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 .
Drawings/Specification
The amendment filed 4/7/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Nowhere was the split layer of 602a+602b, depicted in new Fig. 1, described with a specificity commensurate with the visual disclosure now shown. How the layers are stacked with each other, their extent, and with what layers they respectively contact were not originally described.
Therefore, new Fig. 1 introduces new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the prior 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 24-25 and 28 are written to depend on claims now canceled. As a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth, and claims 24-26 and 28 no longer meet this requirement, they are rejected under 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
During examination, claims 24-25 and 28 were treated as depending from claim 17.
Claim 26 inherits this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 17-22, 24-26, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2016/0268477), Yi et al. (US 2008/0315229), and Schowalter et al. (US 2007/0101932), all of record.
(Re Claim 17) Fujita teaches an ultraviolet (UV) light-emitting diode (LED) structure, comprising: a substrate (11; Fig. 2), and an AIN layer (21; Fig. 2, ¶38), an undoped AlGaN layer (22; Fig. 1, ¶94), an N-type doped AlGaN layer (32; Fig. 2, ¶94), an AlGaN quantum well structure (40; Fig. 2, ¶41), and an AlGaN electron barrier layer (150, electron blocking function due to 51+152; Fig. 2, ¶¶42-43) that are sequentially grown on one surface of the substrate (Fig. 1); and an N-electrode (60; Fig. 2) and a P-electrode (70; Fig. 2).
Fujita has not been shown to explicitly teach an ultraviolet (UV) light-emitting diode (LED) structure, comprising:
an undoped AlN layer; and
P-type nanopillars vertically grown on the AlGaN electron barrier layer;
wherein the N-electrode and the P-electrode are evaporated on the P-type nanopillar,
space between the P-type nanopillars is filled with an insulating layer, and then removing the insulating layer is removed after the N-electrodes and P-electrodes are evaporated on the P-type nanopillars.
Yi teaches P-type nanopillars (108; Fig. 2, ¶24) vertically grown between a semiconductor layer (106; Fig. 2) and a P-electrode (110; Fig. 2).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to vertically grow the P-type nanopillars 108 of Yi, with the insulating layer fill (¶17), on the electron barrier layer 150 of Fujita, as the nanopillars 108 are meant to serve as a contact electrode (Yi: ¶19) underneath a P-electrode 110 (Yi: Fig. 2); and the high aspect ratio and small contact area of the nanopillars allows for easy tunneling, increasing current injection (Yi: ¶19).
This results in modified Fujita teaching an ultraviolet (UV) light-emitting diode (LED) structure comprising:
P-type nanopillars (Yi: 108) vertically grown (Fujita: between P-electrode 70 and electron barrier layer 150) on the AlGaN electron barrier layer (Yi: Fig. 2; Fujita: Fig. 2), and space between the P-type nanopillars is filled with an insulating layer (Yi: ¶17).
Schowalter teaches forming an undoped AlN layer (42; Fig. 6).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the AlN layer 21 of modified Fujita as an undoped AlN layer 21, as an undoped AlN layer improves the surface on which it is deposited (Schowalter: ¶89).
Also, Fujita is silent about the dopant concentration of AlN layer 21, and Schowalter’s undoped AlN layer contributes to the formation of a UV LED (Schowalter: ¶26): an undoped layer teaches a concentration of 0%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 17 is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, the claimed AlN and AlGaN layers, the P-type nanopillars, and the N-electrode and P-electrode need not be respectively formed by the process of sequential growth, vertical growth, and evaporation; and the claimed insulating layer need not be removed after the N-electrodes and the P-electrodes are evaporated on the P-type nanopillars. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
(Re Claim 18) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the P-type nanopillar is a P- type AlGaN nanopillar or a P-type GaN nanopillar (Yi: GaN; ¶27).
(Re Claim 19) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the undoped AlN layer and the undoped AlGaN layer each have a thickness of 10 to 5000 nm (Fujita: ¶41).
(Re Claim 20) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein an Al content in the undoped AlGaN layer is 15% to 95% (70%; ¶94).
