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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the art of record for the 102 & 103 rejections.
Examiner agrees that the amendment overcomes the Jorgen reference which is the 102 rejection given to Claim 1. As such the 102 rejection is withdrawn.
Examiner does not agree that the amendment overcomes Tanizawa in view of Kondo. Applicant argues that Tanizawa fails to teach a buffer layer with a thickness of between 100 nanometers and 1000 nm and cites Tanizawa Col. 55 Line 6 or Col. 57 Line 13 which site the third buffer layer having thicknesses of 100 or 200 angstroms. Examiner agrees that Fig. 1 does not teach a thickness of between 100 nanometers and 1000 nanometers however another embodiment of Tanizawa (Fig. 8, 305 Col. 37 Lines 11-23) does. As such Claim 1 is rejected by Tanizawa in view of Kondo and another embodiment of Tanizawa. (See below for full rejection)
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-6, 9, 11 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tanizawa et al. US 7193246 in view of Kondo US 20190052061 and another embodiment of Tanizawa.
Regarding Claim 1, Tanizawa teaches A light emitting device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1, 1) having a first surface and a second surface that are opposed to each other (First surface is the top side of the substrate and the second surface is the bottom side of the substrate);
a first contact layer (Fig. 1, 4 Col. 14 Lines 60-61 “an n-contact layer 4 of GaN doped with Si,”) that is stacked on the first surface of the substrate (Fig. 8 shows the first contact layer on the first surface of the substrate);
a buffer layer (Fig. 1, 5) with a thickness of between 100 nanometers (nm) and 1000 nm (Col. 69 Lines 46-47 “Thus, the n-side multi-film layer 5 comprising three films that had a total thickness of 2350 angstroms was grown.” 2350 angstroms is 235 nm) in which a carrier concentration is different from that of the first contact layer, (Col. 14 Line 61 “a third buffer layer 5 of undoped GaN” The buffer layer is undoped where the contact layer is doped which makes the carrier concentration different) the buffer layer being stacked on the first contact layer (Fig. 1 shows the buffer layer is stacked on the first contact layer); and
a semiconductor stacked body (Fig. 1, 6-9) that is stacked above the first surface of the substrate with the first contact layer and the buffer layer interposed in between (Fig. 1 shows the semiconductor stacked body is above the first surface of the substrate and the first contact layer and the buffer layer interposed in between), the semiconductor stacked body having a light emitting region (Fig. 1, 7) configured to emit laser light. (Col. 19, Lines 3-8 “Although in describing the first preferred embodiment of the present invention, reference has been made to the light emitting diode (LED) device, the present invention can be equally applied not only to the light emitting diode device, but also to a laser diode (LD) device which will now be described.”)
Tanizawa does not teach that the first contact layer is stacked directly on the first surface of the substrate and the buffer layer thickness between 100 nm and 1000 nm.
However,
Kondo teaches a substrate made of GaN or sapphire for a GaN laser. (Paragraph 0314 “GaN, AlGaN or InGaN is used on a GaN substrate or a sapphire substrate.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the substrate as taught by Tanizawa by changing the sapphire substrate with GaN buffer layers to just GaN substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification due to the fact changing sapphire substrate for GaN substrate is recognized in the prior art as substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art, and cannot be based on applicant’s disclosure or the mere fact that the components at issue are functional or mechanical equivalents. In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958) (The mere fact that components are claimed as members of a Markush group cannot be relied upon to establish the equivalency of these components. However, an applicant’s expressed recognition of an art-recognized or obvious equivalent may be used to refute an argument that such equivalency does not exist.); Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980) (see MPEP 2144.06 II) Substituting the sapphire substrate for the GaN substrate is shown to be equivalent in the field of substrates for a GaN based laser through the prior art presented. (Kondo Paragraph 0314 “GaN, AlGaN or InGaN is used on a GaN substrate or a sapphire substrate.”)
Replacing the sapphire substrate for a GaN substrate makes layer 1 of Fig. 1 be made of the same material as layers 2 and 3. This makes 1-3 a one large substrate layer. This puts the first contact layer 4 directly on the substrate 1-3.
Another embodiment of Tanizawa teaches the buffer layer thickness between 100 nm and 1000 nm. (Fig. 8, 305 Col. 37 Lines 11-23 “Although the thickness of the n-side first multi-film layer 305 is not specifically limited, it may fall within the range of 175 through 12000 angstroms, preferably in the range of 1000 through 10000 angstroms, more preferably in the range of 2000 through 6000 angstroms. When the thickness of the n-side first multi-film layer 305 is in the above-mentioned range, it is preferable because the Vf is optimized and the electrostatic withstand voltage is enhanced. Each film of the n-side first multi-film layer 305, i.e. the lower film 305a, inter-film 305b, and the upper film 305c are preferably adjusted in thickness to have the total thickness of the n-side first multi-film layer 305 in the above-mentioned range.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the buffer layer as taught by Tanizawa by having the thickness of the buffer layer be between 100 nm and 1000 nm as disclosed by another embodiment of Tanizawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to optimize the electrostatic withstand voltage.
Regarding Claim 2, Tanizawa teaches a carrier concentration of the buffer layer is less than 1 x 1019 cm-3 (Col. 14 Line 61 “a third buffer layer 5 of undoped GaN” It is inherient to GaN at room temperature to have an intrinsic carrier concentration of 1.6 x 10-10 cm-3)
Regarding Claim 5, Tanizawa teaches the substrate includes a semi-insulating substrate having a p-type or n-type carrier concentration of 5x1017 cm-3 or less. (Col. 14 Lines 59-60 “a second buffer layer 3 made of undoped GaN” It is inherient to GaN at room temperature to have an intrinsic carrier concentration of 1.6 x 10-10 cm-3 of electrons which are n-type carrier concentration.)
Regarding Claim 6, Tanizawa teaches the semiconductor stacked body has a first light reflecting layer (Fig. 1, 6), an active layer (Fig. 1, 7), and a second light reflecting layer (Fig. 1, 8) stacked in order from the substrate side. (Fig. 1 shows that the first light reflecting layer the active layer and the second light reflecting layer are stacked in order from the substrate side)
Regarding Claim 9, Tanizawa teaches a second contact layer (Fig. 1, 9) is further stacked on the second light reflecting layer of the semiconductor stacked body. (Fig. 1 shows a second contact layer stacked on the second light reflecting layer)
Regarding Claim 11, Tanizawa teaches a first electrode (Fig. 1, 11) that is provided on a surface of the semiconductor stacked body opposite to the substrate (Fig. 1 shows the first electrode is provided on a surface of the semiconductor stacked body opposite to the substrate), the first electrode being provided to be configured to apply a predetermined voltage to the semiconductor stacked body in the light emitting region (Col. 3, Lines 3-7 “Further an another object of the present invention is to provide the nitride semiconductor device having the low contact resistibility between the p-electrode and the p-contact layer thereby obtaining the high output at the low and stable operating voltage.”); and
a second electrode (Fig. 1, 12) that is provided on the first contact layer. (Fig. 1 shows the second electrode is provided on the first contact layer)
Claim 3 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tanizawa, Kondo and another embodiment of Tanizawa in view of another embodiment of Tanizawa.
Regarding Claim 3, Tanizawa in view of Kondo and another embodiment of Tanizawa does not teach a carrier concentration of the first contact layer is 1 x 1019 cm-3 or more.
However,
Another embodiment of Tanizawa teaches a carrier concentration of the first contact layer is 1 x 1019 cm-3 or more (Col. 21 Lines 43-46 “The n-contact layer 4 deposited on the undoped GaN layer 103 contains the n-type impurity in a concentration of not smaller than 3 x 1018/cm18, and preferably not smaller than 5 x 1018/cm18” Col. 21 Line 58 “the uppermost limit is preferably not greater than 5 x 1021/cm3” )
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carrier concentration of the contact layer as taught by Tanizawa by having it be 1 x 1019 cm-3 or more as disclosed by another embodiment of Tanizawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to lower the threshold voltage and current. ( Col. 21 Lines 46-48 “he use of the relatively high concentration of the n-type impurity in the n-contact layer 4 is effective to lower the Vf and threshold current.”)
Claims 7 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tanizawa, Kondo and another embodiment of Tanizawa in view of Ueki et al. US 20060227835.
Regarding Claim 7, Tanizawa in view of Kondo and another embodiment of Tanizawa does not teach the semiconductor stacked body further includes a current confining layer between the first light reflecting layer and the active layer. the current confining layer having a current injection region.
However,
Ueki teaches the semiconductor stacked body further includes a current confining layer (Fig. 1, 13) between the first light reflecting layer and the active layer (Fig. 1 shows the current confinging layer is between the first light reflecting layer and the active layer), the current confining layer having a current injection region. (Fig. 1, 13b Paragraph 0046 “An aperture 13b of conductive region remains in the center thereof without being oxidized, and defines a laser emitting region of the laser beam emitted from the active region 15 and also serves as a current funneling region. The current funneling region is a current confinement region.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light emitting device as taught by Tanizawa by adding the current confining region as disclosed by Ueki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a laser aperture. (Ueki Paragraph 0046).
Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tanizawa, Kondo and another embodiment of Tanizawa in view of Fishman et al US 20190090068.
Regarding Claim 8, Tanizawa in view of Kondo and another embodiment of Tanizawa does not teach the first contact layer, the buffer layer, and the first light reflecting layer each include a p-type impurity rather it teaches they are n-type.
However,
Fishman teaches doping can be reversed in the entire VCSEL. (Paragraph 0061 “In some embodiments, a VCSEL in accordance with the present invention may have reverse doping, such that the bottom is p-type whereas the top is n-type.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified light emitting device as taught by Tanizawa by reversing all the doping in the device as disclosed by Fishman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to change the flow of current.
Claims 10, 12 are rejected as being unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tanizawa, Kondo and other embodiment of Tanizawa in view of Joseph et al. US 20110148328
Regarding Claim 10, Tanizawa in view of Kondo does not teach a plurality of the semiconductor stacked bodies is provided on the first surface of the substrate, and the first contact layer is formed as a layer common to a plurality of the semiconductor stacked bodies.
However,
Joseph teaches a plurality of the semiconductor stacked bodies (Fig. 5 shows a plurality of semiconductor stacked bodies) is provided on the first surface of the substrate (Fig. 2 shows the stacked bodies on the top surface of the substrate 500), and the first contact layer is formed as a layer common to a plurality of the semiconductor stacked bodies (Fig. 5 502 is the first contact layer and it common to the plurality of the semiconductor stacked bodies).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the light emitting device with a common contact layer as taught by Tanizawa by having a plurality of semiconductor stacked bodies as disclosed by Joseph. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid etching or implaiting deep into the substrate. (Joseph Paragraph 0085 “Positioning the n-contact layer closer to the substrate cavity can also improve the design of the device by not having to etch or implant deep into the substrate.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Tanizawa in view of Kondo and another embodiment of Tanizawa does not teach the laser light is emitted from the second surface of the substrate.
However,
Joseph teaches the laser light is emitted from the second surface of the substrate. (Fig. 7 shows a back emitting VCSEL)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified light emitting device as taught by Tanizawa by having the laser light emit from the second surface of the substrate as disclosed by Joseph. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for flip chip bonding. (Paragraph 0132 “The top mirror 708, which becomes the bottom mirror after flip chip bonding,”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 4 Tanizawa does not teach the buffer layer includes at least any of a GaAs layer, an AlAs layer, an AlGaAs layer, an InGaAs layer, an AlGaInAs layer, a GaInP layer, and a AlGaInP layer and has a single layer sturcutre or a stacked structure.
Regarding Claim 13, Tanizawa does not teach the light emitting region is configured to emit infrared laser light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maeda et al. US 20220247153 teaches many features found in the Claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
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.
/STEPHEN SUTTON KOTTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828