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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I, Figure 1, corresponding claims 1 – 5 and 10 in the reply filed on October 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 – 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 24, 2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on August 13, 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202021705512.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on February 08, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered and accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on February 8, 2023, has been considered and accepted by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vierheilig et al. (2019/0013649) in view of Kanskar et al. (US 2020/0373736).
PNG
media_image1.png
413
957
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Vierheilig disclose an epitaxial structure, comprising:
a P-type contact layer (see Annotation Figure 6, characters 3 and 6, Abstract and paragraph [0014]); and
an electrode layer (see Annotation Figure 6, character 4, Abstract and paragraph [0015], the reference called “metallic p-contact structure”),
wherein the P-type contact layer (see Annotation Figure 6, character 3]), and the electrode layer (see Annotation Figure 6, character 4) are stacked in sequence (see Annotation Figure 6 and Abstract),
wherein the P-type contact layer (see Annotation Figure 6, characters 3 and 6) comprises a first step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6a) and a second step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6b) that are disposed in a step shape (see Annotation Figure 6), and
wherein each of the first step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6a) and the second step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6b) is filled with a first insulation part (see paragraph [0041]).
Vierheilig discloses the claimed invention except for an epitaxial structure; a quantum well structure and the second step is closer to the quantum well structure than the first step part. Kanskar teaches an epitaxial structure and quantum well structure. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the epitaxial structure and quantum well structure as discloses by Kanskar in (see paragraph [0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the epitaxial structure and quantum well structure as suggested to the device of Vierheilig, the epitaxial structure is crystalline layers grown on a substrate, where the orientation of the new layer is determined by the underlying crystal, playing a crucial role in semiconductor technology. The quantum well in order to confine charge carriers (electrons and holes) to very small dimensions, creating discrete energy levels similar to those of an atom. This enables more efficient stimulated emission, a lower current threshold, greater thermal stability, and a wavelength that can be tuned through design of size and composition.
Regarding claim 2, Vierheilig and Kanskar, Vierheilig disclose a length of the first step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6a) along a resonance cavity direction (see Annotation Figure 6, character “d”, Abstract and paragraphs [0003 – 0004, 0030, 0034 and 0037]) of the epitaxial structure (see claim 1 rejection) is greater than a length of the second step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6b) along the resonance cavity direction (see Annotation Figure 6, character “d”).
Regarding claim 3, Vierheilig and Kanskar discloses the claimed invention except for the length of the second step part along the resonance cavity direction of the epitaxial structure is greater than or equal to 1 um, and smaller than or equal to 30 um. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the length of the second step part along the resonance cavity direction of the epitaxial structure is greater than or equal to 1 um, and smaller than or equal to 30 um to the device of Vierheilig, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of the length of the second step part along the resonance cavity direction, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the length of the second step part along the resonance cavity direction of the epitaxial structure is greater than or equal to 1 um, and smaller than or equal to 30 um] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the length of the second step part along the resonance cavity direction of the epitaxial structure is greater than or equal to 1 um, and smaller than or equal to 30 um] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the length of the second step part along the resonance cavity direction of the epitaxial structure is greater than or equal to 1 um, and smaller than or equal to 30 um] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Vierheilig and Kanskar, Vierheilig disclose a height of the first step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6a) along a stacking direction of the P-type contact layer (see Annotation Figure 6, characters 3 and 6) and the electrode layer (see Annotation Figure 6, character 4) is greater than a height of the second step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6b) along the stacking direction of the P-type contact layer (see Annotation Figure 6, characters 3 and 6) and the electrode layer (see Annotation Figure 6, character 4).
Regarding claim 5, Vierheilig and Kanskar discloses the claimed invention except for the height of the second step part along the stacking direction of the P-type contact layer and the electrode layer is greater than or equal to 1 nm, and smaller than or equal to 100 nm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or the height of the second step part along the stacking direction of the P-type contact layer and the electrode layer is greater than or equal to 1 nm, and smaller than or equal to 100 nm to the device of Vierheilig, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of the length of the second step part along the stacking direction of the P-type contact layer and the electrode layer, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the height of the second step part along the stacking direction of the P-type contact layer and the electrode layer is greater than or equal to 1 nm, and smaller than or equal to 100 nm] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the height of the second step part along the stacking direction of the P-type contact layer and the electrode layer is greater than or equal to 1 nm, and smaller than or equal to 100 nm] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the height of the second step part along the stacking direction of the P-type contact layer and the electrode layer is greater than or equal to 1 nm, and smaller than or equal to 100 nm] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Vierheilig disclose a semiconductor chip comprising a substrate (see Figure 1, character 7 and paragraphs [0059 and 0065]), wherein the substrate (see Figure 1, character 7) comprises:
a P-type contact layer (see Annotation Figure 6, characters 3 and 6, Abstract and paragraph [0014]); and
an electrode layer (see Annotation Figure 6, character 4, Abstract and paragraph [0015], the reference called “metallic p-contact structure”),
wherein the P-type contact layer (see Annotation Figure 6, character 3]), and the electrode layer (see Annotation Figure 6, character 4) are stacked in sequence (see Annotation Figure 6 and Abstract),
wherein the P-type contact layer (see Annotation Figure 6, characters 3 and 6) comprises a first step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6a) and a second step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6b) that are disposed in a step shape (see Annotation Figure 6), and
wherein each of the first step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6a) and the second step part (see Annotation Figure 6, character 6b) is filled with a first insulation part (see paragraphs [0041]).
Vierheilig discloses the claimed invention except for an epitaxial structure; a quantum well structure and the second step is closer to the quantum well structure than the first step part and wherein the epitaxial structure is provided at the substrate. Kanskar teaches an epitaxial structure and quantum well structure. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the epitaxial structure and quantum well structure as discloses by Kanskar in (see paragraph [0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the epitaxial structure and quantum well structure as suggested to the device of Vierheilig, the epitaxial structure is crystalline layers grown on a substrate, where the orientation of the new layer is determined by the underlying crystal, playing a crucial role in semiconductor technology. The quantum well in order to confine charge carriers (electrons and holes) to very small dimensions, creating discrete energy levels similar to those of an atom. This enables more efficient stimulated emission, a lower current threshold, greater thermal stability, and a wavelength that can be tuned through design of size and composition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Delma R. Forde whose telephone number is (571)272-1940. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, MinSun O Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/Delma R Forde/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828