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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/241,589 filed on December 03, 2025.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant’s election with traverse of claims 1-7, 9-20 drawn to Species I (Fig. 1), in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged.
6. Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected device species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
7. Claims 11-20 recite ‘light-emitting device array’ that comprises ‘a plurality of first electrodes each contacting different emission layers among the plurality of emission layers; and a plurality of second electrodes each contacting different emission layers among the plurality of emission layers …. “which is not depicted through the selected embodiment/species I (Fig. 1), Therefore, claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from further examining, where the selected embodiment/species I (Fig. 1) recites ‘a light-emitting device’.
8. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/03/2025. The applicant states reason (s) on traversal that “there is no serious burden” while examining. It is noted that the application contains different inventions wherein only one of the inventions is considered for examining per each application. Because the different inventions comprise different drawing structures/claims that impose burden to the examiner for creating different search strategies; searching various CPC symbols, non-patent languages (NPLs) and text searches that require extra amount of search time. Therefore, the remark with respect to the restriction requirement was not found not persuasive, and the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
9. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE COMPRISING MULTIPLE ACTIVE LAYERS AND REFLECTION LAYER AND LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE ARRAY INCLUDING THE SAME”.
Claim Objections
10. Claims 1-2, 5, 12-13, 16, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the following, the claims should be recited to avoid indefiniteness due to lack of antecedent basis, and/or perform proper alignment along with the prior claim languages/phrases:
1. (Currently Amended) A light-emitting device comprising:
an emission layer configured to emit white light; and
a reflective layer at least partially surrounding side surfaces of the emission layer;
wherein the emission layer comprises:
a first conductivity-type semiconductor layer;
a second conductivity-type semiconductor layer on the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer;
a first active layer between the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer and the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer, the first active layer configured to emit a blue light; and
a second active layer between the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer and the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer, the second active layer configured to emit a yellow light.
2. (Currently Amended) The light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein a peak wavelength of the blue light is between
wherein a peak wavelength of the yellow light is between
5. (Currently Amended) The light-emitting device of claim 4, wherein the quantum well layer has a thickness of
wherein the quantum barrier layer has a thickness of
wherein the intermediate lattice layer has a thickness of
12. (Currently Amended) The light-emitting device array of claim 11, wherein each of the plurality of emission layers have a first length in the first direction and a second length in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction,
wherein the first length is
wherein the second length is
13. (Currently Amended) The light-emitting device array of claim 11, wherein the plurality of emission layers are spaced apart from each other in the first direction by
16. (Currently Amended) The light-emitting device array of claim 11, wherein the first peak wavelength is
20. (Currently Amended) A light-emitting device array comprising:
a plurality of emission layers spaced apart from each other in a first direction, each of the plurality of emission layers comprising:
a first conductivity-type semiconductor layer,
a first active layer configured to emit blue light,
a second active layer configured to emit yellow light, and
a second conductivity-type semiconductor layer,
wherein the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer, the first active layer, the second active layer and the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer are sequentially stacked;
a reflective layer at least partially surrounding side surfaces of the plurality of emission layers;
a plurality of first electrodes each contacting different emission layers among the plurality of emission layers; and
a plurality of second electrodes each contacting different emission layers among the plurality of emission layers,
wherein each of the plurality of emission layers has a length of
wherein the plurality of emission layers are spaced apart from each other in the first direction by
wherein positions at which the plurality of first electrodes respectively contact the plurality of emission layers are of a same first height, and
positions at which the plurality of second electrodes respectively contact the plurality of emission layers are of a same second height.
Appropriate corrections are needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 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.
12. 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.
13. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
14. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
15. Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2017/0256520 A1) in view of Brandes (US 2009/0206322 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Moon et al. teaches a light-emitting device (1210a, para [0091]) comprising (Fig. 18 upside down):
an emission layer (S:1212/1213/1214 light emitting structure, para [0083]) configured to emit white light (this is a functional limitation/ an intended use); and
a reflective layer (1220, para [0083]) at least partially surrounding side surfaces of the emission layer (S); wherein the emission layer (S) comprises:
a first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (1214, para [0090]);
a second conductivity-type semiconductor layer (1212, para [0090]) on the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (1214);
a first active layer (1213, para [0090]) between the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (1214) and the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer (1212), the first active layer (1213) configured to emit blue light (this is a functional limitation/ an intended use).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moon et al. is silent to explicitly disclose, a second active layer between the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer and the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer, the second active layer configured to emit yellow light.
Brandes discloses wherein (Fig. 1B, para [0039]), a second active layer (105: 106’, para [0039]) between the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (109) and the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer (108), the second active layer (106’) configured to emit yellow light (this is a functional limitation/ an intended use).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the light emitting structure as taught by Brandes, and substitute the light emitting layer of Moon et al., in order to produce broadband LED chip that emits light of different emission wavelengths over a selected wavelength range (para [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Moon et al. and Brandes teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Brandes discloses wherein (Fig. 1B, para [0039]), the second active layer (106’) is on the first active layer (106).
Regarding claim 6, Moon et al. and Brandes teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Moon et al. discloses wherein (Fig. 18 upside down), further comprising:
a first electrode (1216) contacting the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (1214); and
a second electrode (1215) contacting the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer (1212).
Regarding claim 7, Moon et al. and Brandes teach all of the limitations of claim 6 from which this claim depends.
The combination of Moon et al. and Brandes discloses wherein, further comprising an opening (see the annotated figure below: Fig. 18 upside down) penetrating each of the first conductivity-type semiconductor layer (1214), the first active layer (1213), and the second active layer (106’, Brandes, Fig. 1B),
wherein the second electrode (1215) is connected to the second conductivity-type semiconductor layer (1212) within the opening.
PNG
media_image2.png
592
714
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Moon et al. and Brandes teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Moon et al. discloses wherein (Fig. 18 upside down), the reflective layer (1220) surrounds an entire area of the side surfaces of the emission layer (S:1212/1213/1214).
Regarding claim 10, Moon et al. and Brandes teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Moon et al. discloses wherein (Fig. 18 upside down), the reflective layer (1220) is on a lower surface of the emission layer (S:1212/1213/1214).
16. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 2017/0256520 A1) in view of Brandes (US 2009/0206322 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2012/0205620 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Moon et al. and Brandes teach all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Moon et al. discloses wherein (Fig. 18 upside down), a peak wavelength of the blue light is between about 425 nm and about 480 nm (440 nm to 460 nm, para [0111]).
Moon et al. and Brandes are silent to explicitly disclose, wherein a peak wavelength of the yellow light is between about 520 nm and about 600 nm.
Sato et al. teaches wherein, a peak wavelength of the yellow light is between about 520 nm and about 600 nm (560nm-580nm, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the light emitting material as taught by Moon et al. and Brandes, and substitute the light emitting material of Moon et al. and Brandes, in order to eliminate the spontaneous and piezoelectric polarization effects in GaN optoelectronic devices is to grow the devices on nonpolar planes of the crystal. (para [0012]).
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 recites…. the second active layer comprises a quantum well layer, a quantum barrier layer, and an intermediate lattice layer,
wherein the quantum well layer comprises indium gallium nitride,
wherein the quantum barrier layer comprises aluminum gallium nitride,
wherein the intermediate lattice layer is between the quantum well layer and the quantum barrier layer, and
wherein the intermediate lattice layer comprises indium gallium nitride or aluminum gallium nitride.
The prior art, Moon et al. (US 2017/0256520 A1) or Brandes (US 2009/0206322 A1) does not disclose the second active layer that comprises quantum well, quantum barrier….the intermediate lattice layer is located between the quantum well and the quantum barrier. Therefore, none of the prior art of references quoted in PTO-892, discloses the limitation as stated above.
Examiner’s Note
18. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns/lines in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIDARUL MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)272-8823. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
20. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/DIDARUL A MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812