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
Claim 3 has been cancelled; and claims 1-2 and 4-6 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 1/20/2026 has been acknowledged and a signed copy of the PTO-1449 is attached herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant makes the following arguments:
“…there would have been no teaching or suggestion that Kyono modified to incorporate the high Al com[position ratio electron blocking taught by Hirayama would have an oxygen concentration of the electron blocking layer not less than 2.5×10¹⁶ atoms/cm³.” (See applicant’s remarks, page 4)
In other words, applicant is arguing that increasing Al composition would reduce oxygen incorporation, so the claimed oxygen concentration in the EBL (≥ 2.5×10¹⁶ atoms/cm³) would not be met. The applicant cites Van de Walle et al., which states that for x > 0.3 in AlₓGa₁₋ₓN, oxygen undergoes a DX transition converting the shallow donor into a negatively charged deep level. The applicant concludes that "since oxygen becomes less likely to be incorporated as the Al composition ratio increases," the modified device would have oxygen concentrations lower than those disclosed in Koyono.
This is not persuasive because applicant conflates the electrical activity of oxygen (DX transition) with physical incorporation of oxygen into the crystal. Van de Walle discusses whether oxygen acts as a shallow donor at high Al content — not whether oxygen atoms can be physically present in the lattice. Moreover, Koyono itself teaches the opposite of the applicant's premise: Koyono at [0121] explicitly states that aluminum "can easily adsorb oxygen but hardly release oxygen once incorporated," and Koyono's Example 3 data shows oxygen concentration increasing with Al content (Table shows: 2×10¹⁷ at Al = 0 → 4×10¹⁷ at Al = 0.03 → 1×10¹⁸ at Al = 0.06). Van de Walle's own statement that "control of oxygen incorporation in AlₓGa₁₋ₓN with high Al content is therefore essential" confirms that oxygen is readily incorporated at high Al and requires management, not that it is absent.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that incorporating Hirayama's high-Al electron blocking layer into Koyono's device would result in oxygen concentrations at least as high as, if not higher than, those disclosed in Koyono's lower-Al layers which readily meeting the claimed threshold of not less than 2.5×10¹⁶ atoms/cm³. The applicant's argument is based on a mischaracterization of the Van de Walle reference and is contradicted by Koyono's own teachings.
“…there would have been no teaching or suggestion that Kyono modified to
incorporate the high Al composition ratio electron blocking taught by Hirayama would have an average value of the oxygen concentration in the stacking direction over the entire oxygen containing portion of not less than 0.8 times and not more than 1.2 times an average value of an oxygen concentration in the stacking direction over the active layer.” (See applicant’s remarks, page 4)
Applicant allegation that no teaching or suggestion that the modified device would have an average oxygen concentration in the stacking direction over the entire oxygen-containing portion of 0.8 to 1.2 times that of the active layer is not persuasive because Koyono teaches that oxygen is incorporated as an unintentional impurity from the source gases (ammonia containing water) and that the oxygen concentration is influenced by growth conditions (for example, growth temperature), the of-angle substrate, and the composition of mixed crystal (Par [0067]). When layers are grown under similar MOCVD conditions using the same source gases, one of ordinary skill would expect comparable oxygen impurity levels across layers grown under similar conditions. Additionally, Koyono teaches ranges of oxygen concentration (5×10¹⁶ to 5×10¹⁸ cm⁻³) that apply broadly to all layers in the device, and the overlap of these ranges naturally yields ratios within the claimed 0.8–1.2 range.
Koyono further teaches that oxygen is incorporated as an impurity contained in the source gases, particularly ammonia containing water ([0036], [0039], [0044]). Koyono also teaches that the oxygen concentration in all semiconductor layers of the device falls within the range of 5×10¹⁶ cm⁻³ to 5×10¹⁸ cm⁻³ (Pars [0067], [0105]). When the various layers are grown using the same source gases under comparable MOCVD conditions, it would be expected that the oxygen concentrations across adjacent layers would be of similar magnitude, yielding concentration ratios within the claimed range of 0.8 to 1.2 times.
Finally, Koyono teaches at par [0105] that the p-type layers (including the electron block layer 65) "each have an oxygen concentration of 5×10¹⁶ cm⁻³ or more" and "each have an oxygen concentration of 5×10¹⁸ cm⁻³ or less," the same range disclosed for the active layer. Where the prior art discloses overlapping oxygen concentration ranges for both the electron blocking layer and the active layer, the claimed ratio of 0.8 to 1.2 times is encompassed. See MPEP § 2144.05(I) (overlapping ranges establish prima facie obviousness).
“… there would have been no teaching or suggestion that Kyono modified to
incorporate the high Al composition ratio electron blocking taught by Hirayama would have an emission wavelength of 200 nm or more and 365nm or less.” (See applicant’s remarks, page 4)
This is not persuasive because Hirayama explicitly teaches UV light-emitting devices with emission wavelengths of 234 nm, 241 nm, 254 nm, and 264 nm (Table 1, Pars [0046]-[0047]), and more broadly discloses deep UV LEDs with emission wavelengths of 230 to 350 nm (See also, Par [0090]). These wavelengths fall entirely within the claimed range of 200–365 nm. The Examiner's rationale for combining Koyono with Hirayama was to achieve UV emission, and Hirayama provides explicit teaching of the claimed wavelength range. Therefore, the prima-facie case of obviousness is deemed to be proper.
“…it would not have been obvious that the oxygen concentration of the electron
blocking layer disclosed on Kyono would remain in a device modified to incorporate the high AL composition ratio electron blocking taught by Hirayama. (See applicant’s remarks, page 4)
This is not persuasive because the applicant's premise — that oxygen would not be sufficiently incorporated into high-Al AlGaN — is contradicted by Koyono's own disclosure at Par [0121] (aluminum easily adsorbs oxygen), Koyono's Example 3 data (showing increased oxygen at higher Al, see also the Table in Par [0121]), and Van de Walle's acknowledgment that oxygen incorporation control is essential at high Al content (confirming oxygen is incorporated).
Furthermore, the test for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires a motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success, not that the modified device operates identically to either reference in isolation. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Both Koyono and Hirayama are in the same field of III-nitride light-emitting devices, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation that incorporating Hirayama's high-Al electron blocking layer into Koyono's device structure would function as a UV-emitting device while maintaining oxygen incorporation levels consistent with Koyono's teachings.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyono et al. (US 2010/0230690 A1, hereinafter “Koyono”) in view of Hirayama et al. (US 2010/0219395 A1, hereinafter “Hirayama”).
In regards to claim 1, Koyono discloses (See, for example, Fig. 10) a nitride semiconductor light-emitting element, comprising:
an n-type semiconductor layer (82);
a p-type semiconductor layer (86);
an active layer (84) provided between the n-type semiconductor layer (82) and the p-type semiconductor layer (86); and
an electron blocking layer (85) provided between the active layer (84) and the p-type semiconductor layer (86),
wherein at least one of the p-type semiconductor layers (86) and the electron blocking layer (85) comprises an oxygen-containing portion comprising oxygen (See, fig 10), and
wherein an oxygen concentration at each position of the oxygen-containing portion in a stacking direction of the n-type semiconductor layer (82), the active layer (84), the electron blocking layer (85) and the p-type semiconductor layer (86) is not less than 2.5×1016 atoms/cm.sup.3, and
and the oxygen-containing portion (See, for example, Pars [0115]- [0118]) is formed in at least the electron blocking layer (85).
Koyono, Example 2 as described by Fig. 10, fails to explicitly teach that an average value of the oxygen concentration in the stacking direction over the entire oxygen-containing portion is not less than 0.8 times and not more than 1.2 times an average value of an oxygen concentration in the stacking direction over the active layer.
However, Koyono (see, for example, annotated and included Fig. 1 below) discloses a more general with more specific preferable oxygen concentration ranges. Therefore, Koyono teaches these specific oxygen concentration ranges for each layer in the stacking direction. Consequently, based on these preferable ranges and selecting oxygen concentrations within the taught ranges, the claimed relationship naturally results. For example, selecting an active layer (17) oxygen concentration of 3X1017 cm-3, semiconductor layer (15) oxygen concentration of 2X1017 cm-3, semiconductor layer (25) oxygen concentration of 7X1017 cm-3, and semiconductor layer (27) oxygen concentration of 4X1017 cm-3 would yield an overall average oxygen concentration within 0.8-1.2 times the average value of the oxygen concentration over the active layer, satisfying the claimed limitation.
Kyono’s teaching of preferred oxygen concentration ranges inherently encompasses the claimed average ratio relationship. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that selecting oxygen concentrations within the disclosed preferred ranges would necessarily result in the claimed average values falling within the specified 0.8-1.2 times mathematical relationship. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (optimization of known parameters obvious), This represents obvious optimization of known parameters rather than a patentable invention. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (obvious to select from known range); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (combination of prior art elements obvious when there is reasonable expectation of success).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the new embodiment of Koyono into Example 2 because this would help manufacture a semiconductor film having an excellent surface morphology.
Koyono as modified above is silent about the light-emitting element emits ultraviolet light at a central wavelength of not less than 200 nm and not more than 365nm; and wherein an Al composition ratio of the electron blocking layer is not less than 70%.
Hirayama while disclosing a UV light emitting device teaches (See, for example, Figs. 1 and 3) the light-emitting element (1) emits ultraviolet light (35, See Par [0006]) at a central wavelength of not less than 200 nm and not more than 365nm; and wherein an Al composition ratio of the electron blocking layer is not less than 70% (“the electron blocking layer being formed of a p-type or i-type AlzGa1-zN layer (0.95<z ≤ 1) serving as an energy barrier for electrons in the i-type group III nitride final barrier layer. Basically, the layers are grown from a substrate in series”, See, for example, Par [0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a high Al composition electron blocking layer because this would help improve the external quantum efficiency and increase the emission.
PNG
media_image1.png
821
1295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Koyono discloses (See, for example, Fig. 10) the oxygen-containing portion is formed in at least the p-type semiconductor layer (See, for example, Pars [0115]-[0118]).
In regards to claim 3, Koyono discloses (See, for example, Fig. 10) that the oxygen-containing portion is formed in at least the electron blocking layer (See, for example, Pars [0115]- [0118]).
In regards to claim 5, Koyono discloses (see, for example, Fig. 10) that an average value of an oxygen concentration in the stacking direction over the entire oxygen-containing portion (it is >3x1017 cm-3, See for example, Pars [0115] thru [0118]) is higher than an average value of an oxygen concentration in the stacking direction over the n-type semiconductor layer ( = 3x1017 cm-3, See Pars [0115] thru [0118]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyono in view of Hirayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2005/0179027 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
In regards to claim 4, Koyono discloses (See, for example, Fig. 10) all limitations of claim 1 above except that a p-type impurity concentration at each position of the oxygen-containing portion of the electron blocking layer in the stacking direction is not more than 5.0×1019 atoms/cm.sup.3.
Kim while disclosing a nitride semiconductor light emitting device teaches (see, for example, Fig. 2) a p-type impurity concentration at each position of the oxygen-containing portion of the electron blocking layer in the stacking direction is not more than 5.0×1019 atoms/cm.sup.3 (“…p-type EBL has …an impurity concentration of about 1X1017/cm3…”, See, for example, Par [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Koyono by Kim because this would help provide enhanced hole injection efficiency into the active layer, thereby exhibiting high luminous efficiency.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyono in view of Hirayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsukura (JP 2019083221 A1, hereinafter “Matsukura”).
In regards to claim 6, Koyono discloses all limitations of claim 1 except that a boundary portion between the p-type semiconductor layer and the electron blocking layer comprises an n-type impurity other than oxygen.
Matsukura while disclosing a nitride semiconductor LED teaches (See, for example, Fig. 1) a boundary portion between the p-type semiconductor layer (70) and the electron blocking layer (50) comprises an n-type impurity (60) other than oxygen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the intermediate layer of Matsukura into Koyono because this would make it possible to improve the emission intensity of light emitted by the light emitting device.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5350. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm E.S.T..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley can be reached on 571-270-3042. 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.
/ERMIAS T WOLDEGEORGIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893