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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/13/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
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) 1-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US Patent Pub 20210057605 A1) in view of Chen (US Patent Pub 20200152830 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugawara teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a base (Fig. 2A, base 112);
and a semiconductor stack including a first semiconductor structure located on the base, a second semiconductor structure located on the first semiconductor structure, and an active structure located between the first semiconductor structure and the second semiconductor structure, the active structure including two confinement layers and a well layer located between the two confinement layers (Fig. 2A, first semiconductor structure 114, second semiconductor structure 116 on 114. Paragraph 0025 teaches a first and second confinement layer as part of 114 and 116. The confinement layers as well as the well layer 140 are interpreted as the active layer);
wherein one of the two confinement layers includes AlGaAs (paragraph 0025),
wherein the well layer includes InGaAs (Paragraph 0025, fig. 2A 141);
and the well layer has a second thickness in a range of 3nm to 6nm (paragraph 0025).
Sugawara fails to teach the device wherein one of the two confinement layers has a first thickness in a range of 200 nm to 400 nm, and wherein one of the two confinement layers includes Alx1Ga1-x1As, and x1 is equal to or larger than 0.25 and equal to or smaller than 0.4.
However, Chen teaches a light emitting device wherein one of the two confinement layers has a first thickness in a range of 200 nm to 400 nm, and wherein one of the two confinement layers includes Alx1Ga1-x1As, and x1 is equal to or larger than 0.25 and equal to or smaller than 0.4 (Chen, Fig. 1C and paragraph 0036 teaches the first or second confinement layers (114 or 116) can have a thickness, between 50 nm and 800 nm, which includes the claimed thickness range. Paragraph 0017 teaches an AlGaAs composition of Alx1Ga1-x1As, wherein 0<x1<4, which includes the claimed x1 range. Paragraph 0036 teaches the confinement layers can be formed of AlGaAs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen into the method of Sugawara by forming the semiconductor device wherein one of the two confinement layers has a first thickness in a range of 200 nm to 400 nm, and wherein one of the two confinement layers includes Alx1Ga1-x1As, and x1 is equal to or larger than 0.25 and equal to or smaller than 0.4. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sugawara in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improved optical-electrical characteristics (such as light-emitting power or forward voltage value) and exhibiting relatively high internal quantum efficiency (IQE) (Chen, paragraph 0056).
Regarding Claim 2, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the active structure outputs a first power and emits a first light having a first peak wavelength at a first current, and outputs a second power and emits a second light having a second peak wavelength at a second current, and outputs a third power and emits a third light having a third peak wavelength at a third current; wherein the first current, the second current and the third current are different from each other, and the first peak wavelength, the second peak wavelength and the third peak wavelength are different from each other (Chen, fig. 2 teaches the device can be operated at a variety of current levels, which result in a variety of outputted power values. Paragraph 0031 teaches the device can be operated at a variety of peak wavelengths. It would be well known to someone in the art to operate the device in the manner as demonstrated by Chen to relate the current level to the output power, which directly relates to the intensity and wavelength of the light emitted).
Furthermore, the structure as taught by the combination above can be operated in the manner as claimed. The limitations relating current, power, and peak wavelength appear to be simply operating a device at a desired current level to achieve a desired device performance, and thus Sugawara in view of Chen would anticipate the limitations of this claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) as well as “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 3, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein the first current, the second current and the third current are smaller than 50 mA (Chen, Fig. 4 demonstrates operating currents below 50 mA).
Furthermore, the structure as taught by the combination above can be operated in the manner as claimed. The limitations relating to the operating current appear to be simply operating a device at a desired currentto achieve a desired device performance, and thus Sugawara in view of Chen would anticipate the limitations of this claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) as well as “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 4, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein the second current is smaller than the first current, and the third current is larger than the first current (Chen, fig. 2, first current 200 mA second current 100 mA, and third current greater than 300 mA).
Furthermore, the structure as taught by the combination above can be operated in the manner as claimed. The limitations relating to the operating current appear to be simply operating a device at a desired bias voltage to achieve a desired device performance, and thus Sugawara in view of Chen would anticipate the limitations of this claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) as well as “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 5, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 4, wherein the semiconductor device has a first deviation coefficient at the second current and a second deviation coefficient at the third current, wherein the first deviation coefficient is a first power ratio of the second power to the first power divided by a first current ratio of the second current to the first current and the second deviation coefficient is a second power ratio of the third power to the first power divided by a second current ratio of the third current to the first current, and wherein the first deviation coefficient is larger than the second deviation coefficient (Sugawara teaches a light emitting semiconductor device (Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the light emitting semiconductor device having the same structure and materials. The same materials arranged in the same manner can be operated to have the same result).
Furthermore, the structure as taught by Sugawara in view of Chen can be operated in the manner as claimed. The limitations relating to the deviation coefficient appear to be simply operating a device using the desired power/current ratios to achieve a desired device performance, and thus Sugawara in view of Chen would anticipate the limitations of this claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) as well as “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 6, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 5, wherein the first deviation coefficient and the second deviation coefficient are in a range of 0.85 to 1.1 (Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the light emitting semiconductor device having the same structure and materials. The same materials arranged in the same manner can be operated to have the same result).
Furthermore, the structure as taught by Sugawara in view of Chen can be operated in the manner as claimed. The limitations relating to the deviation coefficient appear to be simply operating a device using the desired power/current ratios to achieve a desired device performance, and thus Sugawara in view of Chen would anticipate the limitations of this claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) as well as “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 8, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein the first peak wavelength is smaller than the second peak wavelength and larger than the third peak wavelength (Chen, paragraph 0031 teaches the device can be operated at a variety of peak wavelengths).
Furthermore, the structure as taught by the combination above can be operated in the manner as claimed. The limitations relating to the peak wavelength appear to be simply operating a device at a desired current to achieve a desired device performance, and thus Sugawara in view of Chen would anticipate the limitations of this claim (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997)) as well as “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 9, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein the first peak wavelength, the second peak wavelength and the third peak wavelength are in a range of 850 nm to 1150 nm (Chen, paragraph 0031 teaches the device being operated such that the peak wavelength ranges from 700 nm to 3000 nm, which included the claimed peak wavelength range. Further, paragraph 0031 teaches specific peak wavelength examples wherein the first peak wavelength can be 850 nm, the second peak wavelength can be 910 nm, and the third peak wavelength can be 940 nm, all of which fall within the peak wavelength range).
Regarding Claim 10, Sugawara in view of Chem teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprising a reflecting structure located between the base and the first semiconductor structure (Chen, Fig. 1D, reflecting structure 160 located between the base 100 and first semiconductor structure 110).
Regarding Claim 11, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 10, further comprising a conductive structure disposed between the reflecting structure and the first semiconductor structure (Chen, fig. 1C and 1D, semiconductor structure 110 located above reflecting structure 160. Window layer 118 is a part of 110 and would be between the rest of 110 and 160. Paragraph 0039 teaches the window layer is conductive because it is doped).
Regarding Claim 12, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprising a first electrode structure disposed on the second semiconductor structure (Sugawara, fig. 1A, first electrode 50).
Regarding Claim 13, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 12, further comprising a contact layer disposed between the first electrode structure and the second semiconductor structure (Chen, fig. 1C, contact structure 128 located between first electrode structure 150 and second semiconductor structure 120).
Regarding Claim 14, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 13, wherein the contact layer includes a contact area covered by the first electrode structure and an exposing area uncovered by the first electrode structure (Chen, fig. 1C, contact structure 128 is located between first electrode structure 150 and second semiconductor structure 120. The portion under 150 is the area covered under 150 and the portion not covered by 150 is the exposed area).
Regarding Claim 15, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the well layer directly contacts the two confinement layers (Chen, fig. 1C, well layers of 130 directly contact first confinement layer 112 and second confinement layer 122).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara in view of Chen as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US Patent Pub 20230209676 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches the semiconductor device of claim 4.
Sugawara in view of Chen fails to specifically teach the device being operated such that the second current is smaller than 1 mA and equal to or larger than 0.1 mA, and the third current is larger than 1 mA and equal to or smaller than 10 mA.
However, Lee et al. teaches the light emitting semiconductor device that can be operated such that the second current is smaller than 1 mA and equal to or larger than 0.1 mA, and the third current is larger than 1 mA and equal to or smaller than 10 mA (Lee, paragraph 0075 teaches the device can be operated at a second current of 0.2 mA, which is within the claimed current range. Paragraph 0076 teaches the device can be operated at a third current of 5 mA, which is within the claimed current range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee into the method of Sugawara in view of Chen by operating the device such that the second current is smaller than 1 mA and equal to or larger than 0.1 mA, and the third current is larger than 1 mA and equal to or smaller than 10 mA. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sugawara in view of Chen in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of applying currents to the device so that dichroic and trichromatic monolithic light emitting diodes in which two or more emission spectra are simultaneously generated may be implemented (Lee paragraph 0083).
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited current parameters through routine experimentation and optimization to achieved a desired light emission characteristics. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara in view of Chen as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-15 above, and further in view of Tseng et al. (US Patent Pub 20210135052 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, while Sugawara in view Chen teaches a light emitting structure with an active layer located between two confinement layers, wherein the active layer is composed multiple barrier layers located between the well layer, they fail to teach barrier layers made of Alx3Ga1-x3AsyP1-y where x3 is equal to or larger than 0.25 and equal to or smaller than 0.35, and y is equal to or larger than 0.15 and equal to or smaller than 0.25.
However, Tseng teaches a light emitting device having an active structure including barrier layers made of AlGaAsP (paragraph 0028), and can be fabricated to control the composition ratio of each element, represented by AlxGa1-xAsyP1-y with a variety of x and y values, including x equal to or larger than 0.25 and equal to or smaller than 0.35, and y being equal to or larger than 0.15 and equal to or smaller than 0.25 (paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tseng into the method of Sugawara in view of Chen to modify the active structure so the active structure includes multiple barrier layers located between the well layer and the two confinement layers, and one of the barrier layers includes Alx3Ga1x3AsyP1-y, and x3 is equal to or larger than 0.25 and equal to or smaller than 0.35, y is equal to or larger than 0.15 and equal to or smaller than 0.25. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sugawara in view of Chen in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improving the ability of the barrier layer to confine electrons and increase the quantum efficiency of the device (Tseng paragraph 0032).
Regarding Claim 17, Sugawara in view of Chen and in further view of Tseng teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 16, wherein a thickness of the one of the barrier layers is in a range of 3 nm to 6 nm (Chen, paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 18, Sugawara in view of Chen and in further view of Tseng teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a quantity of the well layer is equal to or smaller than 2 (Tseng, paragraph 0030 teaches the number of well layers 108b can be equal to two).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara in view of Chen as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-15 above, and further in view of Macgegor et al. (US Patent Pub 20130271751 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Sugawara in view of Chen teaches a light emitting semiconductor device.
Sugawara in view of Chen fails to teach using a light emitting device in a transmission module capable of emitting and receiving a light signal.
However, Macgegor teaches a transmission module utilizing a light emitting device capable of emitting at an input current, receiving a light signal, and producing output current (Macgegor fig. 1, a light emitting diode element 8 and a photodiode sensor 12, paragraph 0047 and paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Macgegor into the method of Sugawara in view of Chen to have a transmission module with a semiconductor device emitting a signal light with a peak wavelength at an input current, and a light receiver receiving the signal light to output an output current; wherein the output current is proportional to the input current. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sugawara in view of Chen in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing a lower power circuit which is tolerant of variations in temperature (Macgegor, abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Sugawara in view of Chen and in further view of Macgegor fails to specifically teach the absorption wavelength of the device or that the peak wavelength is larger than the absorption wavelength. However, it is obvious that the absorption wavelength has to be less than or equal to the peak of the light emission in order to ensure the receiver fully turns on when detecting the light.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited wavelength dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization to achieved a desired module performance. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as applied above.
Conclusion
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 VICENTE R GONZALES whose telephone number is (571)272-3365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (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.
/V.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights