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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2018/0019375 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita et al. teach a method for manufacturing a nitride semiconductor light-emitting element (III-nitride semiconductor light-emitting device 100; Figs. 1 and 2C, [0038]), comprising: forming a light-emitting layer (40; Fig. 2C, [0038]) comprising a well layer (41; Fig. 1, [0038]) comprising AlGaN ([0039]) and emitting ultraviolet light ([0030]); forming, on the light-emitting layer (40), an electron blocking layer (50b1; Fig. 2C, [0053]) comprising AlGaN ([0039]) with a first Al composition ratio (the Al composition ratio of 50b1) higher than an Al composition ratio of the well layer (the Al content of 41; the Al content of 50b1, which is a part of the layer 50, is higher than the Al content of 42, which is higher than Al content of 41; [0053, 0043, 0042]); forming an intermediate layer (50a/50b2/50c is an intermediate layer between 50b1 and 60; Fig. 2C) containing both the n-type dopant (50a is Si-based doped and Si is an n-type dopant; Fig. 2C, [0038, 0040]) and the p-type dopant (50c is p-type doped and has p-type impurities; Fig. 2C, [0051]) by intermittently supplying an n-type dopant (dopants are supplied using impurity gases as disclosed in [0081], n-type dopant of Si is supplied to 50a of Si doped layer, but stopped at the layer 50b2 of undoped layer; Fig. 2C; [0053, 0081]) and a p-type dopant (dopants are supplied using impurity gases as disclosed in [0081], p-type dopant is stopped in layers 50a of Si doped layer and 50b2 of undoped layer, but is started in the layer 50c of p doped layer; [0053-0054, 0081]) onto an upper surface of the electron blocking layer (50b1; see Figs 2C and 4G; [0053, 0038, 0069]); and forming, on the intermediate layer (50a, 50b2, 50c), a p-type cladding layer (60; Fig. 2C, [0038]) comprising AlGaN ([0039]) with a second Al composition ratio (the Al content of 60; [0038]) lower than the first Al composition ratio (the Al content of 50b1, which is a part of the layer 50, is higher than the Al content of 60, [0053, 0038]) and being doped with a predetermined concentration of a p-type dopant ([0044]).
Fujita et al. do not explicitly teach a second Al composition ratio higher than the Al composition ratio of the well layer.
Fujita et al. teach a second Al composition ratio (the Al content of 60, which includes 61; [0038, 0043, 0055]) to be 0.35≦y<b ([0055]), where y is the Al content of 61, and b is the Al content of the barrier layer as shown in [0020], and 0.4≦b≦0.95 as shown in ([0020]). Thus, 0.35≦y<0.95. Fujita et al. also teach the Al composition ratio of the well layer to be from 0.3 to 0.8 ([0042]). Thus, Fujita et al. teach at least a partial range of y (i.e. a second Al composition ratio) from about 0.8 to 0.95 would satisfy the claimed relationship of “a second Al composition ratio higher than the Al composition ratio of the well layer”, that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Northrup et al. (US 2013/0082237 A1) teach a light emitting device having Mg doped layers on the top of the electron blocking layer.
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 HSIN YI HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 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, Zandra V Smith can be reached on 571-272-2429. 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.
/HSIN YI HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 7/12/2026
Prosecution Insights