DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 14 and 22-23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Examiner notes the IDSs of 11/05/2025 and 01/08/2026 have been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner notes new are is cited to account for the use of the scattering layer.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112b of claim 15, the Applicant has argued superlattices are examples of interfaces and therefore are not indefinite.
The Examiner notes the 112b of claim 15 was not one in which stated “superlattices” were indefinite, but instead was directed to the way in which the claim was written. The claim first states “multiple interfaces” must be present and then uses language of “such as superlattices”. This language is unclear as it is not understood whether any type of “multiple interface” would read on the claim or whether the claim is being limited to the more specific “superlattice” interface type.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
With respect to the 112d rejection of claim 2, the Applicant has argued that coherent and non-coherent are separate forms of light emission and therefore the claim is further dividing the possible emissions into 2 categories which is further limiting.
The Examiner does not agree. Claim 1 requires a “light emitting device”. A light emitting device necessarily generates light. Light from a light emitting device is necessarily either coherent or incoherent. Therefore, claim 1 necessarily is outlining a device which generates either coherent or incoherent light. Claim 2, depending from claim 1, and stating the device generates coherent or incoherent light is therefore not adding further limitation to claim 1.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has argued Galler does not teach a device which has a recombination region which “needs no electrical contact”.
The Examiner directs the Applicant’s attention to the 112 section below. Essentially, it is unclear how this language is to be read, and the Examiner is therefore reading the language to be referring to no “direct” electrical contact as is best understood from the instant application and the Remarks (see pg.18). It is noted that Galler does not teach a “direct” electrical contact to the recombination region as shown in fig.3.
Claim Interpretation
For purposes of examination, “relatively narrow” and “relatively wide” in claim 1 are interpreted as being relative to each other.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 (and all claims dependent therefrom) is 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 that the recombination region “needs no electrical contact”. The device, as clearly shown in figure 2 of the application (fig.2 #214/213), makes use of electrical contacts to function. The recombination region (fig.2 #205) specifically makes use of the electrical contacts to operate by receiving electrons scattered from layer #209 and which are generated within layer #210 by using the electrical contacts #213/214. The original specification also does not make mention of optical pumping. Therefore, the originally filed specification does not make clear that the combination region needs no electrical contact as currently claimed.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 15 (and claims 2-4, 8, 10-11, 13-16, 20 and 21 via dependency) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the recombination region “needs no electrical contact”. The device, as clearly shown in figure 2 of the application (fig.2 #214/213), makes use of electrical contacts to function. The recombination region (fig.2 #205) specifically makes use of the electrical contacts to operate by receiving electrons scattered from layer #209 and which are generated within layer #210 by using the electrical contacts #213/214. The original specification also does not make mention of optical pumping. This inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain. See MPEP 2173.03.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be understood to read “needs no direct electrical contact” as the electrical contact region is understood to be spatially separated from the recombination region in figure 2.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “multiple interfaces”, and the claim also recites “such as superlattices” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For purposes of examination, the claim will be read as though superlattices are examples, not limiting.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 outlines a semiconductor light emitting device. Claim 2, depending from claim 1, states the light is incoherent or coherent. All light produced from semiconductor light emitters is either incoherent or coherent, therefore claim 2 is not found to properly depend from claim 1 as it is not further limiting claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The previous double patenting rejection is withdrawn due to the current amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galler et al. (WO 2014/048792; see previously included English translation for citations) in view of Furuta et al. (JP 2015-207584).
With respect to claim 1, Galler discloses a device (fig.3), comprising: a Group-III nitride light emitting device ([0057]) comprised of an externally electrically driven ([0061]), relatively narrow band gap carrier generation region (fig.3 #303/307) separated from a relatively wide band gap carrier recombination region (fig.3 #305) that utilizes scattering of hot carriers generated by Auger recombination ([0062]) in the externally electrically-driven ([0061]), relatively narrow band gap carrier generation region (fig.3 #303/307) into the relatively wide band gap carrier recombination region (fig.3 #305), such that the relatively wide band gap carrier recombination region needs no electrical contact (no direct electrical contact used to layer #305) and is internally electrically injected by the hot carriers generated in the externally electrically-driven relatively narrow band gap carrier generation region ([0061-62]). Galler further teaches the electrons generated by Auger recombination to be injected to the central well (fig.3 #319 into #305) via passing through an intervening layer (fig.3 e.g. left side #315). Galler does not teach the intervening layer to be a scattering layer that scatters the carriers to the central well. Furuta teaches a laser device (abstract) which includes an intervening layer (fig.2 #21) which is used to scatter electrons (“The transport of electrons in the miniband MB of the electron injection layer 21 is determined by processes such as electron-electron scattering, acoustic phonon scattering, and optical phonon scattering.”; “On the other hand, when the level interval in the miniband MB is smaller than the LO phonon energy, it is preferable that the level wave function exists over at least three quantum well layers in the miniband MB. As a result, electrons can immediately exist in the plurality of well layers and can be efficiently transported by electron-electron scattering.”) into the well (fig.2 #20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the intervening layer of Galler to be of a scattering type as taught by Furuta in order to inject the Auger generated electrons at high speed and high efficiency into the central well (Furuta, “Thereby, electrons can be injected at high speed and high efficiency into the excitation level Le in the active layer 20 through relaxation in the miniband MB.”).
With respect to claim 2, Galler further teaches the Group-III nitride light emitting device generates incoherent or coherent light ([0062] understood to be incoherent).
With respect to claim 8, Galler further teaches the Group-III nitride light emitting device incorporates a p-type AlGaN layer (fig.3 #311x2) to generate hot carriers via trap-assisted Auger recombination (necessarily provides a means to generate hot carriers via trap-assisted Auger combination due to inherent defects and the interfaces with the other layers).
With respect to claim 16, Galler further teaches the Group-III nitride light emitting device incorporates low-dimensional Group-III nitride structures for generating the hot carriers, including quantum wells ([0061-62] generated in wells), quantum dots or quantum disks.
With respect to claim 20, Galler, as modified, teaches the light emitter outlined above, but does not teach the Group-III nitride light emitting device further comprises monolithic arrays of Auger-pumped light-emitting diodes or laser diodes operating independently or coherently coupled. The Examiner takes Official notice that use of independently operating light emitter arrays are known and used for producing high power/light output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the single device of Galler to make use of multiple, independent, duplicate copies of the device to create an array of light emitters to produce more light (see also MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galler and Furuta in view of Espenlaub et al. (“Auger-generated hot carrier current in photo-excited forward biased single quantum well blue light emitting diodes”; Applicant submitted prior art).
With respect to claim 3, Galler, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including the use of III nitride template layers (fig.3) grown atop each other, but does not teach the Group-III nitride light emitting device is comprised of a bulk Group-III nitride substrate of polar, semipolar or nonpolar orientation, or of Group-III nitride template layers grown on a substrate other than a Group-III nitride substrate. Espenlaub teaches a related III nitride light emitter (fig.2) which makes use of III nitride template layers grown on a substrate other than a group III nitride (fig.2 Sapphire). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of Sapphire for a growth substrate for the layers of Galler as demonstrated by Espenlaub in order to provide a material with sufficiently close lattice constant to that of GaN to create a low defect device (see also MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 4, 13, 15 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galler and Furuta in view of Iwase et al. (US 5173912).
With respect to claim 4, Galler, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the Group-III nitride light emitting device incorporates graded composition layers to redirect the scattered hot carriers into the relatively wide gap carrier recombination region. Iwase teaches a related semiconductor light emitter (abstract) which makes use of capturing Auger hot carriers which have been generated in a lower bandgap well within a wider bandgap well (col.2 lines 11-24, 59-61; fig.2 Auger generating in #31 with capture in wider bandgap #32, col.4 lines 60-64) and further teaches use of step type composition layers (fig.2 #34/35) with suggestion of continuously varying the composition (col.4 lines 32-34) which is equivalent to grading. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Galler to incorporate graded layers as suggested by Iwase in order to create a GRIN-SCH structure (Iwase, col.4 line 19) to control refractive index and carrier injection.
Note the graded composition layers would redirect the scattered hot carriers into the relatively wide gap carrier recombination region based on the changing composition within the layers.
With respect to claim 13, Galler, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including contacts (necessarily present to enable electrical injection), but does not teach the Group-III nitride light emitting device incorporates at least one lateral contact structure to inject at least one carrier type into the carrier generation region. Iwase further teaches an electrical contact structure (fig.1 #80 + electrode, col.5 lines 29-30) for injecting carriers which extends on left/right lateral sides of the upper surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Galler to make use of a at least one lateral contact structure to inject at least one carrier type into the carrier generation region as demonstrated by Iwase in order to enable efficient injection of carriers as needed for the electrical injection operation taught by Galler.
With respect to claim 15, Galler, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the Group-III nitride light emitting device incorporates defects or multiple interfaces such as superlattices that enhance the scattering of the hot carriers. Iwase further teaches use of step type composition layers (fig.2 #34/35) with multiple interfaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Galler to incorporate step type layers as suggested by Iwase in order to create a GRIN-SCH structure (Iwase, col.4 line 19) to control refractive index and carrier injection.
Note the stepped layers would necessarily enhance the scattered hot carriers based on the interfaces between the layers.
With respect to claim 21, Galler, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the Group-III nitride light emitting device provides access to one or more lateral contact layers for deposition of anode and/or cathode electrodes, based on selective area growth. Iwase further teaches an electrical contact structure (fig.1 #80 + electrode, col.5 lines 29-30) for injecting carriers which extends on left/right lateral sides of the upper surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Galler to make use of a at least one lateral contact structure for depositing an electrode to inject at least one carrier type into the carrier generation region as demonstrated by Iwase in order to enable efficient injection of carriers as needed for the electrical injection operation taught by Galler.
Note that “based on selective are growth” is understood to be a product-by-process term, not found to structurally limit the device (see MPEP 2113).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galler and Furuta in view of Kano et al. (US 8334577).
With respect to claim 10, Galler, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including cladding layers (fig.3 #309 n/p) and a single active region (fig.3 #303-307), but does not teach the Group-III nitride light emitting device incorporates Group-III nitride waveguide and cladding layers to provide transverse optical confinement of a lasing optical mode, using step-index or graded-index layers, wherein the Group-III nitride waveguide and cladding layers operate on a fundamental even-symmetry transverse mode with a single active region or a higher order odd-symmetry transverse mode with a null at the carrier generation region when multiple active regions are disposed on either side of the carrier generation region. Kano teaches a related semiconductor light emitter which includes claddings and waveguides (fig.8 clads #32/36, waveguides #33/35) and used to provide transverse optical confinement of a lasing optical mode, using step-index or graded-index layers, wherein the Group-III nitride waveguide and cladding layers operate on a fundamental even-symmetry transverse mode with a single active region (fig.8 active #34; col.16 line 14-16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Galler to make use of waveguides, along with the existing clads, to realize fundamental even-symmetry transverse mode as demonstrated by Kano in order to control the shape of the output light.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galler and Furuta in view of Kozaki et al. (US 7496124).
With respect to claim 11, Galler, as modified, teaches the device outlined above including an active region (fig.3 #303-307), but does not teach the Group-III nitride light emitting device incorporates Group-III nitride waveguide layers disposed asymmetrically about the active region. Kozaki teaches a semiconductor light emitter (abstract) which includes III-nitride waveguides (fig.17 #107/110) disposed asymmetrically about the active region (fig.17 #108; col.16 lines 63-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Galler to make use of III nitride waveguides asymmetrically about the active region as demonstrated by Kozaki in order to control the shape/position of the produced light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the pto892 form for a list of related art.
Note US 5173912 and Espenlaub, both outlined above, are found to teach at least claim 1.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOD T VAN ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828