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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is reminded of their duty disclose under MPEP 2001:
Office encourages applicants to carefully examine:
(1) Prior art cited in search reports of a foreign patent office in a counterpart application, and
(2) The closest information over which individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Office.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 44 and 74 mention a “conventional light-emitting device”. There is no description of the conventional light-emitting device so the comparison is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Contrary to applicant’s assertion the office does not find it convincing that figure 11 represents all device that do not utilize the technology disclosed in the specification. To understand figures 11 and 14 a specific disclosure of what Conventional light-emitting device is needed since a specific device is referred in the figures.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,3-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase: wherein said bandgaps of said well layers of said periodic units remain unchanged in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure
is unclear what applicant is comparing is applicant comparing the band gap of each well and the well layer do not vary within themselves or applicant is stating that all the well has the same fix values throughout the periods.
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(s) 1,3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao in view of Moon et al KR 20110059192.
As to claim 1, 3-4, Xiao teaches light-emitting device figure 6 and 7, comprising: a semiconductor epitaxial structure that has a first surface (item 220-240) and a second surface opposite (item 240 opposite 220) to said first surface (220 bottom vs 240 top), and that includes a first semiconductor layer (item 220), an active layer (item 230), and a second semiconductor layer (item 240) sequentially stacked on one another in such order from said first surface to said second surface, wherein said active layer includes a quantum well structure having multiple periodic units, each of which includes a well layer and a barrier layer disposed sequentially in such order, a bandgap of said barrier layer being greater than that of said well layer, and wherein said bandgaps of said barrier layers of said period units gradually increase in a direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure (see figure 6 e.g. increases from 220 to 230). Xiao teaches each well layer remains “unchanged” thus the well layers are unchanged that each have a fixed value.
Xiao does not teach wherein said well layer has a composition represented by AlxGa1-xInP, said barrier layer having a composition represented by AlyGa1-yInP, and 0≤x<y≤1 or wherein a value of y of an aluminum content of said barrier layer ranges from 0.3 to 0.85 wherein a percentage of an aluminum content in said quantum well structure gradually increase in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure.
Moon teaches a graded electron blocking layer item (figure 1 and 2 item 130). Specifically, a barrier followed by an energy region 131 vs 132, 133 vs 134 and 135 vs 136. Moon teaches that the grading maybe caused by varying the Aluminum concentration:
For example, the first electron blocking layer 131 may include Al .sub.x1 In .sub.y1 Ga .sub.(1-x1- .sub.y1 .sub.) N (where 0≤X1 ≤1 0≤ Y1≤ 1) barrier layer 132 comprises Al x2 In y2 Ga (1- x2- y2) N ( However, 0≤x2≤1, 0≤y2≤1), and the Al of the first electron blocking layer 131 The composition (x1) may be not less than the composition (x2) of Al of the second electron blocking layer 132.
The composition x1 of Al of the first electron blocking layer 131 may be higher than the composition x2 of Al of the second electron blocking layer 132 and the Al composition of the second electron blocking layer 132 The composition (x2) may be higher than the composition of Al of the barrier, but is not limited thereto.
Further Moon teaches AlGaInP devices:
The second conductive semiconductor layer 141 may be formed of a compound semiconductor of a group III-V element doped with a second conductive dopant, for example, In .sub.x Al .sub.y Ga .sub.1 .sub.-x- .sub.y N (0? X? Y < = 1, 0 x + y < = 1). The second conductive semiconductor layer 141 may be selected from GaN, AlN, AlGaN, InGaN, InN, InAlGaN, AlInN, AlGaAs, GaP, GaAs, GaAsP and AlGaInP. When the second conductive semiconductor layer 141 is a P-type semiconductor layer, the second conductive dopant may include Mg, Zn, Ca, Sr, and Ba as a P-type dopant. The second conductive semiconductor layer 141 may be formed as a single layer or a multilayer, but the present invention is not limited thereto.
Thus, absent unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide well layer has a composition represented by AlxGa1-xInP, said barrier layer having a composition represented by AlyGa1-yInP, and 0≤x<y≤1 or wherein a value of y of an aluminum content of said barrier layer ranges from 0.3 to 0.85 wherein a percentage of an aluminum content in said quantum well structure gradually increase in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure.
One would have been so motivated for wavelength of AlGaInP devices (greenish) and to optimize the barriers for desired trapping.
As to claim 5-6, Xiao teaches from about 6 to 7 periods figure 6.
As to claim 7 Xiao teaches the thickness of each well and each barrier is 0.1 to 10nm paragraph 43 but does not teach 5 to 10 nm for the well and barrier.
Applicant has shown no unexpected results for the thickness.
Wells and barriers of 5 to 10 nm were known at the time of filing
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the well and barrier thickness to be 5 to 10 nm to optimize the desire wavelength of the electron in the well and to prevent undesired tunnelling.
As to claim 8, Xiao in view of Moon would teach wherein the aluminum content in said quantum well structure increases from one of said periodic units to the other one of said periodic units in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure since Xiao teaches increase the Energy band towards p-side and Moon teaches doing this by increasing the Aluminum content.
As to claim 9, Xiao teaches wherein said periodic units of said quantum well structures are arranged into multiple groups each of which has more than one of said periodic units, the aluminum content in said quantum well structure gradually increases from one of said groups to the other one of said groups in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure (specifically where the group equal 1). Moon teaches larger groups 130a’ 130b’ and 130c’.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide multiple well regions in a group to optimize the desired emission.
As to claim 10 Xiao teaches further comprising a first electrode and a second electrode electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer and said second semiconductor layer, respectively (figure 1).
As to claim 11, Xiao does not explicitly teach further comprising an insulation layer located on a surface and a side wall of said semiconductor epitaxial structure.
However, it was known to passivate LEDs with an insulator on side back and top surfaces to reduce surface recombination leakage current and plasma damage.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an insulation layer located on a surface and a side wall of said semiconductor epitaxial structure reduce surface recombination leakage current and plasma damage.
As to claim 12, Xiao does not explicitly teach wherein said active layer generates light having a wavelength which ranges from 550 nm to 950 nm.
However, AlGaInP devices with wavelengths at 550 nm to 950 nm were known.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide wherein said active layer generates light having a wavelength which ranges from 550 nm to 950 nm to optimize for the desired color light for the user.
As to claim 13, since there is not additional structure claim 13 is read on since the device is also an apparatus.
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(s) 1,3-13 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka 461197 in view of Moon.
As to claims 1,3-4, Tanaka teaches A light-emitting device, comprising: a semiconductor epitaxial structure that has a first surface (see figure 1 and 11 the device has a first surface item 10) and a second surface opposite to said first surface (figure 1 item 9), and that includes a first semiconductor layer (see amended figure), an active layer region, and a second semiconductor layer sequentially stacked on one another in such order from said first surface to said second surface, wherein said active layer includes a quantum well structure having multiple periodic units (see attached figure), each of which includes a well layer and a barrier layer disposed sequentially in such order (the periodic unit are described as having one well and one barrier as per Tanaka figure 11), a bandgap of said barrier layer being greater than that of said well layer (figure 11), and wherein said bandgaps of said barrier layers of said periodic units gradually increase in a direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure (figure 11), wherein said bandgaps of said well layers of said periodic units remain unchanged in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure (figure 10 vs figure 11 figure 11 keeps the well constant),
PNG
media_image1.png
212
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tanaka suggests using AlGaInP materials (column 17)
Tanaka does not teach and wherein said well layer has a composition represented by AlxGal-xnP, said barrier layer having a composition represented by AlyGal-yInP, and 0<x<yl wherein a value of y of an aluminum content of said barrier layer ranges from 0.3 to 0.85 wherein a percentage of an aluminum content in said quantum well structure gradually increase in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure.
Moon teaches a graded electron blocking layer item (figure 1 and 2 item 130). Specifically, a barrier followed by an energy region 131 vs 132, 133 vs 134 and 135 vs 136. Moon teaches that the grading maybe caused by varying the Aluminum concentration:
For example, the first electron blocking layer 131 may include Al .sub.x1 In .sub.y1 Ga .sub.(1-x1- .sub.y1 .sub.) N (where 0≤X1 ≤1 0≤ Y1≤ 1) barrier layer 132 comprises Al x2 In y2 Ga (1- x2- y2) N ( However, 0≤x2≤1, 0≤y2≤1), and the Al of the first electron blocking layer 131 The composition (x1) may be not less than the composition (x2) of Al of the second electron blocking layer 132.
The composition x1 of Al of the first electron blocking layer 131 may be higher than the composition x2 of Al of the second electron blocking layer 132 and the Al composition of the second electron blocking layer 132 The composition (x2) may be higher than the composition of Al of the barrier, but is not limited thereto.
Further Moon teaches AlGaInP devices:
The second conductive semiconductor layer 141 may be formed of a compound semiconductor of a group III-V element doped with a second conductive dopant, for example, In .sub.x Al .sub.y Ga .sub.1 .sub.-x- .sub.y N (0? X? Y < = 1, 0 x + y < = 1). The second conductive semiconductor layer 141 may be selected from GaN, AlN, AlGaN, InGaN, InN, InAlGaN, AlInN, AlGaAs, GaP, GaAs, GaAsP and AlGaInP. When the second conductive semiconductor layer 141 is a P-type semiconductor layer, the second conductive dopant may include Mg, Zn, Ca, Sr, and Ba as a P-type dopant. The second conductive semiconductor layer 141 may be formed as a single layer or a multilayer, but the present invention is not limited thereto.
Thus, absent unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide well layer has a composition represented by AlxGa1-xInP, said barrier layer having a composition represented by AlyGa1-yInP, and 0≤x<y≤1 or wherein a value of y of an aluminum content of said barrier layer ranges from 0.3 to 0.85 wherein a percentage of an aluminum content in said quantum well structure gradually increase in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure.
One would have been so motivated for wavelength of AlGaInP devices (greenish) and to optimize the barriers for desired trapping.
b. As to claims 5-6 Tanaka teaches 6 unites based on figure 11.
c. As to claim 7,Tanaka does not teach the wells and the barrier at thickness of 5 to 10 nm.
Applicant has shown no unexpected results for the thickness.
Applicant has shown no unexpected results for the thickness.
Wells and barriers of 5 to 10 nm were known at the time of filing
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the well and barrier thickness to be 5 to 10 nm to optimize the desire wavelength of the electron in the well and to prevent undesired tunnelling.
As to claim 8,Tanaka in view of Moon would teach wherein the aluminum content in said quantum well structure increases from one of said periodic units to the other one of said periodic units in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure since Xiao teaches increase the Energy band towards p-side and Moon teaches doing this by increasing the Aluminum content.
As to claim 9, Tanaka teaches wherein said periodic units of said quantum well structures are arranged into multiple groups each of which has more than one of said periodic units, the aluminum content in said quantum well structure gradually increases from one of said groups to the other one of said groups in the direction from said first surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure to said second surface of said semiconductor epitaxial structure (specifically where the group equal 1). Moon teaches larger groups 130a’ 130b’ and 130c’.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide multiple well regions in a group to optimize the desired emission.
As to claim 10 Tanaka teaches further comprising a first electrode and a second electrode electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer and said second semiconductor layer, respectively (items 9 and 10).
As to claim 11,Tanaka does not explicitly teach further comprising an insulation layer located on a surface and a side wall of said semiconductor epitaxial structure.
However, it was known to passivate LEDs with an insulator on side back and top surfaces to reduce surface recombination leakage current and plasma damage.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an insulation layer located on a surface and a side wall of said semiconductor epitaxial structure reduce surface recombination leakage current and plasma damage.
As to claim 12, Tanaka does not explicitly teach wherein said active layer generates light having a wavelength which ranges from 550 nm to 950 nm.
However, AlGaInP devices with wavelengths at 550 nm to 950 nm were known.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide wherein said active layer generates light having a wavelength which ranges from 550 nm to 950 nm to optimize for the desired color light for the user.
As to claim 13, since there is not additional structure claim 13 is read on since the device is also an apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm 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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896