DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application filed May 25, 2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Species A drawn to the embodiment shown in Fig. 1 of current application and Subspecies a, claims 5, 6, 11 and 12, in the reply filed on September 3, 2025 is acknowledged. The Examiner notes that claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-10 are directed to the nonelected species shown in Fig. 20 of current application including the tunnel junction structure recited in claim 7, which is not present in the light emitting element shown in Fig. 1 of current application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “groove” recited on line 2 of claim 6 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim, because (a) even though Applicants refer to a lower area 30 in Fig. 1 of current application as a first groove, it does not appear that the lower area 30 is exactly a groove since Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “groove” as “a long narrow channel or depression”, (b) the lower area 30 in Fig. 1 of current application is an open space rather than “a long narrow channel or depression”, (c) for the lower area 30 to be “a groove”, there should be a wall-like structure on an opposite side to the first intermediate layer 15 as illustrated below,
PNG
media_image1.png
582
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and (d) if the Examiner may provide an analogy, the light emitting element shown in Fig. 1 is similar to a wedding cake having multiple layers, and the top surface of the lower or lowest layer of the wedding cake does not exactly form “a groove”. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5, 6, 11 and 12 are 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.
(1) Regarding claim 5, it is not clear what the limitation “the intermediate layer has an In composition set so as to have a band gap that does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer (emphasis added)” recited on lines 10-11 suggests, because (a) it appears that Applicants claim that the In composition is the only factor or parameter that definitively controls the band gap of the intermediate layer such that the intermediate layer does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer, (b) however, there are numerous other parameters that would also alter the band gap of the intermediate layer including (i) an actual material composition of the intermediate layer, i.e. the intermediate layer can be InN (indium nitride), InxGa1-xN, InxAl1-xN, InxB1-xN, InxAlyGa1-x-yN, InxByGa1-x-yN, InxAlyB1-x-yN, InxAlyGazB1-x-y-zN, etc., (ii) a strain applied by neighboring component layers of the light emitting element since a strain would alter the band structure of the intermediate layer, see for example, Figs. 2 and 4 of Son et al. (“Strain engineering for the solution of efficiency droop in InGaN/GaN light-emitting diodes,” OPTICS EXPRESS 18 (2010) pp. 5466-5471), (iii) a doping type and a doping concentration of the intermediate layer since a dopant would create energy levels inside the forbidden gap of the band structure, (iv) a thickness of the light emitting layer such as a thickness of a quantum well layer in a multi-quantum-well structure, see for example, Fig. 9 of Alam et al. (“Emission wavelength red-shift by using “semi-bulk” InGaN buffer layer in InGaN/InGaN multiple-quantum-well,” Superlattices and Microstructures 112 (2017) pp. 279-286), (v) a temperature at which the claimed light emitting element operates since the band gap of the first and second active layer would inherently vary depending on the temperature, (vi) whether there is a defect, and if so, what type of a defect is present inside the intermediate layer and what the density of the defect is, see for example, Fig. 4 of Choi et al. (“Effects of dislocations on the luminescence of GaN/InGaN multi-quantum-well light-emitting-diode layers,” Materials Letters 58 (2004) pp. 2614-2617), and so on, and (c) therefore, claim 5 fails to particularly point out and clearly define the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter since there are numerous, if not an infinite number of, parameters that would determine the band gap of the intermediate layer, and that would also determine whether the intermediate layer absorbs light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer or not.
(2) Also regarding claim 5, it is not clear what the limitation “the intermediate layer has an In composition set so as to have a band gap that does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer (emphasis added)” recited on lines 10-11 suggests, because (a) it appears that Applicants assume that the light emitted from the first active layer 14 and the light emitted from the second active layer 16 shown in Fig. 1 of current application are lights with only one wavelength, respectively, (b) however, in actuality, the light emitted from the first active layer 14 and the light emitted from the second active layer 16 shown in Fig. 1 of current application would respectively exhibit a spectrum of wavelengths, see for example, Fig. 2 of Son et al. (“Strain engineering for the solution of efficiency droop in InGaN/GaN light-emitting diodes,” OPTICS EXPRESS 18 (2010) pp. 5466-5471) or Figs. 4 and 5 of Alam et al. (“Emission wavelength red-shift by using “semi-bulk” InGaN buffer layer in InGaN/InGaN multiple-quantum-well,” Superlattices and Microstructures 112 (2017) pp. 279-286), (c) in addition, the spectra of wavelengths depend on numerous parameters mentioned above, and potentially on more parameters, and (d) therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation “the intermediate layer has an In composition set so as to have a band gap that does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer (emphasis added)” suggests that (i) there is no absorption of the lights emitted from the first and second active layer throughout the entire spectra of the lights emitted from the first and second active layer, or (ii) there is no absorption of the lights emitted from the first and second active layer for a certain portion of the spectra of the lights emitted from the first and second active layer.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the intermediate layer has an In composition set so as to have a band gap that does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer (emphasis added)” recited on lines 10-11 suggests, because (a) it appears that Applicants assume that the light emitted from the first active layer 14 and the light emitted from the second active layer 16 shown in Fig. 1 of current application are fixed lights once the claimed light emitting element is formed, (b) however, the spectra of the lights emitted from the first and second active layer also depend on the operating conditions, see for example, Fig. 3 of Zhuang et al. (“Improved performance of InGaN-based red light-emitting diodes by micro-hole arrays,” Optics Express 29 (2021) 29780) where the peak wavelength of the light emitted from a single light emitting element changes according to the current density, and (c) therefore, it is not clear how “the intermediate layer has an In composition set so as to have a band gap that does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer (emphasis added)” since the spectra of the lights emitted from the first and second active layer would inherently vary depending on the operating conditions of the claimed light emitting element, in which case, for the arguments’ sake, it would be possible that “the intermediate layer … does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer” for one operating condition, while “the intermediate layer” absorbs “light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer” for another operating condition.
Claims 6, 11 and 12 depend on claim 5, and therefore, claims 6, 11 and 12 are also indefinite.
(4) Regarding claim 6, it is not what “a groove” recited on line 2 refers to, because (a) as discussed in the Drawings objection above, the lower area 30 shown in Fig. 1 of current application is not exactly “a groove” since the lower area 30 is an open space rather than a space that is closed on at least two sides, and (b) therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed light emitting element further comprises a wall-like structure illustrated above, or the term “a groove” is kind of a misnomer or does not have an ordinary meaning.
(5) Further regarding claim 6, it is not clear what the limitation “a second p-layer provided on the intermediate layer exposed to a bottom surface of the groove and including a p-type group-III nitride semiconductor (emphasis added)” recited on lines 5-6 suggests, because (a) it is not clear whether the second p-layer is exposed to the bottom surface of the groove, or the intermediate layer is exposed to the bottom surface of the groove, (b) it is not clear whether the second p-layer includes the p-type group-III nitride semiconductor, or the intermediate layer includes the p-type group-III nitride semiconductor, and (c) depending on how the limitation cited above is interpreted, the claimed light emitting element would comprise a distinct structure or a distinct material composition.
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 5, 11 and 12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2017/0018679)
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Lee disclose a light emitting element (Fig. 1) including a group-III nitride semiconductor ([0038]), comprising: an n-layer (114 or 116) including an n-type group-III nitride semiconductor (n-GaN in paragraph [0038]); a first active layer (112r) ([0040]) provided on the n-layer and having a predetermined emission wavelength; an intermediate layer (lower 118) ([0040]) provided on the first active layer and including a group-III nitride semiconductor (GaN); and a second active layer (112g or 112b) provided on the intermediate layer and having an emission wavelength different from that of the first active layer.
Lee differs from the claimed invention by not showing that the intermediate layer contains In, wherein the intermediate layer has an In composition set so as to have a band gap that does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer (claim 5), wherein an In composition of the intermediate layer is 10% or less (claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the intermediate layer can contain In, wherein the intermediate layer has an In composition set so as to have a band gap that does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer, wherein an In composition of the intermediate layer is 10% or less, because (a) Lee further discloses in paragraph [0041] that “each of the light emitting layers 112 includes a quantum well layer formed by a plurality of indium gallium nitride (InGaN) layers and a plurality of gallium nitride (GaN) layers that are alternately stacked”, (b) therefore, the intermediate layer or spacer 118 can contain In to a certain degree such that the intermediate layer includes a group-III nitride semiconductor containing In since In atoms contained in the adjacent quantum well layers can diffuse into the spacers 118 disclosed by Lee since (i) In atoms are very mobile atoms in GaN-based semiconductor material layers, especially during an epitaxial growth process, and (ii) therefore, during the deposition of the spacers 118, In atoms can diffuse into the spacers 118 from the neighboring layers to a certain degree, (c) in this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the intermediate layer can have an In composition set so as to have a band gap that does not absorb light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer, wherein an In composition of the intermediate layer is 10% or less, since (i) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0116] of current application that “For example, GaN having an In concentration of 1×1014 cm-3 or more and 1×1022 cm−3 or less is used” for the material composition of the first intermediate layer 15 shown in Fig. 1 of current application, (b) the lower limit of 1×1014 cm-3 of the In concentration in GaN Applicants originally disclosed is about or below a detection limit of SIMS (secondary ion mass spectroscopy), and commonly corresponds to an intrinsic semiconductor with an atomic or impurity concentration where an additional element or impurity is at best unintentionally incorporated, (c) the upper limit of 1×1022 cm−3 of the In concentration in GaN Applicants originally disclosed is about 25% of the entirety of the atoms constituting GaN since the atomic density of GaN is about 4.4×1022 cm−3, and (d) therefore, the GaN spacers 118 disclosed by Lee can comprise the In concentration Applicants originally disclosed, and can be 10% or less since a vast majority of GaN layers disposed adjacent to InGaN layers would comprise a certain amount of In atoms diffused from the adjacent InGaN layers, albeit a small amount.
Regarding claim 11, Lee further discloses that the intermediate layer (lower 118) is made of InGaN, because as discussed above, the intermediate layer or spacer would comprise In incorporated into GaN, which is a material composition of InGaN, especially because Applicants do not specifically claim the material composition or structural feature of the claimed InGaN, or the distribution of In inside the InGaN that is distinct from GaN doped with In.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bergmann et al. (US 7,692,182)
Okuno et al. (US 9,214,339)
Yamada et al. (US 6,608,330)
Lee et al. (US 11,522,006)
Chae et al. (US 10,892,297)
Chen et al. (US 10,461,505)
Bensch (US 7,692,202)
Chen et al. (US 6,163,038)
Lin et al. (US 8,884,267)
Dussaigne et al. (US 10,886,429)
Bergmann et al. (US 2005/0056824)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 October 8, 2025