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
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed 06/26/2025 which amended claims 1-2 and 6 and added new claim 8. Claims 1-8 are currently pending in the application for patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krames et al (US 2003/0141507; hereinafter referred to as Krames).
Regarding Claim 1, Krames teaches a light-emitting device (Figure 2; PXLED 100) comprising:
a substrate (Figure 2; Substrate 102),
a laminated structure (Figure 2; N-Doped Layer 108) having a plurality of column portions (Figure 2; Epi-Layers 124) and provided on the substrate (see Figure 2),
a first electrode (Figure 2; First Electrode Layer 104) provided on and in contact with the substrate (see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0069]), and
a second electrode (Figure 2; Second Electrode Layer 120) provided on a side of the laminated structure (Figure 2; N-Doped Layer 108) opposite to the substrate (see Figure 2; wherein the second electrode layer 120 is on a side of the N-doped layer 108 opposite to the substrate 102), wherein
each of the plurality of column portions (Figure 2; Epi-Layers 124) includes a light-emitting layer (Figure 2; Active Layer 112),
the second electrode (Figure 2; Second Electrode Layer 120) is provided with a plurality of first holes (Figure 2; Holes 122-1, 122-2, 122-i),
the plurality of column portions (Figure 2; Epi-Layers 124) forms a first photonic crystal (see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0038]),
the second electrode (Figure 2; Second Electrode Layer 120) forms a second photonic crystal (see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0038]), and
the first photonic crystal (Figure 2; Epi-Layers 124) and the second photonic crystal (Figure 2; Second Electrode Layer 120) are optically coupled to each other (see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0097]; wherein it is disclosed that the second electrode layer 120 can be deposited on epi-layers 124 directly, or bonding layer 121 can act as a second electrode layer).
Regarding Claim 2, Krames teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Krames further teaches each of the plurality of first holes (Figure 2; Holes 122-1, 122-2, 122-i) extends through the second electrode (see Figure 2; wherein the holes 122-1, 122-2, 122-I extend through second electrode layer 120).
Regarding Claim 3, Krames teaches the limitations of claim 2 as detailed above.
Krames further teaches each of the plurality of first holes (Figure 2; Holes 122-1, 122-2, 122-i) does not overlap with the plurality of column portions (Figure 2; Epi-Layers 124) when viewed from a vertical direction to the substrate (see Figure 2; wherein the holes 122-1, 122-2, 122-I do not overlap with the epi-layers 124 when viewed from a vertical or top-down direction with respect to the substrate 102).
Regarding Claim 5, Krames teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Krames further teaches each of the plurality of first holes (Figure 2; Holes 122-1, 122-2, 122-i) overlaps with the plurality of column portions (Figure 2; Epi-Layers 124) when viewed from a vertical direction to the substrate (see Figure 2; wherein the holes 122-1, 122-2, 122-I overlap the epi-layers 124 when viewed from a direction vertical to the left and right surface of substrate 102).
Regarding Claim 6, Krames teaches the limitations of claim 5 as detailed above.
Krames further teaches each of the plurality of first holes (Figure 2; Holes 122-1, 122-2, 122-i) does not extend through the second electrode (see Figure 12E; Paragraph [0117]; wherein holes 122-i are filled up with a non-conducting material 143 to make the upper surface of the device approximately flat).
.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krames et al (US 2003/0141507; hereinafter referred to as Krames) as applied to claim 1, in view of Huang et al (US 2012/0050694; hereinafter referred to as Huang).
Regarding Claim 7, Krames teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Krames does not expressly disclose a projector comprising the light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Huang discloses a light-emitting device (Figure 12; Light Emitting Unit Array 800), and a projector comprising the light emitting device (see Paragraph [0013]; wherein it is disclosed that the disclosure directs to a projection system including a display unit array and a projection lens set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the light emitting device of Krames by incorporating said light emitting device into a projector, as taught by Huang, because doing so would produce an image projection device which utilizes a light source which has enhanced efficiency and emitted power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require each of the plurality of column portions comprises: a first semiconductor layer of a first conductive type, and a second semiconductor layer of a second conductive type that is different from the first conductive type, wherein the light-emitting layer is provided between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer, the first semiconductor layer is provided between the substrate and the light-emitting layer, the laminated structure includes a light propagation layer provided between adjacent column portions among the plurality of column portions, the light propagation layer is provided with a second hole, the second hole is coupled with one of the plurality of first holes, and a bottom surface of the second hole is positioned between the second semiconductor layers of adjacent column portions of the plurality of column portions.
These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claims 1-3 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten.
Claim 8 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations requiring each of the plurality of column portions comprises: a first semiconductor layer of a first conductive type, and a second semiconductor layer of a second conductive type that is different from the first conductive type, wherein the light-emitting layer is provided between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer, the first semiconductor layer is provided between the substrate and the light-emitting layer, the laminated structure includes a light propagation layer provided between adjacent column portions among the plurality of column portions, the light propagation layer is provided with a second hole, the second hole is coupled with one of the plurality of first holes, and a bottom surface of the second hole is positioned between the second semiconductor layers of adjacent column portions of the plurality of column portions.
These limitations in combination with the other limitations of claim 8 renders the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm 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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882