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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/26/20206 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forman et al. (US 20200244036) in view of Lee (US 20130015465) and further in view of Ohtorii et al. (US 8384116 )
Regarding claim 1, Forman discloses that a semiconductor light emitting device comprising:
a second electrode layer 128;
a light emitting structure disposed on the second electrode layer;
a protruding mesa semiconductor layer 118 & 120 disposed on the light emitting structure (Fig. 2); and
a passivation layer 132 disposed on a side surface of the light emitting structure, wherein the protruding mesa semiconductor layer comprises a first conductivity type mesa semiconductor layer 120 (n-type), wherein the light emitting structure comprises a first conductivity type semiconductor layer 110 (a n-type), a second conductivity type semiconductor layer 114-116 (a p-type), and an active layer 122 between the first conductivity type semiconductor layer 110 and the second conductivity type semiconductor layer 114-116, wherein the passivation layer 132 is disposed on the side surface and a bottom surface of the light emitting structure (Fig. 1A-B), and wherein a top surface of the light emitting structure and a side surface of the protruding mesa semiconductor layer are not covered by the passivation layer 132, and wherein a horizontal width of the protruding mesa semiconductor layer 120 & 118 is smaller than a horizontal width of the light emitting structure 110-116.
Forman fails to teach that wherein the protruding mesa semiconductor layer comprises a first conductivity type mesa semiconductor layer and an undoped mesa semiconductor layer and a horizontal width of the protruding mesa semiconductor layer is also smaller than a horizontal width of the second electrode layer.
However, Lee suggests that the protruding mesa semiconductor layer 161 & 165 comprises a first conductivity type mesa semiconductor layer 165 and an undoped mesa semiconductor layer 161( para. 0037, note: an undoped GaN layer 161 and an N-type AlGan layer 165).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Forman with the protruding mesa semiconductor layer comprises a first conductivity type mesa semiconductor layer and an undoped mesa semiconductor layer as taught by Lee in order to improve a current diffusion effect and increasing optical power (para. 0038) and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
Forman & Lee fails to teach that a horizontal width of the protruding mesa semiconductor layer is also smaller than a horizontal width of the second electrode layer.
However, Ohtorii suggests that placing a second electrode 11 is larger than a n-type compound semiconductor layer 14 (replacing Forman’s a second electrode 144 to a bottom of the m-plane GaN in Fig. 1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of applicant(s) claimed invention was made to provide Forman & Lee with replacing position of an electrode as taught by Ohtorii in order to enhance connectivity by varying electrical connection and also, the claim would have been obvious because a particular know technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The combination of Forman, Lee, & Ohtorii disclose that a horizontal width of the protruding mesa semiconductor layer is also smaller than a horizontal width of the second electrode layer because Ohtorii suggests that an electrode can be larger than a n-type semiconductor compound.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, 6, 8-14, 17-18, 21-26 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SU C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5972. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:00.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/SU C KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights