DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the reply filed 24 September 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending; claims 11 and 14-16 stand withdrawn.
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 24 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s statement of common obligation of assignment of US 2022/0216188 A1 to Baek is acknowledged; the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is hereby withdrawn. However, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 over US 2021/0242371 A1 to Baek et al. and secondary reference(s) (see grounds of rejection below) are not affected by the statement of common obligation of assignment and are thus maintained.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0242371 A1 to Baek et al. (hereinafter “Baek”) in view of KR 20080085057 A to Windisch et al. (citations refer to the English machine translation attached herewith; hereinafter “Windisch”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Baek (Figs. 1-2) discloses a light emitting diode, comprising:
a first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer 27 (¶ 0056);
a V-pit generation layer 29 (¶ 0057) disposed on the first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer and having a V-pit 29v (¶ 0058);
an active layer 30 (¶ 0064) disposed on the V-pit generation layer;
a second conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer 33 (¶ 0071) disposed on the active layer (Fig. 1).
Baek fails to expressly disclose: an upper active layer disposed on the lower active layer; an intermediate layer disposed between the lower active layer and the upper active layer; wherein the lower active layer and the upper active layer emit light having different peak wavelengths from each other. In the same field of endeavor, Windisch (Fig. 1) discloses a light emitting diode including an upper active layer 2 disposed on a lower active layer 3 (Abstract; p. 5, Mode-For-Invention, ¶ 2); an intermediate layer 4 (p. 5, Mode-For-Invention, ¶ 2) disposed between the lower active layer 3 and the upper active layer 2 (Fig. 1); wherein the lower active layer and the upper active layer emit light having different peak wavelengths from each other (p. 3, ¶ 4 – “first and second active layers generate radiation with different wavelengths”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting diode of Baek to include an upper active layer and intermediate layer, wherein the lower active layer and the upper active layer emit light having different peak wavelengths from each other, as disclosed by Windisch, for the purpose of generating white light and increasing light output without increasing device footprint (p. 3, ¶ 4; p. 2, Disclosure, ¶¶ 8-9).
Regarding claim 2, Baek and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose: wherein the intermediate layer includes a semiconductor layer having a composition formula of In.sub.xAl.sub.yGa.sub.1-x-yN (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤x y<1). Windisch does disclose various materials including In.sub.xAl.sub.yGa.sub.1-x-yN (0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤x y<1) as suitable for use in light emitting diode semiconductor layers (p. 5, ¶¶ 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the material of Windisch in the light emitting diode of Baek for the purpose of utilizing an art recognized material known to be suitable for use in light emitting diode semiconductor layers.
Regarding claim 3, Baek and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the intermediate layer has a thickness of greater than 12 nm and less than or equal to 26 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recited layer thickness range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, the layer thickness is considered a result effective variable because it affects the performance and device dimensions of the light emitting diode. Thus the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the layer thickness for the purpose of adjusting the performance characteristics of the light emitting diode while conforming to sizing constraints.
Regarding claim 4, Baek (Figs. 1-2) and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 1, wherein the upper active layer 30 includes a first well region (¶ 0065 – “first well layer portion”) disposed over a flat surface of the V-pit generation layer and a second well region (¶ 0065 – “second well layer portion) formed along an inclined surface of the V-pit 29v, and a well layer of the first well region includes a higher indium content than that of a well layer of the second well region (¶ 0065).
Regarding claim 5, Baek and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 1. Windisch discloses the lower active layer emits light of a different wavelength than the upper active layer (p. 3, ¶ 4 – “first and second active layers generate radiation with different wavelengths”) however does not expressly disclose wherein the lower active layer emits light having a wavelength shorter than that of the upper active layer, and an intensity of light emitted from the lower active layer is greater than that of light emitted from the upper active layer. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a lower active layer that emits light having a wavelength shorter than that of the upper active layer, an intensity of light emitted from the lower active layer is greater than that of light emitted from the upper active layer, since to do so is one of a finite number of configurations to provide light of differing wavelengths from multiple active layers (i.e., lower active layer emits light of either shorter or longer wavelength than upper active layer, lower active layer emits at an intensity greater or lower than that of the upper active layer) for the purpose of producing a light emitting diode emitting a desired wavelength of light (e.g., wavelength in the white color range) with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP § 2143 (I)(E).
Regarding claim 6, Baek and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 1, wherein the light emitting diode emits light having at least two peak wavelengths in a visible light region (Baek ¶¶ 0036-37), however fail to expressly disclose an intensity at a longest peak wavelength is less than an intensity at at least one other peak wavelength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recited intensity and wavelength relationship, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, the intensity of the longest peak wavelength and the relationship (i.e., less than) with the intensity of the other peak wavelength is considered a result effective variable because it affects the color of the light emitted by the light emitting diode and the overall output of the light emitting diode. Thus the ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the intensity and wavelength relationship for the purpose of producing a light emitting diode with the desired light output and color.
Regarding claim 7, Baek and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 1, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the light emitting diode emits light disposed within a region with color coordinates (x, y) surrounded by coordinates of four points: (0.012, 0.494), (0.2, 0.4), (0.2, 0.32), (0.04, 0.32) on a CIE 1931 color space chromaticity diagram. Baek and Windisch each discuss modifying the color of light emitted from the light emitting diode as desired (Baek, e.g., ¶¶ 0074-75, 85; Windisch, e.g., p. 3, ¶¶ 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known techniques in material choice and concentration to modify the light emitting diode of Baek and Windisch to emit light in the recited color range because said techniques would have yielded predictable results and are recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Baek and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 1, Baek discloses further comprising: an upper step coverage layer 31 (¶ 0052) disposed between the second conductivity type semiconductor layer 33 and the upper active layer 30, wherein the upper step coverage layer includes a nitride semiconductor layer including Al (¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 9, Baek and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 8, Baek discloses further wherein the upper step coverage layer 31 (¶ 0052 - AlGaN) has a wider band gap than that of a barrier layer 30b (¶ 0067 – disclosing materials having a narrower band gap than AlGaN) of the upper active layer 30.
