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 .
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 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.
Status of the application
This office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filled on 01/06/2026. Claims 1-19 are pending for this examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 01/27/2023.
Oath/Declaration
The oath or declaration filed on 12/08/2022 is acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species VIII: claims 1-3, 5-9,15 and 17-19 in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)). The election is without traverse because the response is incomplete.
This office action considers claims 1-19 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 4,10-14, 16 are withdrawn from further consideration, and 1-3, 5-9,15 and 17-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejection- 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 of this title, 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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATANABE et al (US 2021/0184434 A1; hereafter WATANABE).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
727
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, WATANABE discloses a nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element comprising:
a semiconductor stack body (Fig 1, elements [11-16]), wherein the nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element emits light from an end surface that faces in a direction perpendicular to a stack direction of the semiconductor stack body (Fig. [1-3], Para [ 0033-0064]), the semiconductor stack body includes:
an N-type first cladding layer (Fig 1, an n-type cladding layer 11, Para [ 0033]);
an N-side guide layer (Fig 1, n-side guide layer 12, Para [ 0040]) provided above the N-type first cladding layer (Fig 1, an n-type cladding layer 11, Para [ 0033]);
an active layer (light-emitting layer (active layer) 13, Para [ 0041]) provided above the N-side guide layer (Fig 1, n-side guide layer 12, Para [ 0040]), the active layer including a well layer and a barrier layer and having a quantum well structure (“The light-emitting layer 13 has a quantum well structure, and is formed by stacking a well layer and a barrier layer”, Para [ 0041]);
a P-side guide layer (p-side guide layer 14 includes a first composition changing layer 20, Para [0063]) provided above the active layer (light-emitting layer (active layer) 13, Para [ 0041]); and
a P-type cladding layer (p-type cladding layer 16, Para [ 0050]) provided above the P-side guide layer (p-side guide layer 14, Para [ 0046]), band gap energy of the P-side guide layer monotonically increases with an increase in distance from the active layer ( Fig 3, Para [ 0078] discloses “ bandgap is continuously changed from the first position P1 to the second position P2 in the first composition changing layer 20), the P-side guide layer includes a portion in which the band gap energy continuously increases with an increase in distance from the active layer ( Fig 3, Para [ 0078] discloses “ bandgap is continuously changed from the first position P1 to the second position P2 in the first composition changing layer 20), an average of the band gap energy of the P-side guide layer is greater than or equal to an average of band gap energy of the N-side guide layer ( both n-side guide layer 12 and composition changing layer 20 layers formed of same materials such as “undoped layer such as a GaN layer, an InGaN layer, or an AlGaInN layer. Therefore, based on the same materials, average bandgap energy can be same), band gap energy of the barrier layer (“The light-emitting layer 13 has a quantum well structure, and is formed by stacking a well layer and a barrier layer”, Para [ 0041]) is less than or equal to a smallest value of the band gap energy of the N-side guide layer (Fig 1, n-side guide layer 12, Para [ 0040]) and a smallest value of the band gap energy of the P-side guide layer ( Fig 3, Para [ 0077-0084]), and
Tn < Tp is satisfied, where Tp denotes a thickness of the P-side guide layer (first composition changing layer 20, Para [0063-0064], 50 nm), and Tn denotes a thickness of the N-side guide layer (n-side guide layer 12 can be designed in a range of from 10 nm to 500 nm).
But WATANABE does not disclose explicitly Tn < Tp is satisfied, where Tp denotes a thickness of the P-side guide layer and Tn denotes a thickness of the N-side guide layer.
However, WATANABE discloses thickness of the P-side guide layer (first composition changing layer 20, Para [0063-0064], thickness 50 nm), and Tn denotes a thickness of the N-side guide layer (n-side guide layer 12 can be designed in a range of from 10 nm to 500 nm). Based on that, Tn < Tp can satisfied. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify WATANABE to provide desire thickness for further advantage such as control bandgap energy efficiently with desired thickness of the semiconductors stacked layers, and improve device performance.
Regarding claim 15, WATANABE discloses the nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, WATANABE further discloses wherein the P-type cladding layer (p-type cladding layer 16) has a thickness that is less than or equal to 460 nm (Para [ 0051]). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATANABE et al (US 2021/0184434 A1; hereafter WATANABE) as applied claims above and further in view of NAGAWA et al (US 2020/0274330 A1; hereafter NAGAWA).
Regarding claim 6, WATANABE discloses the nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, But WATANABE does not disclose explicitly wherein a peak of a light intensity distribution in the stack direction is located in the active layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, NAGAWA discloses wherein a peak of a light intensity distribution in the stack direction is located in the active layer (Fig 1, Para [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine WATANABE in light of NAGAWA teaching “wherein a peak of a light intensity distribution in the stack direction is located in the active layer (Fig 1, Para [0107])” for further advantage such a light-emitting device having a high optical confinement factor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATANABE et al (US 2021/0184434 A1; hereafter WATANABE) as applied claims above and further in view of Matsumoto et al (US 6163,037; hereafter Matsumoto).
Regarding claim 7, WATANABE discloses the nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, But WATANABE does not disclose explicitly wherein an impurity concentration at an edge portion of the P-type cladding layer on a side close to the active layer is lower than an impurity concentration at an edge portion of the P-type cladding layer on a side far from the active layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Matsumoto discloses wherein an impurity concentration at an edge portion of the P-type cladding layer on a side close to the active layer (Col 2, lines 15-30) is lower than an impurity concentration at an edge portion of the P-type cladding layer on a side far from the active layer (Col 2, lines 15-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine WATANABE in light of Matsumoto teaching “wherein an impurity concentration at an edge portion of the P-type cladding layer on a side close to the active layer (Col 2, lines 15-30) is lower than an impurity concentration at an edge portion of the P-type cladding layer on a side far from the active layer (Col 2, lines 15-30)” for further advantage such as enhance carrier mobility of the light emitting device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATANABE et al (US 2021/0184434 A1; hereafter WATANABE) as applied claims above and further in view of TAKAYAMA et al (US 2019/0074665 A1; hereafter TAKAYAMA).
Regarding claim 8, WATANABE discloses the nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, WATANABE further discloses further comprising:
an electron barrier layer (electron blocking layer (EB layer) 15, Para [ 0048]) provided between the P-side guide layer (p-side guide layer 14 includes a first composition changing layer 20, Para [0063]) and the P-type cladding layer (p-type cladding layer 16, Para [ 0050]).
But WATANABE does not disclose explicitly wherein the electron barrier layer includes an Al composition ratio increasing region in which an Al composition ratio monotonically increases with an increase in distance from the active layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, TAKAYAMA discloses wherein the electron barrier layer includes an Al composition ratio increasing region in which an Al composition ratio monotonically increases with an increase in distance from the active layer (Para [ 0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine WATANABE in light of TAKAYAMA teaching “wherein the electron barrier layer includes an Al composition ratio increasing region in which an Al composition ratio monotonically increases with an increase in distance from the active layer (Para [ 0084])” for further advantage such a enhance carrier mobility of the light emitting device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATANABE et al (US 2021/0184434 A1; hereafter WATANABE) as applied claims above and further in view of Hahn et al (US 2021/0376194 A1; hereafter Hahn).
Regarding claim 18, WATANABE discloses the nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, But WATANABE does not disclose explicitly further comprising: a plurality of light emitters provided in an array.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hahn discloses a plurality of light emitters provided in an array (Para [ 0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine WATANABE in light of TAKAYAMA teaching “a plurality of light emitters provided in an array (Para [ 0086])” for further advantage such as provide wide range of color effectively.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WATANABE et al (US 2021/0184434 A1; hereafter WATANABE) as applied claims above and further in view of AKAYAMA et al (US 2015/0063392 A1; hereafter TAKAYAMA).
Regarding claim 19, WATANABE discloses the nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, But WATANABE does not disclose explicitly wherein a reflectance of the end surface of the semiconductor stack body is less than or equal to 0.1%.
In a similar field of endeavor, TAKAYAMA discloses wherein a reflectance of the end surface of the semiconductor stack body is less than or equal to 0.1% (Para [ 0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine WATANABE in light of TAKAYAMA teaching “wherein a reflectance of the end surface of the semiconductor stack body is less than or equal to 0.1% (Para [ 0016])” for further advantage such as high slope efficiency can be provided.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, 9 and 17 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.
The following is the Examiner's Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
Regarding claim 2, The nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the P-side guide layer consists essentially of InxpGai-xpN, the N-side guide layer consists essentially of InxnGai-xnN, an In composition ratio of the P-side guide layer monotonically decreases with an increase in distance from the active layer, and an average of an In composition ratio of the N-side guide layer is greater than or equal to an average of the In composition ratio of the P-side guide layer.
Claim 3 and 5 are objected based on the dependency of claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, The nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, further comprising:
an electron barrier layer provided between the P-side guide layer and the P-type cladding layer, wherein a ridge is provided in the P-type cladding layer, and a distance between a lower edge of the ridge and the electron barrier layer is in a range from 10 nm to 70 nm.
Regarding claim 17, The nitride-based semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, further comprising:
an N-type second cladding layer provided between the N- type first cladding layer and the N-side guide layer, wherein band gap energy of the N-type second cladding layer is less than band gap energy of the N-type first cladding layer, and is greater than or equal to a greatest value of the band gap energy of the P-side guide layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights