DETAILED ACTION
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 Non-Final Office Action
The 7 JAN 2026 amendments to claims 1, 4, 13, and 15 have been entered.
The 7 JAN 2026 cancellation of claim 3 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
See previous Office action for a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jang et al. (US 20150200230; below, “Jang” – previously cited 25 AUG 2025 IDS noted prior art reference) with evidence from and/or in view of Obata et al. (JP 6165602; below, “Obata” – previously cited 10 JAN 2023 IDS noted prior art reference). At least “combining prior art elements”, “simple substitution”, “obvious to try”, and “applying a known technique to a known device” rationales support a conclusion of obviousness. MPEP § 2143(A)-(G).
RE 1, Jang, in Figures 1-30 and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0001] to [0142], claims 1-26, discloses a light emitting diode (LED) device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
593
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
semiconductor layers including an N-type layer (111), an active region (121, 122, 123, 124), and a P-type layer (131, 132, 133, 134);
a metal stack of layers (181, e.g., [0095]) contacting the N-type layer (111), and comprising:
an ohmic contact layer (180a) electrically contacting the N-type layer (111) and having a work function value that is less than or equal to a work function value of the N-type layer (111), the ohmic contact layer (180a) comprising aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), or aluminum-doped zinc oxide (AZO) (e.g., [0096]);
a reflective layer (180b) electrically contacting the ohmic contact layer (180a), the reflective layer (180b) comprising silver (Ag) or gold (Au) (e.g., [0095]);
a first material barrier layer (180c1, e.g., first layer of multi-layered structure, [0099]) electrically contacting the reflective layer (180b);
a current carrying layer (180c2, e.g., second layer of multi-layered structure) electrically contacting the first material barrier layer (180c1); and
a second material barrier layer (180c3, e.g., third layer of multi-layered structure, [0099]) electrically contacting the current carrying layer (180c2); and
a dielectric material (170) which insulates the P-type layer (131, 132, 133 or 134) and the active region (121, 122, 123, 124) from the metal stack (181), wherein the ohmic contact layer (180a) is disposed between the N-type layer (111) and the reflective layer (180b) to completely separate the reflective layer (180b) from the N-type layer (111) along an entire length of the reflective layer (180b), and
(see Obata for: wherein a thickness of the ohmic contact layer (180a) is less than or equal to 20% of a thickness of the reflective layer (180b)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify to modify Jang’s device wherein a thickness of the ohmic contact layer is less than or equal to 20% of a thickness of the reflective layer, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As evidence, see Obata’s FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., paragraphs [0051] to [0057].
Obata, in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., paragraphs [0051] to [0057], teaches a thickness of an ohmic contact layer (62a – [0052], 0.1 to 5 nm) is less than or equal to 20% of a thickness of a reflective layer (62b – [0057], 100 to 500 nm).
Jang and Obata are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Jang as taught by Obata because: 1. light extraction efficiency by reflection can be improved (Obata [0010]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 2, Jang discloses the LED device of claim 1, wherein the ohmic contact layer (180a) is in direct contact with the N-type layer (111) (e.g., Fig. 14).
RE 4, Jang discloses the LED device of claim 1, wherein:
the ohmic contact layer (180a) comprises: aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), or aluminum-doped zinc oxide (AZO) (e.g., [0096]);
the reflective layer (180b) comprises silver (Ag) or gold (Au) (e.g., [0095]);
the first (e.g., 180c1) and second (e.g., 180c3) material barrier layers each independently comprise:
titanium (Ti), chromium (Cr), platinum (Pt), cobalt (Co), palladium (Pd), or tungsten (W) (e.g., [0099]); and
the current carrying layer (180c2) comprises:
copper (Cu), gold (Au), or aluminum (Al) (e.g., [0099]).
RE 5, Jang discloses the LED device of claim 4, wherein the N-type layer (111) comprises n-GaN (e.g., [0077], not particularly limited).
RE 6, Jang is silent regarding the LED device of claim 1, wherein: (see Obata for: the ohmic contact layer comprises a thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 5 Å to less than or equal to 200 Å, the reflective layer comprises a thickness of greater than or equal to 1000 Å), the first (e.g., 180c1) and second (e.g., 180c3) material barrier layers each independently comprise a thickness of greater than or equal to 1000 Å, and the current carrying layer (180c2) comprises a thickness of greater than or equal to 5000 Å (e.g., [0075]). It would have been obvious … to modify to modify Jang’s device to satisfy the noted structural elements, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration … is obvious, …. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As evidence, see Obata’s FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., paragraphs [0051] to [0057].
Obata, in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., paragraphs [0051] to [0057], teaches an ohmic contact layer (62a – [0052], 0.1 to 5 nm) comprises a thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 5 Å to less than or equal to 200 Å, the reflective layer (62b – [0057], 100 to 500 nm) comprises a thickness of greater than or equal to 1000 Å.
Jang and Obata are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Jang as taught by Obata because: 1. light extraction efficiency by reflection can be improved (Obata [0010]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 7, Jang discloses the LED device of claim 1, wherein the metal stack of layers (181) further comprises a first material migration suppression layer (same-atomic-plane layer of multi-layered structure, [0099]) electrically contacting the reflective layer (180b) and the first material barrier layer (180c1); and/or
a second material migration suppression layer (same-atomic-plane layer of multi-layered structure, [0099]) electrically contacting the current carrying layer (180c2) and the second material barrier layer (180c3) (e.g., [0099]).
RE 8, Jang discloses the LED device of claim 7, wherein the first and second material migration suppression layers (same-atomic-plane layer of multi-layered structure) each independently comprise nickel (Ni) or palladium (Pd), and/or independently comprise a thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 50 Å to less than or equal to 1000 Å (e.g., [0099]).
RE 9, Jang discloses the LED device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor layers are on a substrate (100 – e.g., [0061]).
RE 10, Jang discloses the LED device of claim 1, wherein the metal stack of layers (181) is effective as a bonding material (electrical connection, Fig. 14).
RE 11, Jang discloses the LED device of claim 1, wherein the metal stack of layers (181) is effective as an ohmic contact-reflective material (e.g., [0095]).
RE 12, Jang discloses the LED device of claim 1, wherein the metal stack of layers (181) is effective to improve loss of light output power as compared to a comparative metal stack without a reflective layer (180b) (e.g., [0040], [0097]).
RE 13, Jang, in Figures 1-30 and related text, e.g., Abstract, paragraphs [0001] to [0142], claims 1-26, discloses a method of manufacturing the metal stack of a light emitting diode (LED) device of claim 1, the method comprising:
depositing the ohmic contact layer (180a) electrically contacting an N-type layer
(111), the work function value of the ohmic contact layer being less than or equal to the work function value of the N-type layer (111);
depositing the reflective layer (180b) electrically contacting the ohmic contact layer (180a);
depositing the first material barrier layer (180c1, [0099] first layer of multi-layered
structure) electrically contacting the reflective layer (180b);
depositing the current carrying layer (180c2, [0099] second layer of multi-layered structure) electrically contacting the first material barrier layer (180c1); and
depositing the second material barrier layer (180c3, third layer of multi-layered structure) electrically contacting the current carrying layer (180c2, [0099]),
wherein the ohmic contact layer (180a) and the reflective layer (180b) are deposited to completely separate the reflective layer (180b) from the N-type layer (111) along an entire length of the reflective layer (180b), and
wherein a thickness of the ohmic contact layer (180a) is less than or equal to 20% of a thickness of the reflective layer (180b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify to modify Jang’s device wherein a thickness of the ohmic contact layer is less than or equal to 20% of a thickness of the reflective layer, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As evidence, see Obata’s FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., paragraphs [0051] to [0057].
Obata, in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., paragraphs [0051] to [0057], teaches a thickness of an ohmic contact layer (62a – [0052], 0.1 to 5 nm) is less than or equal to 20% of a thickness of a reflective layer (62b – [0057], 100 to 500 nm).
Jang and Obata are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Jang as taught by Obata because: 1. light extraction efficiency by reflection can be improved (Obata [0010]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 14, Jang discloses the method of claim 13 comprising directly depositing the ohmic contact layer (180a) on the N-type layer (111) (Fig. 14, [0096]).
RE 15, Jang discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the N-type layer (111) comprises n-GaN (e.g., [0077]), and the ohmic contact layer (180a) comprises:
aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), or aluminum-doped zinc oxide (AZO) (e.g., [0096]);
the reflective layer (180b) comprises silver (Ag) or gold (Au) (e.g., [0095]);
the first (180c1) and second (180c1) material barrier layers each independently comprise: titanium (Ti), chromium (Cr), platinum (Pt), cobalt (Co), palladium (Pd), or tungsten (W) (e.g., [0099]); and
the current carrying layer (180c2) comprises: copper (Cu), gold (Au), or
aluminum (Al) (e.g., [0099]).
RE 16, Jang is silent regarding the method of claim 13, wherein: (see Obata for: the ohmic contact layer comprises a thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 5 Å to less than or equal to 200 Å, the reflective layer comprises a thickness of greater than or equal to 1000 Å), the first (e.g., 620 bottom) and second (e.g., 620 top) material barrier layers each independently comprise a thickness of greater than or equal to 1000 Å, and the current carrying layer (180c2) comprises a thickness of greater than or equal to 5000 Å. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify to modify Jang’s device to satisfy the noted structural elements, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration … is obvious, …. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As evidence, see Obata’s FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., paragraphs [0051] to [0057].
Obata, in FIG. 1 and related text, e.g., paragraphs [0051] to [0057], teaches an ohmic contact layer (62a – [0052], 0.1 to 5 nm) comprises a thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 5 Å to less than or equal to 200 Å, the reflective layer (62b – [0057], 100 to 500 nm) comprises a thickness of greater than or equal to 1000 Å.
Jang and Obata are analogous art from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious … to modify Jang as taught by Obata because: 1. light extraction efficiency by reflection can be improved (Obata [0010]); and 2. all the claimed elements were known … and one … could have combined the elements …, and the combination would have yielded predictable results …. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
RE 17, Jang discloses the method of claim 13 further comprising: depositing a first material migration suppression layer (same-atomic-plane layer of multi-layered structure, [0099]) electrically contacting the reflective layer (180b) and the first material barrier layer (180c1); and/or
a second material migration suppression layer (same-atomic-plane layer of multi-layered structure, [0099]) electrically contacting the current carrying layer (180c2) and the second material barrier layer (180c3) (e.g., [0099]).
RE 18, Jang discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the first and second material migration suppression layers (same-atomic-plane layer of multi-layered structure) each independently comprise nickel (Ni) or palladium (Pd), and/or independently comprise a thickness in a range of greater than or equal to 50 Å to less than or equal to 1000 Å (e.g., [0099]).
RE 19, Jang discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the metal stack of layers (181) is effective as a bonding material (electrical connection, Fig. 14).
RE 20, Jang discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the metal stack of layers (181) is effective as an ohmic contact-reflective material (e.g., [0095]).
Claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are rejected.
Response to Applicants’ Amendments and/or Arguments
Applicants’ 7 JAN 2026 rebuttal arguments (REM pages 7-10) are found to be unpersuasive in light of the arguments and positions outlined in the claim rejections supra. Applicants first assert that prior art reference Jang teaches away from the inventive concept of the claimed invention. Specifically, Jang teaches a reflective layer may include aluminum. REM page 9. The Office finds applicants’ first assertion to be unpersuasive. As detailed in Jang’s paragraph [0095], reflective layer 180b may include Al, Ag, Rh, Pt, or a combination thereof. Applicants’ first assertion is not persuasive because applicants have failed to apply the proper legal standard for “teaching away.” “A reference may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon examining the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Tec Air, Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Mich. Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). With regard to Jang, the Office notes that rather than “teaching away”, Jang merely provides a list of elements suitable for reflecting light while also conducting electricity. To be clear, Jang does not discount or discredit either of the listed elements tantamount to teaching away from using any of the elements as a reflective layer. Therefore, applicants’ first assertion is not persuasive.
Applicants next assert that prior art reference Obata fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of JANG. REM pages 9-10. Applicants’ second assertion is not persuasive because: i. novelty requirement is not met; and ii. the legal conclusion of obviousness is supported by at least the following rationales: 1. “combining prior art elements”; 2. “simple substitution”; 3. “obvious to try”; 4. “applying a known technique to a known device”; etc. See 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections above and MPEP § 2143(A)-(G). Thus, applicants’ second assertion is not persuasive.
In view of these remarks, applicants’ arguments vis-à-vis patentability are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-20 are maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter Swanson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:30 to 17:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Benitez, can be reached on (571)270-1435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WALTER H SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815