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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 6/18/2026. Claims 1, 10, and 12 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Claim 21 has been canceled. Currently, claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding Samonji in view of Eichler not teaching newly added limitation “the first emitter region and the second emitter region are not continuously connected to each other” are persuasive. However, the new limitation necessitated further search and consideration, and new prior art Amstatt et al. (US 20230268460) has been found. Amstatt anticipates independent claims 1 and 10 as described below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous rejection of claim 21 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue, on page 8:
Rather, Samonji's emission functionality is associated with optical waveguides 113a, 113b, and 113c and the corresponding laser elements, not with a separate emitter region arranged in a recess. Samonji describes the multiple quantum well active layer 105 as part of the laminated structure grown on the substrate and identifies only a region 105a of that active layer as having a larger energy band gap near the groove. (Id, para. [0044].) Samonji therefore does not disclose physically separate first and second emitter regions that are not continuously connected to each other. At most, Samonji discloses a continuous active layer whose optical behavior varies near the grooves and whose laser oscillation is laterally confined by ridge-type optical waveguides. That is materially different from the amended claims, which require noncontinuously connected emitter regions and require at least one emitter region to be arranged in the recess itself
Regarding the previous rejection of claim 21, the Examiner disagrees that Samonji does not teach that the at least one emitter region is arranged in the recess. The previous Office Action at pg. 5 first paragraph cites Samonji (pg. 6, first paragraph) for the limitation “at least one emitter region (100a) is (partially) arranged in the recess.” Samonji (pg. 6, first paragraph) explains that the laser element 100a is formed by a groove 102b and an optical waveguide 113b. The groove 102b is formed by a laminated structure (including a multiple quantum well active layer 105) formed in the step portion 101a. The groove 102b (which includes 105) is arranged in the recess, thus 100a is partially arranged in the recess. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, being partially arranged in the recess is considered as arranged in the recess.
Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 are rejected in view of Amstatt et al. (US 20230268460). As a result, the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 and their dependent claims is maintained.
All other arguments have been fully addressed in prior Office Actions or in the rejections set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Lines 14-15 of claim 1 recite “a distributor structure is formed by a recess … and at least one emitter region is arranged in the recess.” It is not clear whether “a distributor structure” is one of “a multiplicity of distributor structures” as recited in line 4, and whether “at least one emitter region” is at least one emitter region of the at least first emitter region and second emitter region, or if “at least one emitter region” is a separate emitter region. It appears that “a distributor structure” is one of “a multiplicity of distributor structures” as recited in line 4, and “at least one emitter region” is one of “at least a first emitter region and a second emitter region” recited in lines 8-9. Examiner suggests replacing “a distributor structure” with --one distributor structure of the multiplicity of distributor structures—and replacing “at least one emitter region” with –at least one emitter region of the at least first emitter region and second emitter region--.
For the purposes of examination with respect to prior art, “a distributor structure” is treated as a separate distributor structure from “a multiplicity of distributor structures.”
For the purposes of examination with respect to prior art, “at least one emitter region” is treated as a separate emitter region from “at least a first emitter region and a second emitter region.”
Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9, because they are dependent on claim 1, inherit the deficiency of claim 1.
Lines 3-4 of claim 12 recites “a main face of a growth substrate of the epitaxial semiconductor layer sequence.” It is not clear if claim 12’s “a growth substrate” is the same as “a growth substrate” recited in line 11 of claim 10, or a separate growth substrate. It appears that “a growth substrate” is the growth substrate as recited in line 11 of claim 10. Examiner suggests replacing “a main face of a growth substrate of the epitaxial semiconductor layer sequence” with –the main face of the growth substrate--.
For the purposes of examination with respect to prior art, “a growth substrate” in claim 12 is treated as “the growth substrate” of claim 10.
Claims 13-15 because they are dependent on claim 12, inherit the deficiency of claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Amstatt et al. (US 20230268460).
Regarding claim 1, Amstatt teaches, in Figs. 1A and 1C-1D, a method for producing a radiation-emitting semiconductor body ([0033]):
providing a growth substrate (1/2, [0114], before etching 2) having a main (top face) face,
generating a multiplicity of distributor structures (all 20 excluding leftmost 20 and all 20', [0114]) on the main (top) face of the growth substrate (1/2) (see Fig. 1A),
epitaxially depositing a compound semiconductor material (3, ([0119]-[0120], [0123]-[0126]) on the main (top) face of the growth substrate (1/2), wherein epitaxial growth of the compound semiconductor material (3) varies along the main (top) face because of the distributor structures (all 20 excluding leftmost 20 and all 20'), and so the epitaxial depositing produces an epitaxial semiconductor layer sequence (3, [0126]) having at least a first emitter region (3 in rightmost 20) and a second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20') on the main face (see Figs. 1C-1D),
wherein the first emitter region (3 in rightmost 20) and the second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20’) are disposed laterally next to one another in plan view (see Fig. 1B) onto a main face of the semiconductor body ([0116]),
the first emitter region (3 in rightmost 20) and the second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20’) in operation generate electromagnetic radiation of different wavelength ranges ([0124], first emitter region in rightmost 20 has a main emission wavelength of 525 nm, and the second emitter region in leftmost 20' has a main emission wavelength of 450 nm),
a distributor structure (leftmost 20) is formed by a recess in the main (top) face of the growth substrate (1/2), and at least one emitter region (leftmost stack of 3) is arranged in the recess (leftmost 20), and
the first emitter region (3 in rightmost 20) and the second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20’) are not continuously connected to each other (see Figs. 1B and 1D).
Regarding claim 2, Amstatt further teaches that the compound semiconductor material (3) is a III/V compound semiconductor material ([0119], [0123]).
Regarding claim 3, Amstatt further teaches that the III/V semiconductor material (3) is a nitride compound semiconductor material and conforms to the following formula: InxAlyGa1-x-yN with 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1 and x + y ≤ 1 ([0119], [0124], 30 is GaN, where x = 0 and y = 0, and 31 is InGaN where In has a non-zero concentration).
Regarding claim 4, Amstatt further teaches that the distributor structures (all 20 excluding leftmost 20 and all 20') are set up to vary the amount, available on the main face of the growth substrate (1/2), of a constituent of a precursor material ([0123]) of the compound semiconductor material (3) to be deposited (see in Fig. 1E how, here considering the main face to include the faces of the recesses, the main face is thus increased by the surface area of the distributor structures 20 and 20’).
Regarding claim 7, Amstatt further teaches in which the distributor structures (all 20 excluding leftmost 20 and all 20') are suitable for increasing the amount of a constituent of a precursor material for the compound semiconductor material over the main face of the growth substrate (see in Fig. 1E how, here considering the main face to include the faces of the recesses, the main face is thus increased by the surface area of the distributor structures 20 and 20’).
Regarding claim 9, Amstatt further teaches in which a distance between two directly adjacent emitter regions is not greater than 5 millimeters ([0116]).
Regarding claim 10, Amstatt teaches, in Fig. 1E, a radiation-emitting semiconductor body ([0033]) having:
an epitaxial semiconductor layer sequence (3) which comprises a compound semiconductor material ([0119]-[0120], [0123]-[0126]),
wherein the epitaxial semiconductor layer sequence (3) comprises at least a first emitter region (3in rightmost 20) and a second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20’) or is formed of at least a first emitter region and a second emitter region,
wherein the first emitter region (3 in rightmost 20) and the second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20’) in operation generate electromagnetic radiation of different wavelength ranges ([0124], first emitter region in rightmost 20 has a main emission wavelength of 525 nm, and the second emitter region in leftmost 20' has a main emission wavelength of 450 nm),
the first emitter region (3 in rightmost 20) and the second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20’) are disposed laterally next to one another in plan view (see Fig. 1B) onto a main face of the semiconductor body ([0033]), and
a distributor structure (leftmost 20) is formed by a recess in a main (top) face of a growth substrate (1/2, [0114], before etching 2) and at least one emitter region (leftmost 3) is arranged in the recess (leftmost 20), and
the first emitter region (3 in rightmost 20) and the second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20’) are not continuously connected to each other (see Figs. 1B and 1D).
Regarding claim 11, Amstatt further teaches in which a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation emitted from the first emitter region (3 in rightmost 20) is different by at least 2 nanometers from a peak wavelength of an emission spectrum of the electromagnetic radiation of the second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20’) ([0124], first emitter region in rightmost 20 has a main emission wavelength of 525 nm, and the second emitter region in leftmost 20' has a main emission wavelength of 450 nm).
Regarding claim 12, Amstatt further teaches in which the epitaxial semiconductor layer sequence (3) is disposed on a main (top) face of a growth substrate (1/2, [0114], before etching 2) of the epitaxial semiconductor layer sequence (3), wherein the main face of the growth substrate comprises a multiplicity of distributor structures (all 20 excluding leftmost 20 and all 20', [0114]).
Regarding claim 13, Amstatt further teaches in which the first emitter region (3 in rightmost 20) and the second emitter region (3 in leftmost 20’) are disposed between two distributor structures (second to left 20 and rightmost 20’).
Regarding claim 14, Amstatt further teaches, in Fig. 1E, in which the distributor structures (all 20 excluding leftmost 20 and all 20') are embodied as trenches in the main (top) face of the growth substrate ([0114], 1/2 where 2 is before the trenches 20 and 20’ were made).
Regarding claim 15, Amstatt further teaches in which at least one distributor structure comprises at least two segments which are separate from one another and are of the same kind (see Fig. 1B how the leftmost two 20’ are two separate segments and are of the same kind).
Regarding claim 16, Amstatt further teaches, in Fig. 1E, that the first emitter region and/or the second emitter region comprise an active zone in which in operation the electromagnetic radiation is generated ([0124]), and
the active zone comprises a first quantum film structure (30, [0120]) and at least one second quantum film structure (31, [0121]), wherein
the first quantum film structure (30) within the first emitter region (in rightmost 20) has a different thickness than within the second emitter region (in leftmost 20’) (see Fig. 1C, [0120]), and/or
the second quantum film structure (31) within the first emitter region (in rightmost 20) has a different thickness than within the second emitter region (in leftmost 20’, see Fig. 1D, [0124]).
Regarding claim 18, Amstatt further teaches, in Fig. 1E, in which
on the first emitter region (in rightmost 20) a first contact point (part of 40 on rightmost 20) for electrically contacting the first emitter region is disposed ([0127]), and/or
on the second emitter region (in leftmost 20’) a second contact point (part of 40 on leftmost 20’) for electrically contacting the second emitter region is disposed ([0127]).
Regarding claim 19, Amstatt further teaches a semiconductor laser chip having a radiation-emitting semiconductor body as claimed in claim 10 ([0087]).
Regarding claim 20, Amstatt further teaches a semiconductor light-emitting diode chip having a radiation-emitting semiconductor body as claimed in claim 10 ([0087]).
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstatt et al. (US 20230268460) in view of Eichler et al. (US 20170330757).
Regarding claim 6, Amstatt teaches the limitations of claim 1. Amstatt does not teach that an amount, available during the epitaxial depositing, in the first emitter region, of a constituent of a precursor material of the compound semiconductor material to be deposited is different from the amount, in the second emitter region, of the constituent of the precursor material of the compound semiconductor material to be deposited.
In a similar field of endeavor, Eichler teaches that an amount, available during the epitaxial depositing, in the first emitter region, of a constituent of a precursor material of the compound semiconductor material to be deposited is different from the amount, in the second emitter region, of the constituent of the precursor material of the compound semiconductor material to be deposited (see Figs. 4A-4C, [0021-0022]), for the purpose of making “laterally varying band gaps, absorption coefficients and/or refractive indices in the material of the first semiconductor layer” and “generation of laterally varying wavelengths of the light emitted when the semiconductor chip is in operation” ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method for producing a radiation-emitting semiconductor body of Amstatt with the forming a distributor structure of Eichler, for the purpose of making laterally varying band gaps, absorption coefficients and/or refractive indices in the material of the first semiconductor layer and generation of laterally varying wavelengths of the light emitted when the semiconductor chip is in operation.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstatt et al. (US 20230268460) in view of Hagino et al. (US 20210296851).
Regarding claim 17, Amstatt teaches the limitations of claim 10. Amstatt does not teach in which the first emitter region and the second emitter region are each comprised by a ridge waveguide.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hagino teaches, in Fig. 1B, that the first emitter region (71) and the second emitter region (72) are each comprised by a ridge waveguide (40a1 and 40a2, [0059]-[0060]), in order to form semiconductor laser elements with increased output ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the radiation-emitting semiconductor body of Amstatt with the ridge waveguides of Hagino, in order to form semiconductor laser elements with increased output ([0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang (US 20220278165) teaches a method for producing an LED array at least similar to that of claim 1.
Wang (US 20210335884) teaches a method for producing an LED array at least similar to that of claim 1.
Bethoux et al. (US 20190288157) teaches a radiation-emitting semiconductor body at least similar to that of claim 10.
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 ERIKA HEERA SON whose telephone number is (703)756-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30-8:30 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, Yara Green can be reached on 571-270-3035. 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.
/ERIKA H SON/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights