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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-6, 8-10 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shen et al. (US Patent 2005/0067627 – cited on IDS filed January 7, 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Shen teaches a monolithic di-chromic device (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1), comprising:
a first conductivity type (N) semiconductor region 7c (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1);
a control portion 6c disposed on the first conductivity type semiconductor region 7c (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1);
a color region (e.g. blue active layer 11 or green active layer 10 and red active layer 5) formed on the control portion 6c and including a first color portion (11 or 10) and a second color portion 5, see Fig. 7 & Fig. 1);
a second conductivity type (P) semiconductor region 4a disposed on the color region (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1); and
a bridge region 9 disposed between the first color portion (11 or 10) and the second color portion 5, wherein:
the first color portion (11 or 10) is configured to emit light having a shorter wavelength than that of the second color portion (blue light or green light is understood to have shorter wavelength than the red light),
the first color portion or the second color portion is configured to emit light having a plurality of peak wavelengths (the first color portion comprises peak wavelength in the blue active layer 11 and green active layer 10, these color portions ‘are configured’ to be able to emit light at both a plurality of peak and not necessarily peak wavelengths), and
the bridge region 9 includes a first conductivity-type doping layer N++ and a second conductivity-type doping layer P++ (the bridge region 9 is understood to comprise two layers N++ and P++, see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 2, Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein: the first color portion (11 or 10) generates blue light, the second color portion 5 generates green or yellow light, and white light is implemented by a combination of blue light of the first color portion and green or yellow light of the second color portion (Para [0004, 0006, 0019, Fig. 1 & Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein: each of the first color portion and the second color portion includes a plurality of well layers, and the number of well layers in the first color portion (11 or 10) is greater than that of well layers in the second color portion 5 (see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein each of the first color portion (11 or 10) and the second color portion5 emits light having a plurality of peak wavelengths (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, further comprising: a tunnel barrier layer (e.g. 4c & 3b or 4b & 3c) disposed between the first color portion (11 or 10) and the second color portion 5 (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 5, wherein the tunnel barrier layer includes an AlGaN layer or DBR (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, further comprising: a sub-electron blocking layer 7b disposed between the first color portion (11 or 10) and the bridge region 9 (Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein the first conductivity-type doping layer is thicker than the second conductivity-type doping layer (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein the color region (11 or 10) is formed of a nitride semiconductor (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Shen teaches a light emitting module, comprising:
a circuit board 12 (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1); and
a monolithic di-chromic device (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1) disposed on the circuit board 12,
the monolithic di-chromic device, comprising:
a first conductivity type (N) semiconductor region 7c (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1);
a control portion 6c disposed on the first conductivity type semiconductor region 7c (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1);
a color region (e.g. blue active layer 11 or green active layer 10 and red active layer 5) formed on the control portion 6c and including a first color portion (11 or 10) and a second color portion 5, see Fig. 7 & Fig. 1);
a second conductivity type (P) semiconductor region 4a disposed on the color region (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1); and
a bridge region 9 disposed between the first color portion (11 or 10) and the second color portion 5, wherein:
the first color portion (11 or 10) is configured to emit light having a shorter wavelength than that of the second color portion (blue light or green light is understood to have shorter wavelength than the red light),
the first color portion or the second color portion is configured to emit light having a plurality of peak wavelengths (the first color portion comprises peak wavelength in the blue active layer 11 and green active layer 10, these color portions ‘are configured’ to be able to emit light at both a plurality of peak and not necessarily peak wavelengths), and
the bridge region 9 includes a first conductivity-type doping layer N++ and a second conductivity-type doping layer P++ (the bridge region 9 is understood to comprise two layers N++ and P++, see Fig. 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yeon et al. (US PUB. 2017/0130909).
Regarding claim 11, Shen is silent on the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein a change amount ∆u'v' of CIE color coordinates generated by a change in current densities from 32 mA/cm2 to 120 mA/cm2 is less than 0.11. However, Yeon teaches in Fig. 14 wherein a change amount ∆u'v' of CIE color coordinates generated by a change in current densities from 32 mA/cm2 to 120 mA/cm2 can be less than 0.11 (see Fig. 12 and associated text). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, Shen is silent on the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein a change amount ∆u'v' of CIE color coordinates generated by a change in current densities from 32 mA/cm2 to 120 mA/cm2 is less than 0.08. However, Yeon teaches in Fig. 14 wherein a change amount ∆u'v' of CIE color coordinates generated by a change in current densities from 32 mA/cm2 to 120 mA/cm2 can be less than 0.08 (see Fig. 12 and associated text). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Avramescu et al. (US PUB. 2010/0207098).
Regarding claim 13, while Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein: the first color portion includes well layers emitting light of different peak wavelengths (Fig. 7 & Fig. 1); however, Shen is silent on a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.001 to 0.08. Avramescu teaches in Para [0012-0016] a first color portion that includes well layers emitting light of different peak wavelengths, and a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.001 to 0.08. These claim dimensions would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art in view of Shen and Avramescu. One of the ordinary skill in the art is motivated to form device features as small as possible with optimal composition ratio of In in the well layers to allow proper device operation, in order to save on material and processing costs. As such, it would have been obvious to use a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.001 to 0.08.
The claim is 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 of 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 of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)(selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Shen and Avramescu teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 13, wherein an energy band gap difference between the well layers is less than 0.2eV (since the difference in composition ratios of In content in well layers is within the claim 13 range, an energy band gap difference between the well layers is plausibly less than 0.2eV). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Shen and Avramescu teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 13, wherein a composition ratio of In in the well layers of the second color portion is within a range of 0.2 to 0.4 (Shen’s Para [0012-0016]). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 16, while Shen teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein: the second color portion includes well layers emitting light of different peak wavelengths; however, Shen is silent on a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.01 to 0.1. Avramescu teaches in Para [0012-0016] a second color portion that includes well layers emitting light of different peak wavelengths, and a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.001 to 0.08. These claim dimensions would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art in view of Shen and Avramescu. One of the ordinary skill in the art is motivated to form device features as small as possible with optimal composition ratio of In in the well layers to allow proper device operation, in order to save on material and processing costs. As such, it would have been obvious to use a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.001 to 0.08.
The claim is 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 of 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 of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)(selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Shen and Avramescu teaches the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 16, wherein a composition ratio of In in the well layers of the first color portion is within a range of 0.10 to 0.18 (Para [0012-0016]). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 18 above, and in further view Yeon et al. (US PUB. 2017/0130909).
Regarding claim 19, Shen is silent on the monolithic di-chromic device of claim 1, wherein a change amount ∆u'v' of CIE color coordinates generated by a change in current densities from 32 mA/cm2 to 120 mA/cm2 is less than 0.11. However, Yeon teaches in Fig. 14 wherein a change amount ∆u'v' of CIE color coordinates generated by a change in current densities from 32 mA/cm2 to 120 mA/cm2 can be less than 0.11 (see Fig. 12 and associated text). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Avramescu.
Regarding claim 20, Shen is silent on the light emitting module of claim 18, wherein: the first color portion includes well layers emitting light of different peak wavelengths, a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.001 to 0.08, the second color portion includes well layers emitting light of different peak wavelengths, and a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.01 to 0.1. However, Avramescu teaches the light emitting module of claim 18, wherein: the first color portion includes well layers emitting light of different peak wavelengths, a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.001 to 0.08, the second color portion includes well layers emitting light of different peak wavelengths, and a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.01 to 0.1 (see Para [0012-0016]). These claim dimensions would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art in view of Shen and Avramescu. One of the ordinary skill in the art is motivated to form device features as small as possible with optimal composition ratio of In in the well layers to allow proper device operation, in order to save on material and processing costs. As such, it would have been obvious to use a difference in composition ratios of In in the well layers is within a range of 0.001 to 0.08.
The claim is 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 of 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 of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)(selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights