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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 06/18/2025.
Claim(s) 1-19 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 12-17 and 19 have been withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1 and 18-19 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-11, 18 and 19 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. While the original specification discloses values of thickness and reflectance vs. wavelength plots, there is no prior express, implicit, or inherent disclosure of the equation recited in newly amended claim 1. The mere fact that one of ordinary skill in the art may derive or calculate such an equation from figures or plots foes not provide adequate support in the original disclosure. Examiner notes that the values and columns shown in the Tables submitted with the Remarks to not correspond to that shown in original Fig. 3 (see Page 8 or Remarks). Further, the results shown in original Fig. 5 and that in Page 9 of the Remarks appear different.
Claims 2-11, 18 and 19 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0126161, Monavarian et al. in view of US 2020/0052137, Maros et al.
Regarding claim 1
Monavarian teaches a reflector [Figs. 2A-2B, Abstract, paragraphs 0007-0009, 0027 and 0033], comprising:
a substrate (sapphire substrate) [Figs. 2A-2B, Abstract, paragraphs 0007-0009, 0027 and 0033]; and
a plurality of alternating layers of a first material having a first index of refraction (n1) and a second material having a second index of refraction (n2) disposed on the substrate, wherein the first index of refraction is different from the second index of refraction [Figs. 2A-2D, paragraphs 0004, 0013 and 0026-0027],
wherein a thickness of at least one layer of the first material in the plurality of alternating layers is not the same as other layers of the first material in the plurality of alternating layers (the thickness of both materials are randomized throughout the DBR stack) [Figs. 2A-2D and paragraphs 0026-0027],
wherein a thickness of at least one layer of the second material in the plurality of alternating layers is not the same as other layers of the second material in the plurality of alternating layers (the thickness of both materials are randomized throughout the DBR stack) [Figs. 2A-2D and paragraphs 0026-0027],
the thicknesses of each layer configured to provide a central peak in reflectance versus wavelength [Figs. 3A-3B and 4A-4B], such that the reflector exhibits reflectance of wavelengths shorter than the width of the central peak increased in intensity and the reflectance of wavelengths longer than the width of the central peak reduced in intensity as compared to a reflector wherein the thickness of each layer of the first material of the plurality of alternating layers is the same and the thickness of each layer of the second material of the plurality of alternating layers is the same (“[a] clear enhancement of the reflectance stop-band width for random structures can be observed compared to the periodic structures with the same number of pairs”) [Figs. 3A-3B, 4A-4B, 6A-6D and 9A-9C, paragraphs 0025, 0028-0029].
Although disclosed in Monavarian, the variation in thickness within the reflector stack is disclosed to be selected such that the desired refractive index contrast between two layers is achieved while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026].
As further set forth in Maros, in designs using a DBR, the number, order and thickness of each layer can be selected in such a way that a desired wavelength range of an incident solar spectrum is reflected by the DBR into the junction(s) overlying the DBR. [paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110].
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thickness profile of the DBR disclosed in Monavarian (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve reflectance of the incident solar spectrum at the desired wavelength range while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026; Maros, paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 2
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above, wherein the reflector is disposed on a top surface of the substrate or on a bottom surface of the substrate [paragraph 0007].
Regarding claim 3
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above, wherein the reflector is disposed between a pair of substrates (in the case that a further reflector is provided above the reflector, the reflector is between a pair of substrates) [Fig. 8A and paragraph 0011].
Regarding claim 4
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above.
Monavarian teaches the first material and the second material selected from semiconductor materials and dielectric materials, wherein the semicodncutor materials selected from GaN, AlN, InAlN, AlGaN, or InGaN, wherein the dielectric materials are selected from SiNx, SiO2, HfO2, or TiO2, and wherein each layer can be composed of a different material [paragraph 0006].
Monavarian does not teach the first material being InAlP and the second material being InGaP.
Maros shows that a DBR stack can include alternating layers of semiconductor materials of Groups III and V of the periodic table such as, for example, AlAs, AlGaAs, GaAs, InAs, GaInAs, AlInAs, InGaP, AlInGaP, InGaP, InGaAsP, GaP, InP, AlP, AlInP, or AlInGaAs [paragraph 0110].
Therefore, because Maros teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable semiconductor materials, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143]. Since Maros teaches that InAlP and InGaO leads to the anticipated success, said semiconductors are not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) [MPEP 2144.07].
Regarding claim 5
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above, wherein a subset of the layers of the first material (material having a refractive index n1) in the plurality of alternating layers have varying thicknesses (the thickness of both materials are randomized throughout the DBR stack) [Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2D, paragraphs 0026-0027; Maros, paragraphs 0057 and 0109-0110].
Further, the variation in thickness within the reflector stack is disclosed to be selected such that the desired refractive index contrast between two layers is achieved while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [paragraph 0026].
As further set forth in Maros, in designs using a DBR, the number, order and thickness of each layer can be selected in such a way that a desired wavelength range of an incident solar spectrum is reflected by the DBR into the junction(s) overlying the DBR. [paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110].
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thickness profile of the DBR disclosed in Monavarian (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve reflectance of the incident solar spectrum at the desired wavelength range while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026; Maros, paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110].
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 6
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above, wherein each of the layers of the first material (material having a refractive index n1) in the plurality of alternating layers have a different thickness (the thickness of both materials is randomized throughout the DBR stack) [Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2D, paragraphs 0026-0027].
Regarding claim 7
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above, wherein a subset of the layers of the second material (material having a refractive index n2) in the plurality of alternating layers have varying thicknesses (the thickness of both materials are randomized throughout the DBR stack) [Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2D, paragraphs 0026-0027].
Further, the variation in thickness within the reflector stack is disclosed to be selected such that the desired refractive index contrast between two layers is achieved while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [paragraph 0026].
As further set forth in Maros, in designs using a DBR, the number, order and thickness of each layer can be selected in such a way that a desired wavelength range of an incident solar spectrum is reflected by the DBR into the junction(s) overlying the DBR. [paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110].
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thickness profile of the DBR disclosed in Monavarian (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve reflectance of the incident solar spectrum at the desired wavelength range while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026; Maros, paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 8
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above, wherein each of the layers of the second material (material having a refractive index n2) in the plurality of alternating layers have a different thickness (the thickness of both materials are randomized throughout the DBR stack) [Figs. 1A-1B, 2A-2D, paragraphs 0026-0027].
Regarding claim 9
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above, wherein the thickness of at least one layer of the first material and at least one layer of the second material is approximately the quarter wave optical thickness of a specific wavelength of light within each material as modified by the index of refraction for each material [paragraph 0013].
Further, the thickness within the alternating first and second materials reflector stack is disclosed to be selected such that the desired refractive index contrast between two layers is achieved while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [paragraph 0026].
As further set forth in Maros, in designs using a DBR, the number, order and thickness of each layer can be selected in such a way that a desired wavelength range of an incident solar spectrum is reflected by the DBR into the junction(s) overlying the DBR. [paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110].
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thickness profile of the DBR disclosed in Monavarian (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve reflectance of the incident solar spectrum at the desired wavelength range while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026; Maros, paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 10
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above, wherein the specific wavelength defines a center of the main reflectance peak for the reflector [Figs. 3A-3B and 4A-4B, paragraphs 0025, 0028-0030].
Regarding claim 11
Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above, wherein the thicknesses of the alternating layers ranging between approximately the quarter wave optical thickness of that material for the main reflectance peak and approximately 10 nm or less [Monavarian, paragraphs 0007 and 0013; Maros, paragraph 0110].
Further, the thickness within the alternating first and second materials reflector stack is disclosed to be selected such that the desired refractive index contrast between two layers is achieved while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [paragraph 0026].
As further set forth in Maros, in designs using a DBR, the number, order and thickness of each layer can be selected in such a way that a desired wavelength range of an incident solar spectrum is reflected by the DBR into the junction(s) overlying the DBR. [paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110].
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thickness profile of the DBR disclosed in Monavarian (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve reflectance of the incident solar spectrum at the desired wavelength range while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026; Maros, paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 18
Modified Monavarian teaches the reflector as set forth above.
Modified Monavarian does not teach a width and intensity of the central peak remains the same as compared to a reflector wherein the thickness of each layer of the first material of the plurality of alternating layers is the same and the thickness of each layer of the second material of the plurality of alternating layers is the same.
However, modified Monavarian teaches that the variation in thickness within the reflector stack is disclosed to be selected such that the desired refractive index contrast between two layers is achieved while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026].
As further set forth in Maros, in designs using a DBR, the number, order and thickness of each layer can be selected in such a way that a desired wavelength range of an incident solar spectrum is reflected by the DBR into the junction(s) overlying the DBR. [paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110].
Therefore, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the thickness of the alternating layers, through routine experimentation, in order to achieve the desired reflectance profile while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026; Maros, paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/18/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Monavarian (Figs. 3A-3B, 4A-4B and 9A-9C, paragraphs 0025, 0028-0029) fails to teach a reflector exhibiting the reflectance of wavelengths shorter than the width of the central peak (e.g., stop-band) increased in intensity and the reflectance of wavelengths longer than the width of the central peak (e.g., stop-band) reduced in intensity as compared to a reflector wherein the thickness of each layer of the first material of the plurality of alternating layers is the same and the thickness of each layer of the second material of the plurality of alternating layers is the same.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen at least in Figures 6C-6D and 9B-9C, the random and sorted random structures show a reflectance of wavelengths shorter than the width of the central peak that has increased in intensity compared to that of periodic structures. The figures further show a reflectance of wavelengths longer than the width of the central peak that has reduced in intensity compared to that of periodic structures. Examiner notes that the periodic structures disclosed in Monavarian correspond to layers having the same thickness while random and/or sorted random correspond to structures in which a thickness of at least one layer of the first material and a thickness of at least one layer of the second material is not the same as other layers of the first and second materials in the plurality of alternating layers.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites "wherein a thickness of at least one layer of the first material in the plurality of alternating layers is not the same as other layers of the first material in the plurality of alternating layers, wherein a thickness of at least one layer of the second material in the plurality of alternating layers is not the same as other layers of the second material in the plurality of alternating layers", and not that the layers have "random thicknesses".
Examiner notes that nothing in the claim precludes the thickness from being “random”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive unless claimed commensurately. The randomized structure of the first and second materials disclosed in the cited art meets with the claimed “at least one layer…in the plurality of alternating layers is not the same as other layers…”.
Further, the cited art shows that the variation in thickness within the reflector stack is selected such that the desired refractive index contrast between two layers is achieved while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026]. Particularly, in designs using a DBR, the number, order and thickness of each layer can be selected in such a way that a desired wavelength range of an incident solar spectrum is reflected by the DBR into the junction(s) overlying the DBR. [Maros, paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110].
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the thickness profile of the DBR disclosed in Monavarian (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve reflectance of the incident solar spectrum at the desired wavelength range while avoiding strain-induced defects and imperfections [Monavarian, paragraph 0026; Maros, paragraphs 0080, 0109-0110]. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
The mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979)
Additionally, the fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
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 MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights