the originally filed specification disclosed that the intermixed region (#44) is below the first contact (#1) and the two features may be centered with respect to each other and congruent. Statements regarding the congruency of the intermixed region and the first contact do not appear to support the requirement for the complete lateral surrounding of the intermixed region by the non-intermixed region. The first contact and intermixed regions could equally be interpreted as extending to the edge of the device such they remain congruent and centered with one another and the non-intermixed region surrounds the intermixed region on only two sides.
Applicant further argues on pages 7-8 of the remarks that the originally filed specification also discloses that the non-intermixed region (#43) is offset in the lateral direction from the first contact (#1). Similar to the response to the argument above, statements regarding the lateral offset of the non-intermixed region and the first contact do not appear to support the requirement for the complete lateral surrounding of the intermixed region by the non-intermixed region. In the examiner’s interpretation, where the intermixed region and the first contact extend to the edge of the device, there would still be a lateral offset between the first contact and the non-intermixed region as is shown in original Figure 1A.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 05/14/2026. These drawings are unacceptable and have not been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/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 recites the limitation “the at least one non-intermixed region completely surrounds the intermixed region laterally”. This limitation is not interpreted as having support in the originally filed specification, drawings, or claims. The originally filed specification and claims do not appear to recite or describe this limitation. The original drawings are only observed to show side views of the device from which one can only reasonably interpret that the non-intermixed regions (#43) at least partially surround the intermixed region (#44) laterally. The original drawings included no planar (or top-down) view showing how the non-intermixed regions completely surround the intermixed region laterally and no corresponding description of this structural characteristic was identified in the originally filed specification. Without such a figure or some description in the originally filed specification or claims, it is equally feasible that both the intermixed and non-intermixed regions are exposed at the side edge of the device. For this reason, claim 1 is interpreted to contain new matter and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) at least for their dependencies. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation in claim 1 will be interpreted to read as “the at least one non-intermixed region at least partially surrounds the intermixed region laterally”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0187991 A1; McGroddy et al.; 07/2015; (“McGroddy”) in view of US 2017/0330996 A1; Lell et al.; 11/2017; (“Lell”).
Regarding Claim 1. McGroddy discloses An optoelectronic component (#156, Figure 26A, LED device), comprising
a semiconductor body (#104 down to #114, Figure 26A, various semiconductor layers) with an active layer (#108, Figure 26A, active layer) suitable for emitting radiation and comprising a quantum well structure ([0080], “active layer 108 may include a multi-quantum-well (MQW) configuration or a single-quantum-well (SQW) configuration” which may emit light with wavelengths based on chosen materials according to [0112]), wherein the quantum well structure comprises at least a quantum well layer and barrier layers ([0080], “quantum well layers 108a are separated by barrier layers 108b”),
a first electrical contact (#150, Figure 26A, ohmic contact layer) and a second electrical contact (#124, Figure 26A, conductive contact), wherein
the active layer comprises at least one intermixed region (#179, Figure 26A, [0128], “quantum well intermixing which creates a modified confinement barrier region 179 of the active layer 108”) and at least one non-intermixed region (#181, Figure 26A, current injection region),
the at least one quantum well layer and the barrier layers in the intermixed region are at least partially intermixed ([0128], Figure 26A, the multiple quantum well structure is intermixed through a rapid thermal anneal), so that the intermixed region comprises a larger electronic bandgap than the at least one quantum well layer in the at least one non-intermixed region ([0128], “quantum well intermixing which creates a modified confinement barrier region 179 of the active layer 108 that has a larger bandgap and laterally surrounds a current injection region 181”),
the at least one non-intermixed region at least partially surrounds the intermixed region laterally (Figure 26A, #181 at least partially surrounds #179 in a lateral direction),
the first electrical contact is a metal contact arranged on a radiation exit surface of said semiconductor body (Figure 26A, #150 is on an upper surface which is a radiation exit surface of the device using a transparent conductive oxide (#152, [0094]) to allow light to pass),
the intermixed region is arranged below the first contact in the vertical direction (Figure 26A, #179 is arranged below #152 in a vertical direction), and
the intermixed region comprises a width of less than 10 µm ([0100], LED devices #156 may be as small as 5 µm by 5 µm such that the intermixed region (#179) necessarily has a width less than 10 µm).
McGroddy does not disclose that a width of the first electrical contact is from 0.8 times to 1.2 times a width of the intermixed region.
However, Lell teaches a light emitting diode chip (#100, Figure 5B) comprising
an active layer (#1, Figure 5B, first semiconductor layer) composed of non-intermixed regions (#11, Figure 5B) and intermixed regions (#12, Figure 5B) ([0104], “variations in the band gap in the differing regions . . . may also be achieved, additionally or alternatively, by mixing of heterogeneous boundary surfaces, a so-called quantum well intermixing”; [0089], “the second regions 12, embodied as facet regions, have a greater energy gap”),
the at least one non-intermixed region at least partially surrounds the intermixed region laterally (Figure 5B, #11 at least partially surround #12 in a lateral direction), and
a first contact (#4, Figure 5B, contact layer) which vertically overlaps with the mixed region (Figure 5B, #4 is directly over #12s),
wherein a width of the first electrical contact is from 0.8 times to 1.2 times a width of the intermixed region ([0100], “the contact layer 4 of the semiconductor chip 100 . . . has current-carrying ridges for current distribution, in addition to the bond pad. Beneath the current-carrying ridges, the material composition of the first semiconductor layer 1 may be correspondingly varied in second regions 12, in comparison with the first regions 11, which correspond to the regions of the first semiconductor layer 1 that are not covered by the contact layer 4”, i.e. the width of the electrical contact is interpreted as 1-to-1 or 1 times the width of the intermixed regions #12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider forming the width of the contact to be 1 times the width of the intermixed regions in McGroddy as was done by Lell, meeting the claimed range of 0.8 times to 1.2 times, such that “absorption losses beneath the current-carrying ridges can thereby be prevented” (see [0100] of Lell).
Regarding Claim 2. McGroddy in view of Lell discloses The optoelectronic component according to claim 1, wherein the first contact comprises a width of less than 10 µm (McGroddy, [0100], LED devices #156 may be as small as 5 µm by 5 µm such that the ohmic contact layer (#150) necessarily has a width less than 10 µm).
Regarding Claim 4. McGroddy in view of Lell discloses The optoelectronic component according to claim 1, wherein the first contact is an n-contact (McGroddy, Figure 26A, #150 is directly electrically connected to #104 which is a n-type layer according to [0081] such that #150 is an n-contact) and the second contact is a p-contact of the semiconductor body (McGroddy, Figure 26A, #124 is directly electrically connected to #114 which is a p-type layer according to [0081] such that #124 is a p-contact).
Regarding Claim 5. McGroddy in view of Lell discloses The optoelectronic component according to claim 1, wherein the second contact is arranged on a main surface of the semiconductor body opposite the radiation exit surface (McGroddy, Figure 26A, #124 is arranged on a main bottom surface of the semiconductor body which is opposite the upper radiation exit surface).
Regarding Claim 6. McGroddy in view of Lell discloses The optoelectronic component according to claim 1, wherein the semiconductor body is based on an arsenide compound semiconductor material, a phosphide compound semiconductor material or a nitride compound semiconductor material (McGroddy, [0078], “The p-n diode layer 115 (which defines the semiconductor structure, see Figure 2A) may be formed of . . . III-V nitride materials . . . III-V phosphide materials” and there are further lists of possible arsenide materials in [0079] and [0080]).
Regarding Claim 7. McGroddy in view of Lell discloses The optoelectronic component according to claim 1, wherein the intermixed region and the non-intermixed region comprise the same dopant concentration (McGroddy, [0129], “multiple quantum wells and barrier layers into an intermixed modified confinement barrier region 179 with a uniform composition that is an average of the original well and barrier compositions”, i.e. the intermixed and non-intermixed regions have the same average dopant concentration).
Regarding Claim 8. McGroddy in view of Lell discloses The optoelectronic component according to claim 1, wherein the optoelectronic component is an LED (McGroddy, #156, Figure 26A, LED device).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0187991 A1; McGroddy et al.; 07/2015; (“McGroddy”) in view of US 2017/0330996 A1; Lell et al.; 11/2017; (“Lell”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0305183 A1; Lutgen, Stephan; 10/2019; (“Lutgen”).
Regarding Claim 3. McGroddy in view of Lell discloses The optoelectronic component according to claim 1.
McGroddy in view of Lell do not explicitly disclose that the electronic bandgap in the intermixed region is larger by at least 0.05 eV than in the non-intermixed region. However, McGroddy does teach that the electronic bandgap of the intermixed region is larger than that of the non-intermixed region ([0128], “modified confinement barrier region 179 of the active layer 108 that has a larger bandgap and laterally surrounds a current injection region 181 within the active layer in order to confine current that flows through the active layer to an interior portion of the LED device and away from sidewalls of the LED device” and Figures 26B-26C showing the increase in bandgap after intermixing).
Lutgen teaches a high efficiency microLED (Figure 27A) which utilizes quantum well mixing to modify the energy bands in the semiconductor structure wherein the electronic bandgap in the intermixed region is larger by at least 0.05 eV than in the non-intermixed region ([0154], “SiO2 capped region peaks at 2.74 eV . . . an Mo:SiO2 capped region peaks at 2.82 eV . . . a non-intermixed region 2720 of SiO2 and an intermixed region 2721 of Mo:SiO2”, i.e. the difference between intermixed and non-intermixed is 0.08 eV).
Since McGroddy in view of Lell is silent regarding the difference in the bandgap, this would motivate one of ordinary skill to seek out teachings such as Lutgen in order to practice the invention of McGroddy in view of Lell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider having the intermixed region have a greater bandgap than the non-intermixed region by more than 0.05 eV in the device of McGroddy in view of Lell, just as was done in the device of Lutgen, since doing so “may act as a barrier for lateral carrier diffusion” (see [0154] of 183) and thus prevent charge carriers from diffusing towards the intermixed regions as is the intention of McGroddy in view of Lell.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification and corresponding remarks, see pages 7-8 of the remarks, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered. While the amendments to the drawings have resolved the previous issue of failing to show all of the claimed subject matter, the new drawings have been interpreted to introduce new matter. In particular, the added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Figure 1D showing a top view of the optoelectronic component wherein the non-intermixed region (#43) completely laterally surrounds the intermixed region (#44) since the previous drawings showed support only that the non-intermixed region partially surrounded the intermixed region. Applicant’s remarks from pages 7-8 of the remarks filed on 05/14/2026 that the drawing does not represent new matter have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been maintained.
In the remarks, on pages 7-8, applicant argues that the originally filed specification disclosed that the intermixed region (#44) is below the first contact (#1) and the two features may be centered with respect to each other and congruent. Statements regarding the congruency of the intermixed region and the first contact do not appear to support the requirement for the complete lateral surrounding of the intermixed region by the non-intermixed region. The first contact and intermixed regions could equally be interpreted as extending to the edge of the device such they remain congruent and centered with one another and the non-intermixed region surrounds the intermixed region on only two sides.
Applicant further argues on pages 7-8 of the remarks that the originally filed specification also discloses that the non-intermixed region (#43) is offset in the lateral direction from the first contact (#1). Similar to the response to the argument above, statements regarding the lateral offset of the non-intermixed region and the first contact do not appear to support the requirement for the complete lateral surrounding of the intermixed region by the non-intermixed region. In the examiner’s interpretation, where the intermixed region and the first contact extend to the edge of the device, there would still be a lateral offset between the first contact and the non-intermixed region as is shown in original Figure 1A.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the indicated new matter in claim 1, see pages 8-11 of the remarks, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-8 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1-8 is maintained. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the at least one non-intermixed region completely surrounds the intermixed region laterally”. This limitation is not interpreted as having support in the originally filed specification, drawings, or claims.