(Re Claim 21) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 19, wherein an Al content in the undoped AlGaN layer is 15% to 95% (70%; ¶94).
(Re Claim 22) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the N-type doped AlGaN layer has a thickness of 10 to 5000 nm (2000 nm; ¶94); and an Al content in the N-type doped AlGaN layer is 15% to 95% (62%; ¶94).
(Re Claim 24) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 23, wherein an Al content in the AlGaN quantum well layer and an Al content in the AlGaN quantum barrier are 15% to 85% (¶95).
(Re Claim 25) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 23, wherein the AlGaN quantum well layer has a thickness of 1 to 10 nm (¶95), and the AlGaN quantum barrier has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm (¶95).
(Re Claim 26) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 24, wherein the AlGaN quantum well layer has a thickness of 1 to 10 nm (¶95), and the AlGaN quantum barrier has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm (¶95).
(Re Claim 28) Modified Fujita UV LED structure according to claim 27, wherein the AlGaN electron barrier layer has a thickness of 10 to 200 nm (¶43), and the Al content in the AlGaN electron barrier layer is 15% to 95% (¶43).
(Re Claim 29) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the P-type nanopillar has a diameter of 10 nm to 1000 nm (Yi: 2 nm to 1000 nm; ¶26).
(Re Claim 30) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the N-electrode and the P-electrode are made of metal Au, Ag, Sn, Cu, Cr, Mn, Ni or Ti; or the N-electrode and the P-electrode is made of a compound of Au, a compound of Ag, a compound of Sn, a compound of Cu, a compound of Cr, a compound of Mn, a compound of Ni, or a compound of Ti.
(Re Claim 31) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 18, wherein the N-electrode and the P-electrode are made of metal Au, Ag, Sn, Cu, Cr, Mn, Ni (respectively, Ti and Ni; ¶¶58-59) or Ti; or the N-electrode and the P-electrode is made of a compound of Au, a compound of Ag, a compound of Sn, a compound of Cu, a compound of Cr, a compound of Mn, a compound of Ni, or a compound of Ti.
(Re Claim 32) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 19, wherein the N-electrode and the P-electrode are made of metal Au, Ag, Sn, Cu, Cr, Mn, Ni (respectively, Ti and Ni; ¶¶58-59) or Ti; or the N-electrode and the P-electrode is made of a compound of Au, a compound of Ag, a compound of Sn, a compound of Cu, a compound of Cr, a compound of Mn, a compound of Ni, or a compound of Ti.
(Re Claim 33) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein an upper surface of the N-type doped AlGaN layer comprises a part covering the AlGaN quantum well structure and the AlGaN electron barrier layer (overlapping with the stack 40+50; Fig. 2) and a part not covering the AlGaN quantum well structure and the AlGaN electron barrier layer (to the right; Fig. 2);
the N-electrode is located in the part of the N-type AlGaN layer that does not cover the AlGaN quantum well structure and the AlGaN electron barrier layer (Fig. 2); and the P-electrode is located on an upper surface of the P-type nanopillar (P-type nanopillars are formed between the P-electrode and the electron barrier layer 150; see the rejection of claim 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 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:
(Re Claim 34) The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “after the vertically growing P-type nanopillars on the AlGaN electron barrier layer, the method further comprises: filling space between the P-type nanopillars with an insulating layer, and then removing the insulating layer after the N-electrodes and the P-electrodes are evaporated on the P-type nanopillars”, as set forth in the claimed combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s introduction of a process step in device claim 17 does not distinguish the product from the art. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). See the rejection of claim 17 above.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oota et al. (US 6,577,006) teaches forming electrodes through evaporation (Fig. 2 and 6(a)-7(e)) using an insulation layers (11 and 33). Gasse et al (US 2012/0164767) teaches forming an insulation layer (70; Fig. 33) to deposit an electrode through evaporation (¶79). Palles-Dimmock et al. (US 2020/0161585) teaches that transparent materials includes SiO2, PMMA, and SU-8 photoresist (¶9).
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 Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights