Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/174,192

LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 24, 2023
Examiner
SMITH, BRADLEY
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Xiamen San'an Optoelectronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
76%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
695 granted / 873 resolved
+11.6% vs TC avg
Minimal -3% lift
Without
With
+-3.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
910
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
§112
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 873 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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) 1-9 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection uses a different combination of references. 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, 6-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuh et al. (2011/0193122) in view of Horio et al. (US 2005/0211989) and Kinoshita et al. (US 20190229237) . Yuh et al. discloses a light-emitting laminated structure (940) (fig. 11) that has a first surface (top of 941)(fig. 11) and a second surface (bottom of 941)(fig. 11) opposite to said first surface, and that includes a first semiconductor layer having a first electrical conductivity and containing aluminum (941, n-type AlGaN)[0054], a second semiconductor layer having a second electrical conductivity that is different from said first electrical conductivity(943, p-type AlGaN)[0056], and an active layer (942)[0055] disposed between said first semiconductor layer and said second semiconductor layer, said active layer generating light via electron-hole recombination, a first contact electrode (970) disposed on said first surface and forming an ohmic contact with said light-emitting laminated structure(fig. 11), wherein said first contact electrode includes a first metal material [palladium, 0058] that has a work function not less than 5 eV and that is in contact with said first surface that is in contact with said first surface wherein said first semiconductor layer (941) is doped with an n-type dopant [0054], and provides electrons to said active layer (inherent, same structure will have the same results). Yuh et al. fails to disclose an insulating layer disposed on said light-emitting laminated structure and covering said light-emitting laminated structure and said first contact electrode. Horio et al. disclose an insulating layer (17)[0050] disposed on said light-emitting laminated structure and covering a light-emitting laminated structure (4,5,6) and a first contact electrode (10,20)(fig. 1A). The combination of Cho and Horio et al. would result in the insulating layer over the a light-emitting laminated structure and a first contact electrode. 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 (forming an insulating layer over part of the electrode), 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, because the insulation layer would protect the LED and the electrode [Horio et al., 0050]. Yuh et al. and Horio et al. fails disclose said light-emitting laminated structure emits light having a wavelength of less than 400 nm. Kinoshita et al. disclose aluminum in said first semiconductor layer is present in an amount greater than 20 atom% based on 100 atom% of said first semiconductor layer (50%) [0017, n-type AlXGa1-XN (0.5≤X<1)]. The examiner submits the n-type AlXGa1-XN (0.5≤X<1) would have an emission peak wavelength of less than 400nm (210-350nm)[0025]. 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 (changing the composition of the AlGaN layer [Kinoshita. 0002]), 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 (i.e. the changing the composition would allow one to select a peak wavelength [Kinoshita. 0002]). Regarding claim 2, Yuh et al. disclose first surface has a first area (941) having said first electrical conductivity (n-type) and a second area ( 943) having said second electrical conductivity(p-type)[0056], at least a part of said first metal material (970) being in contact with said first area (941) (fig 11). Regarding claim 3, Yuh et al. disclose said first contact electrode further includes a second metal material ( aluminum)[0058] that is in (electrical) contact with said first area. Regarding claims 6-7, Horio et al. disclose the first metal material is platinum [0048]. (The examiner submits the platinum could be used in place of the palladium.) 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 (using platinum as an electrode in place of palladium), 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, because the plantinum would perform as a conductor. Regarding claim 8, Yuh et al. disclose the second metal has aluminum [0058]. Regarding claim 11, Kinoshita et al. disclose aluminum in said first semiconductor layer is present in an amount greater than 20 atom% based on 100 atom% of said first semiconductor layer (50%) [0017, n-type AlXGa1-XN (0.5≤X<1)]. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuh et al. (2011/0193122) in view of Horio et al. (US 2005/0211989) and Kinoshita et al. (US 20190229237) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Bedell et al. (US 2018/0277707). Yuh et al. Horio et al. and Kinoshita et al. disclose in the invention above. Yuh et al., Horio et al. and Kinoshita et al. fail disclose said first metal material and said second metal material are mixed with each other and are distributed on said first area. Bedell et al. first metal material and a second metal material are mixed with each other. The combination of Cho et al. and Horio et al. and Bedell et al. would result in the mixture (alloy) is distributed on said first area [0036, alloy of platinum and aluminum]. 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 (alloying the two metals), 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 (i.e. the alloy would form an electrical contact). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuh et al. (2011/0193122) in view of Horio et al. (US 2005/0211989) and Kinoshita et al. (US 20190229237) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tanaka et al. (US 2012/0213242). Yuh et al. Horio et al. and Kinoshita et al. disclose in the invention above. Yuh et al., Horio et al. and Kinoshita et al. fail disclose said first contact electrode further includes a metal nitride. Tanaka et al. disclose contact electrode further includes a metal nitride (TiN)[0214]. Yuh et al. Horio et al. Kinoshita et al. and Tanaka et al. would result in metal nitride being the first contact electrode. 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 (using a metal nitride as a contact), 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 (i.e. the metal nitride would act as a diffusion barrier and maintain strong adherence during a heat treatment [Tanaka et al., 0214]). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuh et al. (2011/0193122) in view of Horio et al. (US 2005/0211989) and Kinoshita et al. (US 20190229237) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2005/0279990). Yuh et al. Horio et al. and Kinoshita et al. disclose in the invention above. Yuh et al., Horio et al. and Kinoshita et al. fail disclose a first electrode pad and a second electrode pad, said insulating layer including two through holes, said first electrode pad and said second electrode pad being disposed on said insulating layer and respectively extending through said two through holes, so that said first electrode pad is electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer via said first contact electrode, and said second electrode pad is electrically connected to said second semiconductor layer. Kang et al. disclose a first electrode pad (430) and a second electrode pad (430)(fig. 2H), an insulating layer (422, 426) including two through holes (428)(figure 2G) , said first electrode pad and said second electrode pad being disposed on said insulating layer and respectively extending through said two through holes (fig. 2H), so that said first electrode pad is electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer via said first contact electrode, and said second electrode pad is electrically connected to said second semiconductor layer (fig 2H). 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 (using an insulation layer with contact holes and contact pads), 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 (i.e. the pad would electrically connect to the LED). 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 24, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 26, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 14, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604727
SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP INCLUDING LOW-K DIELECTRIC LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604453
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND METHOD FOR FORMING SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12575222
MICROELECTRONIC DEVICE TRANSFER WITH UV-TRANSMISSIVE ADHESIVE AND LASER LIFT-OFF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557436
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING FOR GaN GROWTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550472
IMAGE CAPTURING DEVICE AND IMAGE CAPTURING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
76%
With Interview (-3.1%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 873 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month