Iizuka et al. (JP2020-167373A; on IDS) in view of Iguchi et al. (US Pub. 2014/0197373) is repeated
I really liked pointing out that "dielecteric means "insulator"
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-3, 6-10 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.
Re claim 1, the phrase a “predetermined concentration” is broad enough to encompass any conceivable concentration and is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, if a reference discloses an InP substrate that has semi-insulting property as being doped with iron (Fe), it will be considered to read on “a predetermined concentration of Fe”.
Re claim 7, claim 7 recites “…an insulating layer…”; however, “..an insulating layer…”, in already recited in independent claim 1 and it is unclear whether they are referring to the same thing or to separate layers. Currently the insulating layer of claim 1 and the insulating layer of claim 7 are considered to be separate layers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
That is, claim 1 requires the substrate to be doped with Fe, which is a transition metal capable of producing a deep-level trap; thus, the limitations of claim 3 do not further limit the independent claim 1. In contrast, it appears that claim 3 is attempting to broaden the claim by offering possibilities other than Fe as the transition metal dopant capable of producing a deep-level trap.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-3, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iizuka et al. (JP2020-167373A; on IDS) in view of Iguchi et al. (US Pub. 2014/0197373); or alternatively, over Iizuka et al. (JP2020-167373A; on IDS) in view of Iguchi et al. (US Pub. 2014/0197373) and Masuyama et al. (US Pub. 2017/0131473).
Regarding independent claim 1, Iizuka teaches an infrared LED element (Figs. 6-10; para. 0091+; refer also to Fig. 1; para. 0039+) having a peak wavelength in a range from 1000 nm to 1800nm (para. 0050) which is fully within the claimed range of “1000 nm to 2000 nm inclusive”; and therefore anticipates the claim (MPEP 2131.03), the infrared LED element comprising:
an indium phosphide (InP) substrate (3) that has a semi-insulating property (para. 0022, 0092 – wherein an “undoped” substrate would meet this limitation);
a first semiconductor layer (11) of a conduction type that is n-type, the first semiconductor layer being formed on top of the InP substrate (para. 0049);
an active layer (12) formed on top of the first semiconductor layer (para. 0052) for emitting infrared light through the first semiconductor layer and the InP substrate (refer to Fig. 1. para. 0042);
a second semiconductor layer (13, 14) of a conduction type different from the conduction type of the first semiconductor layer, the second semiconductor layer being formed on top of the active layer (para. 0055);
a first electrode (22) formed on top of the first semiconductor layer, the first electrode being in an area in which the active layer is not formed (para. 0059-0063); and
a second electrode (21) formed on top of the second semiconductor layer, the second electrode being disposed at a place apart from the first electrode in a direction parallel to a surface of the InP substrate (para. 0059-0063); and
an insulating layer (31) formed directly on top of the second semiconductor layer (Figs. 6-10) and made of a material that exhibits transparency to the infrared light emitted from the active layer (para. 0071 – where at least SiO2 meets this limitation), the insulating layer surrounding the first and second electrodes (Figs. 6-10).
Iizuka is silent with respect to the InP substrate being doped with a “predetermined concentration” of Fe.
Iguchi teaches a semi-insulating Fe-doped InP substrate to have low optical absorption in the near-infrared region. While a specific Fe concentration is not disclosed, a “predetermined concentration” is broad enough to encompass any conceivable concentration and thus, Iguchi is considered to meet this limitation (refer also to 112 rej.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include Fe within the substrate of Iizuka as taught by Iguchi for the purpose of reducing optical absorption of the substrate.
However, even if it could be successfully argued that the disclosure of Iguchi couldn’t meet the limitation of “predetermined concentration”, Masuyama teaches semi-insulating InP Fe-doped substrates to have an Fe concentration within the range of 1x1015 to 1x1017 cm-3 (para. 0069).
Because Iguchi is silent with respect to a specific Fe doping concentration, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to look elsewhere to find a suitable doping concentration which is provided by Masuyama. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the Fe iron concentration provided by Masuyama to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Re claim 2, Iizuka teaches wherein the InP substrate has asperities that are formed at least in a partial area on a side opposite to the side on which the first semiconductor layer is formed (Fig. 7; para. 0094).
Re claim 3, Iizuka in view of Iguchi (alternatively, in view of Iguchi and Masuyama) teaches wherein the InP substrate is doped with a transition metal capable of producing a deep-level trap (Fe meets this limitation – refer also to 112 rej. with respect to this claim).
Re claim 6, Iizuka teaches a first pad electrode (26) formed on top of the first electrode; and a second pad electrode (25) formed on top of the second electrode, wherein a surface opposite to the InP substrate of the first pad electrode and a surface opposite to the InP substrate of the second pad electrode are positioned at a substantially equal level (Fig. 1; para. 0059-0063).
Re claim 7, Iizuka teaches wherein the second electrode forms a partial electrode that is formed on a partial area of the second semiconductor layer when viewed in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the InP substrate (Fig. 10; para. 0098-0100), the infrared LED element further comprising:
an insulating layer (28) formed on top of the second semiconductor layer, the insulating layer being in an area in which the second electrode is not formed and being made of a material that exhibits transparency to infrared light emitted from the active layer (para. 0100); and
a reflective electrode (27) on top of the second electrode and the insulating layer, the reflective electrode being made of a material that has higher reflectance to the infrared light emitted from the active layer than the second electrode has (para. 0030).
Re claim 8, Iizuka in view of Iguchi (alternatively, in view of Iguchi and Masuyama) teaches wherein the first semiconductor layer is made of a material having a refractive index difference from the InP substrate of less than 0.3. While this limitation is not stated per se, the first semiconductor layer of Iizuka is the same as the Applicant’s; that is and n-type InP layer with the same doping concentration (compare para. 0049 of Iizuka with para. 0055 of Applicant’s specification); therefore, the properties are the same and the limitation of “having a refractive index difference from the InP substrate of less than 0.3” is considered to be inherent because when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent; likewise, if a composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties (MPEP 2112.01, I, II).
Re claim 9, Iizuka teaches wherein a thickness of the InP substrate is greater than or equal to 50 µm and 700 µm or less (para. 0044) which is fully within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 20 µm and therefore anticipates the claim (MPEP 2131.03).
Re claim 10, Iizuka is silent with respect to a translucent layer on the surface of the InP substrate on the side opposite to the other side on which the first semiconductor layer is formed, the translucent layer being made of a material that exhibits transparency to infrared light emitted from the active layer and that has a refractive index between a material of which the InP substrate is made and air.
Iguchi teaches (Fig. 1) a translucent layer (27) on the surface of the InP substrate (1) on the side opposite to the other side on which the analogous first semiconductor layer is formed, the translucent layer being made of a material that exhibits transparency to infrared light and that has a refractive index between a material of which the InP substrate is made and air (para. 0072 – SiON meets this limitation; see para. 0085 of Applicant’s specification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add the translucent layer of Iguchi to the device of Iizuka to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of the providing antireflection and improving the light extraction of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Iizuka fails to disclose “an insulating layer that surrounds the second electrodes and is made of a material exhibiting transparency to infrared light emitted from the active layer”. This is not found persuasive because Iizuka teaches insulating layer (31) that surrounds the second electrodes (as seen in Figs. 6-8) and is made of a material (SiO2) exhibiting transparency to infrared light emitted from the active layer (para. 0071). That is, SiO2 exhibits transparency to infrared light. Applicant also discloses the use of SiO2 as a potential material for their analogous insulating layer (19) in para. 0069 of their specification. While Applicant asserts that insulating layer 31 does not “surround…the second electrodes (21)”; this is not found persuasive as this feature is clearly shown in the cited Figs. 6-10. Applicant further argues that layer 28 of Iizuka cannot be considered an insulating layer because Iizuka teaches it to be “a dielectric layer”. This is not found persuasive because insulating and dielectric are synonyms.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Yamamoto have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this reference.
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 MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (571)272-4237. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899