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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/28/25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection due to the applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
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, 6, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US 2017 0155014) in view of Okuno (US 2018/0182689), and Ishimaru et al. (US 2020/0274030).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue et al. disclose a substrate having a first surface (10) (fig. 1);a plurality of protrusions disposed (11) (fig. 1), with spacing opened between one another, on the first surface; a buffer layer (20) (fig. 1) disposed to cover the plurality of protrusions and the first surface positioned between the plurality of protrusions (fig. 1), an n-type semiconductor layer that is disposed on the buffer layer and is doped with an n-type impurity (31); an active layer disposed on the n-type semiconductor layer (32); and a p-type semiconductor layer that is disposed on the active layer and is doped with a p-type impurity (33), wherein the substrate has a hexagonal crystal structure,,the first surface is a (0001) plane of the hexagonal crystal structure [0035,0056], the n-type semiconductor layer (31, part of 30) has a hexagonal crystal structure [0048] , and, when the first surface is in a plan view, an imaginary straight line passing through respective centers of a first protrusion and a second protrusion that are adjacent to each other and are from among the plurality of protrusions is orthogonal to an (11-20) plane of the hexagonal crystal structure [0039] (the protrusions are perpendicular to the pseudo hexagon, the pseudo hexagon is parallel to the (11-20) plane).
Inoue et al. fails to explicitly disclose a dimension of the buffer layer in a first direction orthogonal to the first surface being smaller than a dimension in the first direction of each of the plurality of protrusions.
Okuno disclose a dimension of the buffer layer in a first direction orthogonal to the first surface being smaller than a dimension in the first direction of each of the plurality of protrusions [0076].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (making the protrusion thicker than the buffer layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the buffer layer is provided in order to accommodate difference in lattice constants between the sapphire substrate and the semiconductor layered body [Inoue et al., 0051]).
Inoue et al. and Okuno fail to disclose a material included in the plurality of protrusions includes silicon oxide.
Ishimaru et al. disclose silicon oxide protrusions [0046].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (making the protrusion out of silicon oxide), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (The uneven structure diffusely reflects light generated by the semiconductor light-emitting layer toward the first chip main surface of the chip body . Thus, the extraction efficiency of the light generated by the semiconductor light-emitting layer is enhanced [Ishimaru et al., 0044, 0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue et al. disclose the first surface of the substrate is sapphire [0035].
Regarding claim 7, Inoue et al disclose first surface of the substrate includes sapphire[0035], a material included in the n-type semiconductor layer includes gallium nitride [0048].
Regarding claim 9, Inoue et al. disclose wherein the n-type semiconductor layer (31) has a second surface (top surface) in contact with the active layer (32), and the second surface is flat (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US 2017 0155014) in view of Okuno (US 2018/0182689) and Ishimaru et al. (US 2020/0274030) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 2017/0062655).
Inoue et al. Ishimaru et al. and Okuno disclose the invention supra.
Regarding claim 2, Inoue et al. Ishimaru et al. and Okuno fail to disclose each of the plurality of protrusions includes a lower section connected to the first surface and an upper section disposed on the lower section, when the plurality of protrusions are in a cross-sectional view in a cross-section along the first direction, the upper section has an inclined surface that is connected to an outer peripheral surface of the lower section and is inclined with respect to the outer peripheral surface, and an interior angle between the inclined surface and the outer peripheral surface is an obtuse angle.
Regarding claim 2, Hsu et al. disclose each of the plurality of protrusions includes a lower section (42) connected to the first surface and an upper section (41) disposed on the lower section, when the plurality of protrusions are in a cross-sectional view in a cross-section along the first direction, the upper section has an inclined (q1=30 degrees [0032]) surface(41)(fig. 1F) that is connected to an outer peripheral surface of the lower section and is inclined with respect to the outer peripheral surface, and an interior angle (q1+q2, where q2= 90 degrees [0032]) between the inclined surface and the outer peripheral surface is an obtuse angle (greater than 90 degrees).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (making the protrusion in a sapphire substrate), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the patterned substrate will reduce threading dislocations [Hsu et al., 0033] and will help the LED achieve a high efficiency [Hsu et al., 0004].)
Regarding claim 3, Hsu et al. disclose the outer peripheral surface of the lower section of each of the plurality of protrusions is orthogonal (q2= 90 degrees)(fig. 1F) to the first surface [0032].
Regarding claim 3, Hsu et al. disclose the upper section of each of the plurality of protrusions also has a top surface (B)[0033] that is connected to the inclined surface and is parallel to the first surface (fig. 1F).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US 2017 0155014) in view of Okuno (US 2018/0182689) and Ishimaru et al. (US 2020/0274030) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ichimura et al. (US 2018/0294336).
Inoue et al. and Okuno and Ishimaru et al. disclose the invention supra.
Regarding claim 5, Inoue et al. and Okuno and Ishimaru et al. fail to disclose a dimension of the buffer layer in a direction orthogonal to the first surface is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm.
Ichimura et al. disclose buffer layer in a direction orthogonal to the first surface is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 200 nm (10nm to 50nm [0045]).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (making the protrusion thicker than the buffer layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the buffer layer is provided in order to accommodate difference in lattice constants between the sapphire substrate and the semiconductor layered body [Inoue et al., 0051]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue et al. (US 2017 0155014) in view of Okuno (US 2018/0182689) and Ishimaru et al. (US 2020/0274030) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0045121).
Inoue et al. and Okuno and Ishimaru et al. disclose the invention supra. Ishimaru et al. disclose the protrusion is silicon oxide.
Regarding claim 8, Inoue et al. and Ishimaru et al. Okuno fail to disclose a material included in the plurality of protrusions includes at least one selected from silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, and magnesium fluoride.
Zhang et al. disclose an distributed bragg reflector (DBR) with silicon oxide and aluminum oxide or magnesium fluoride (alternatively stacked dielectrics) [0034].
The combination of Inoue et al. Ishimaru et al. Okuno and Zhang et al. would form the ODR in the protrusion.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (making the DBR out of multiple materials), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the Distributed Bragg Reflector would reflect light toward the first chip main surface of the chip body . Thus, the extraction efficiency of the light generated by the semiconductor light-emitting layer is enhanced [Ishimaru et al., 0044, 0045])
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 BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817