Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/221,963

Light Emitting Module and Light Emitting System Including the Same

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jul 14, 2023
Examiner
YEMELYANOV, DMITRIY
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
393 granted / 538 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
581
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.4%
+12.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 538 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species D and F (Claims 1-9,12, 13,16-18; Fig. 8, 12 and 13) in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. 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. Claim 9 is 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. Claim 9 recites “the intermediate layer has a thickness of greater than 10 nm to 400 nm.” It is not clear as to what thickness of the intermediate layer has a thickness of greater than, 10nm, 400nm or both. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will treat the limitation to be met as long as the intermediate layer has a thickness of greater than 10 nm. 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) 1-9, 12, 13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 2016/0225950 A1) in view of Yun (KR 20150028081 A) Regarding Claim 1, Han (Fig. 10-12) discloses a light emitting device comprising: a first window layer (127) supplying electrons; a second window layer (143a) supplying holes; an active layer (139) interposed between the first window layer and the second window layer; an electron regulation layer (electron control layer 128) interposed between the first window layer (127) and the active layer (139); a hole regulation layer (141) interposed between the second window layer (143a) and the active layer (139); and an intermediate layer (143 c) interposed between the second window layer (143a) and the hole regulation layer (141), wherein Han does not explicitly disclose the intermediate layer has different roughnesses on upper and lower interfaces thereof. Yun (Fig. 1-4) discloses an intermediate layer (14) has different roughnesses on upper (see top 140a-b) and lower (see bottom of 140) interfaces thereof. (“The intermediate layer 140 may be formed with a curved pattern on its surface. The pattern formed on the surface of the intermediate layer 140 increases the total reflection angle, thereby reducing the total reflection of light emitted from the active layer in the light emitting structure and improving the light extraction efficiency. It is effective to form such a pattern on the upper or lower portion of the light emitting structure 160 in which total reflection is concentrated. The pattern formed on the surface of the intermediate layer 140 can be formed by increasing the thickness or increasing the growth rate during the metal organic chemical vapor deposition.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting device in Han in view of Yun such that the intermediate layer has different roughnesses on upper and lower interfaces thereof in order to light can be emitted from the outside without being totally reflected from the light source (Yun) Regarding Claim 2, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer (14) comprises an uneven interface. (Fig. 1-4, Yun) Regarding Claim 3, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer (143 c) comprises Al and In (“Mg-doped AlGaN layer or AlInGaN layer”) [0123] and has a greater In-concentration gradient than an Al-concentration gradient per unit distance. Han in view of Yun does not explicitly disclose a greater In-concentration gradient than an Al-concentration gradient per unit distance. However, Han further discloses Al content of about 8% and further discloses varying In content for the purpose of alter electron mobility [0116] or to reduce lattice mismatch [0119]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify In-concentration or Al-concentrationin in the intermediate layer of a light emitting device in Han in view of Yun such that a greater In-concentration gradient than an Al-concentration gradient per unit distance in order to alter electron mobility [0116] or to reduce lattice mismatch [0119].in the intermediate layer. Regarding Claim 4, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer (143 c) (140) comprises a Group III material contained in a layer (145) (150) disposed on the intermediate layer and a Group III material contained in a layer (43C) (130) disposed under the intermediate layer. Regarding Claim 5, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer (143 c) (140). Han in view of Yun does not explicitly disclose the intermediate layer has different distributions or densities of Al and In per unit region thereof. However, Han further discloses Al content of about 8% and further discloses varying In content for the purpose of alter electron mobility [0116] or to reduce lattice mismatch [0119]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify In-concentration or Al-concentrationin in the intermediate layer of a light emitting device in Han in view of Yun such that the intermediate layer has different distributions or densities of Al and In per unit region thereof in order to alter electron mobility [0116] or to reduce lattice mismatch [0119].in the intermediate layer. Regarding Claim 6, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer (143c) (140) has a smaller thickness than a layer disposed on the intermediate layer (150) (143b) and a layer disposed under (41) the intermediate layer. (See Fig. 1 Yun). Han in view of Yun does not explicitly disclose a smaller thickness. Yun and Han further discloses the intermediate layer has a thickness range of 1 to 1000 Ang(Yun) and [0123] in Han in order to adjust conductivity and size of the diode. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select thickness for the intermediate layer in a light emitting device in Han in view of Yun such that he intermediate layer has a smaller thickness than a layer disposed on the intermediate layer and a layer disposed under the intermediate layer in order to adjust conductivity and size of the diode (Yun) and since 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, 276 (CCPA 1980). Regarding Claim 7, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 6, wherein the layer disposed on the intermediate layer (150), the layer disposed under the intermediate layer (130), and the intermediate layer (140) Han in view of Yun have thicknesses decreasing in the stated sequence. Yun and Han further discloses the intermediate layer has a thickness range of 1 to 1000 Ang(Yun) and [0122-0123] in Han in order to adjust conductivity and size of the diode. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select thickness for the intermediate layer in a light emitting device in Han in view of Yun such that have thicknesses decreasing in the stated sequence in order to adjust conductivity and size of the diode (Yun) and since 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, 276 (CCPA 1980). Regarding Claim 8, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer has a continuous shape. ((143 c) (140)) Regarding Claim 9, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 8, wherein the intermediate layer ((143 c) (140)) has a thickness of greater than 10 nm to 400 nm. [0123 Han] and (a thickness range of 1 to 1000 Ang Yun) Regarding Claim 12, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein Han in view of Yun as previously combined does not explicitly disclose an upper interface of the second window layer is an uneven surface. Yun (Fig. 1) discloses an upper interface of a second window layer (150) is an uneven surface. (“The second semiconductor layer 150 has a roughness of micro (mu m) size formed on its surface. Here, the micro () size will mean that the size is between several micrometers and several tens of micrometers. The roughness produced on the surface of the second semiconductor layer 150 is a pattern having a large surface roughness due to the micro-sized microstructure.”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting device in Han in view of Yun such that an upper interface of the second window layer is an uneven surface in order to reduce the total reflection of light emitted from the active layer in the light emitting structure. (Yun) Regarding Claim 13, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting device according to claim 12, wherein a lower interface of the first window layer (surface of 150 in contact with 140) is a textured surface (texture of top surface of 140) and has a different shape or roughness than the upper interface of the second window layer. (top of 150) Regarding Claim 16, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting module comprising: the light emitting device according to claim 1; an electrode pad electrically connected to the light emitting device (149a Han) (174 Yun); and a module substrate (121 Han) (110 Yun) on which the electrode pad is disposed. Regarding Claim 17, Han in view of Yun discloses the light emitting module according to claim 16, further comprising: Han in view of Yun as previously combined does not explicitly disclose a light reflective layer reflecting at least some fraction of light emitted from the light emitting device. Yun (Fig. 9) discloses a light reflective layer (340) reflecting at least some fraction of light emitted from the light emitting device. (“the second electrode 340 can reflect the light generated from the light source unit 320 to increase the light efficiency. Further, To the outside”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting device in Han in view of Yun such that a light reflective layer reflecting at least some fraction of light emitted from the light emitting device in order to increase the light efficiency (Yun) Regarding Claim 18, Han in view of Yun discloses the l light emitting module according to claim 16. Han in view of Yun as previously combined does not explicitly disclose multiple light emitting devices are arranged parallel to each other in a horizontal direction. Yun (Fig. 11) discloses multiple light emitting devices (1124) are arranged parallel to each other in a horizontal direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light emitting device in Han in view of Yun such that a multiple light emitting devices are arranged parallel to each other in a horizontal direction in order to have display device comprising array of light emitting devices. (Yun) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m. 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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. /DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604565
MICRO LIGHT-EMITTING COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12581773
INDIUM GALLIUM NITRIDE LIGHT EMITTING DIODES WITH REDUCED STRAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575096
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEMORY DEVICES AND METHODS FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568724
DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12568716
WAFER-SCALE SEPARATION AND TRANSFER OF GAN MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+18.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 538 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