Regarding claim 10, Baek (Figs. 1-2) and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 8, Baek discloses further wherein the upper active layer 30 includes a first well region (¶ 0065 – “first well layer portion”) disposed over a flat surface of the V-pit generation layer and a second well region (¶ 0065 – “second well layer portion) formed along an inclined surface of the V-pit 29v, and a well layer of the first well region includes a higher indium content than that of a well layer of the second well region (¶ 0065), and the second well region does not emit light (this limitation is considered functional language; Baek and Windisch disclose the structure as recited in the claim as currently drafted, thus the structure of the prior art inherently possess the functionally defined limitation of the claimed device). MPEP § 2114 (I).
Regarding claim 12, Baek and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 8, Baek (Fig. 1) discloses further wherein the upper step coverage layer 31 includes a region disposed over the flat surface of the V-pit generation layer and an inclined region formed on the inclined surface of the V-pit 29v along the V-pit (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Baek and Windisch disclose the light emitting diode of claim 8, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the light emitting diode emits light disposed within the region with color coordinates (x, y) surrounded by coordinates of four points: (0.012, 0.494), (0.2, 0.4), (0.2, 0.32), (0.04, 0.32) on the CIE 1931 color space chromaticity diagram. Baek and Windisch each discuss modifying the color of light emitted from the light emitting diode as desired (Baek, e.g., ¶¶ 0074-75, 85; Windisch, e.g., p. 3, ¶¶ 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known techniques in material choice and concentration to modify the light emitting diode of Baek and Windisch to emit light in the recited color range because said techniques would have yielded predictable results and are recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0348567 A1 to Na et al. (hereinafter “Na”) in view of Baek and Windisch.
Regarding independent claim 17, Na (Fig. 22) discloses a light emitting device, comprising: a first lead 4 (¶ 0231) and a second lead 3 (¶ 0231); a housing 1a/5 (¶ 0228) covering the first lead and the second lead and defining a cavity (Fig. 22); and a light emitting diode 101 (¶ 0234) disposed in the cavity of the housing and electrically connected to the first and second leads (¶0232). Na does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations of the claim.
In the same field of endeavor, Baek (Figs. 1-2) discloses a light emitting diode, comprising:
a first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer 27 (¶ 0056);
a V-pit generation layer 29 (¶ 0057) disposed on the first conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer and having a V-pit 29v (¶ 0058);
an active layer 30 (¶ 0064) disposed on the V-pit generation layer;
a second conductivity type nitride semiconductor layer 33 (¶ 0071) disposed on the active layer (Fig. 1).
Baek and Na fail to expressly disclose: an upper active layer disposed on the lower active layer; an intermediate layer disposed between the lower active layer and the upper active layer; wherein the lower active layer and the upper active layer emit light having different peak wavelengths from each other. In the same field of endeavor, Windisch (Fig. 1) discloses a light emitting diode including an upper active layer 2 disposed on a lower active layer 3 (Abstract; p. 5, Mode-For-Invention, ¶ 2); an intermediate layer 4 (p. 5, Mode-For-Invention, ¶ 2) disposed between the lower active layer 3 and the upper active layer 2 (Fig. 1); wherein the lower active layer and the upper active layer emit light having different peak wavelengths from each other (p. 3, ¶ 4 – “first and second active layers generate radiation with different wavelengths”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting device of Na and Baek to include an upper active layer and intermediate layer, wherein the lower active layer and the upper active layer emit light having different peak wavelengths from each other, as disclosed by Windisch, for the purpose of generating white light and increasing light output without increasing device footprint (p. 3, ¶ 4; p. 2, Disclosure, ¶¶ 8-9).
Regarding claim 18, Na, Baek, and Windisch disclose the light emitting device of claim 17, Baek discloses further comprising: an upper step coverage layer 31 (¶ 0052) disposed between the second conductivity type semiconductor layer 33 and the upper active layer 30, wherein the upper step coverage layer includes a nitride semiconductor layer including Al (¶ 0052).
Regarding claim 19, Na, Baek, and Windisch disclose the light emitting device of claim 17, however fail to expressly disclose wherein the light emitting device emits light located within a region with color coordinates (x, y) surrounded by coordinates of four points: (0.012, 0.494), (0.2, 0.4), (0.2, 0.32), (0.04, 0.32) on the CIE 1931 color space chromaticity diagram. Baek and Windisch each discuss modifying the color of light emitted from the light emitting diode as desired (Baek, e.g., ¶¶ 0074-75, 85; Windisch, e.g., p. 3, ¶¶ 3-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize known techniques in material choice and concentration to modify the light emitting device of Na, Baek, and Windisch to emit light in the recited color range because said techniques would have yielded predictable results and are recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Na, Baek, and Windisch as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of US 2018/0219125 A1 to Wicke et al. (hereinafter “Wicke”).
Regarding claim 20, Na, Baek, and Windisch disclose the light emitting device of claim 17, however fail to expressly disclose further comprising: a reflector disposed on an inner wall of the housing, wherein the reflector includes white silicone. In the same field of endeavor, Wicke discloses a light emitting device including a reflector disposed on an inner wall of the housing, wherein the reflector includes white silicone (¶ 0189). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the reflector of Wicke in the device of Na, Baek, and Windisch for the purpose of increasing light output (Wicke, ¶ 0192).
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 Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
29 December 2025
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights