DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment and request for continued examination (RCE) received on 01/28/2026.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/28/2026 has been entered.
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Claim(s) 9-14 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claim limitation in amended claim 1 of “the at least one non-intermixed region completely surrounds the intermixed region laterally” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Currently, the drawings only appear to show that non-intermixed region (#43) at least partially surrounds the intermixed region (#44) laterally, based on the side views provided in Figures 1A and 2D. None of the figures are observed to show a planar (or top-down) view, or an equivalent view, of the non-intermixed region completely surrounding the intermixed region laterally.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 has been amended to recite 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 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. There is currently no planar (or top-down) view showing how the non-intermixed regions completely surround the intermixed region laterally. 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 claim 1 and corresponding arguments, see pages 5-6 of the remarks, filed 01/28/2026, 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 pages 6-7 of the remarks, filed 01/28/2026, 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
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