Applicant first argues on page 9 that [0010]-[0011] and in the abstract of the instant application, the text provides that the intermixed region (#44) is arranged below, centered, and congruent with the first contact (#1) when viewed from above and that the non-intermixed region (#43) is laterally offset from the contact/intermixed region footprint (argument A) such that recombination may only occur in the regions not below the first contact. Applicant second argues that [0041] of the instant application refers to the non-intermixed region in the singular form by stating the optoelectronic component includes “a non-intermixed region 43” such that in the cross section view of Figure 1A, both instances of #43 must be connected as a singular continuous structure (argument B). Finally, applicant argues that the examiner’s interpretation that the intermixed region (#44) may extend to the side edge of the device is not supported by the original disclosure based on the required congruency with the first contact and the recitation of a singular non-intermixed region (argument C).
With regard to argument A, statements regarding the congruency of the intermixed region and the first contact do not appear to have any influence on the requirement for the complete lateral surrounding of the intermixed region by the non-intermixed region. The first contact could equally be interpreted as extending to the edge of the device such that it remains congruent with the underlying intermixed region and still allowing for a lateral offset of the non-intermixed region.
With regard to argument B, examiner first notes that the specification states in the abstract that “the active region (4) comprises at least one intermixed region (44) and at least one non-intermixed region (43)”, [0041] states “active layer 4 of the optoelectronic component 10 is a quantum well structure comprising a non-intermixed region 43 and an intermixed region 44”, [0046], [0047], and [0049] all refer to the non-intermixed region in the plural form as “non-intermixed regions 43”. Therefore, the use of the “comprises”, “at least one”, and plural “regions” language all allow for embodiments in which there are a plurality of non-intermixed regions. Furthermore, even if the originally filed claims and specification required only a single intermixed region, such an embodiment could still exist wherein the singular non-intermixed region is in a U-shape which only surrounds the intermixed region on three sides and thus does not completely laterally surround the intermixed region and still allows for the intermixed region to extend to the edge of the device in the center of the U-shape.
Lastly, with regard to argument C, as addressed in the argument responses above, neither the requirement for congruency of the intermixed region with the first contact or the interpretation that only a singular non-intermixed region is proved precludes the possibility that the intermixed region extends to an edge of the device.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1, see pages 11-12 of the remarks, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-8 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0187991 A1; McGroddy et al.; 07/2015; (“McGroddy”) in view of US 2017/0330996 A1; Lell et al.; 11/2017; (“Lell”) have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive. Applicant argues that McGroddy and Lell do not disclose the amended limitation of “the at least one non-intermixed region completely surrounds the intermixed region laterally”. As described above, this limitation has resulted in both a drawings objection and a 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection for new matter. Specifically, the originally filed specification, claims, and drawings, do not appear to provide support for the amended limitation. The limitation has therefore been interpreted to read as “the at least one non-intermixed region at least partially surrounds the intermixed region laterally” which is supported. McGroddy discloses the at least one non-intermixed region at least partially surrounds the intermixed region laterally (Figure 5B, #11 at least partially surround #12 in a lateral direction). Lell teaches the at least one non-intermixed region at least partially surrounds the intermixed region laterally (Figure 5B, #11 at least partially surround #12 in a lateral direction). Therefore, claim 1 is interpreted to be obvious over McGroddy in view of Lell. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-8 stand(s) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0187991 A1; McGroddy et al.; 07/2015; (“McGroddy”) in view of US 2017/0330996 A1; Lell et al.; 11/2017; (“Lell”).
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 3 as being allowable for its dependence on claim 1, see page 12 of the remarks, filed 05/14/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 3 have been fully considered. However, claim 1 stands rejected as obvious over McGroddy in view of Lell as described above. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0187991 A1; McGroddy et al.; 07/2015; (“McGroddy”) in view of US 2017/0330996 A1; Lell et al.; 11/2017; (“Lell”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0305183 A1; Lutgen, Stephan; 10/2019; (“Lutgen”).
Conclusion
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 TYLER JAMES WIEGAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINE KIM can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/TYLER J WIEGAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights