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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant notes that “Shur Fails to Disclose or Suggest the Claimed Ultraviolet Transparent Contact (UVTC)” (applicant’s illatics). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges “Inchinose also does not teach or suggest the claimed UVTC”. The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that Inchinose disclose the same material beta- Ga2O3. Since Inchinose discloses the same material, one of ordinary skill would expect the same material to have the same properties (i.e. “the claimed UVTC”). MPEP 2112.01 II discloses “’Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.’ In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.” Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges “the combination would not yield the claimed invention”. The examiner disagrees. The applicant has not provided evidence for the allegation “the combination would not yield the claimed invention”. MPEP 716.01(c) II discloses “Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965)”. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges “There is no articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would discard Shur's explicitly taught metallic p-type contact layer in favor of a p-type p-Ga2O3 contact layer 7 from the unrelated Ga2O3 device architecture of Inchinose.” The examiner disagrees. The examiner uses the rational in MPEP 2143 A Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results. MPEP 2143 A discloses “[t]he rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395”. In this case, all of the elements of the claims were known and one of ordinary skill could combine the elements to produce predictable results. The applicant has not provided any evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur et al. (US 2017/0117437) in view of Inchinose et al. (US 2008/0142795).
Regarding claim 1, Shur et al. disclose a substrate (12) (fig 1A), an n-type region (18, fig 1A, AlGaN) formed on or above the substrate, an active region (19) [0040, Al.sub.xGa.sub.1-xN with 0≦x≦1, would emit UV light because the disclosed composition is within the claimed range AlxInyGa1-x-yN where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1. Moreover, GaN has a bandgap of 3.4 eV. MPEP 2112.01 [R-10.2019] discloses “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”] formed on or above the n-type region, a p-type region (20, transparent AlGaN, fig. 1A) formed on or above the active region, and at least one ultraviolet transparent contact (UVTC) (22)[0042, the p-type contact layer 22 can comprise metallic regions annealed to the p-type AlGaN layer 20. These regions can be transparent to …the target radiation] formed on or above the p- type region, and the n-type region [0078 discloses 54 is transparent, and 0067 discloses layer 54 is made up of AlGaN, and figure 1A discloses layer18 is AlGaN, therefore since layer 18 is the same material as the transparent layer the examiner submits 18 is transparent ], the p-type region (figure 1A) and the ultraviolet transparent contact [0042] are transparent to the UV light .
Shur et al. fails to explicitly disclose an ultraviolet transparent contact made of an alloy composition of beta- Ga2O3.
Inchinose et al. disclose transparent contact (7) made of beta- Ga2O3 [0059] (fig. 1). (Selim US 20230377903 discloses the beta- Ga2O3 has a bandgap of 4.5 to 5ev[0049].)
The combination would result in the active layer, GaN, having a lower band gap than beta- Ga2O3.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using the transparent contact made of beta- Ga2O3 in an LED), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. beta- Ga2O3 would perform as a transparent contact).
Regarding claims 4, Inchinose et al. disclose transparent contact (7) made of beta- Ga2O3 [0059] (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Shur et al. disclose the ultraviolet transparent contact is deposited [0042, 0045]. The way in which the ultraviolet transparent contact is deposited does not patentably distinguish the claim. MPEP 2113 I discloses“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same… the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 7, Shur et al. disclose the ultraviolet transparent contact (7) is bonded on or above the p-type layer (6) (fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur et al. (US 2017/0117437) (Shur 2017), in view of Inchinose et al. (US 2008/0142795) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 20170309780) Selim (US 20230377903) and Shur et al. (US 2019/0207059)(hereinafter Shur 2019).
Shur 2017 and Inchinose et al. disclose the invention supra.
Regarding claims 8, Shur 2017 and Inchinose et al. fails to explicitly disclose the n-type region, the p-type region and the ultraviolet transparent contact each has a bandgap larger than the active region.
Selim discloses the beta- Ga2O3 has a bandgap of 4.5 to 5ev[0049].
Shur 2019 disclose the UV LED use AlGaN because of the tunable band gap between 3.4 and 6.2 eV [0004].
Park disclose if n-type and p-type nitride semiconductor layers have smaller energy band-gaps than energy of UV light emitted from an active layer, UV light emitted from the active layer can be absorbed into the n-type and p-type nitride semiconductor layers in the light emitting diode [0002].
The combination of Shur 2017 in view of Inchinose et al. Park Selim and Shur 2019. Shur 2019 disclose the claimed invention except for the active layer having a smaller band gap than the n-type layer the p-type layer and the transparent contact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to tune the band gap of the active layer to be less than 4.4 eV (through tuning) and make the band gaps of the n-type layer greater than 4.5 eV(through tuning) the p-type layer greater than 4.5 eV (through tuning) and the transparent contact 4.5 eV-5.0eV, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Shur 2017 in view of Inchinose et al. Park Selim and Shur et al. Shur 2019 because the combined teachings would direct one of ordinary skill in the art to form a LED where the active region has a lower band gap (i.e. through band gap tuning) than the n-type layer the p-type layer and the transparent contact so that the light from the active layer will not be absorbed by the the n-type layer the p-type layer and the transparent contact [Park 0002].
Claim(s) 9, 10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur et al. (US 2017/0117437) in view of Inchinose et al. (US 2008/0142795) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yonkee et al. (WO2018/035322) , (2021/0104504 is the child of WO2018/035322 and has the same disclosure. The examiner will use the paragraph numbers in 2021/0104504 to evidence where elements are disclosed).
Shur 2017 and Inchinose et al. disclose the invention supra. Shur et al. disclose n-type region is a first n-type region
Shur 2017 and Inchinose et al. fail to disclose, a second n-type region is formed on or above the p-type region, wherein the second n-type region is transparent to the UV light.
Yonkee et al. disclose a second n-type region [0324] is formed on or above the p-type region [0324], wherein the second n-type region is transparent to the UV light [0324].
The combination of Shur et al and Inchinose et al. and Yonkee et al. would result in
the ultraviolet transparent contact is formed on or above the second n-type region (i.e. above both the p-type region and the second n-type region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Shur et al. and Yonkee et al. because second n-type region on the p-type region will form a tunnel junction and will result in current spreading and improve hole injections into the p-type region [Yonkee et al. 0320] and enables high light extraction efficiency UV LEDs by improving current spreading [Yonkee et al. 0324].
Regarding claim 10, Yonkee et al. disclose the second n-type region forms a tunnel junction with the p-type region [320,324].
Regarding claim 14, Yonkee et al. disclose wherein the second n-type region is a comprised of n-AlGaN (1916)(see fig. 19a).
Claim(s) 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur et al. (US 2017/0117437) in view of Inchinose et al. (US 2008/0142795)
Regarding claim 15, Shur et al. disclose a substrate (12) (fig 1A), an n-type region (18) formed on or above the substrate, an active region (19) [0040, Al.sub.xGa.sub.1-xN with 0≦x≦1, would emit UV light because the disclosed composition is within the claimed range AlxInyGa1-x-yN where 0 ≤ x ≤ 1, 0 ≤ y ≤ 1. Moreover, GaN has a bandgap of 3.4 eV. MPEP 2112.01 [R-10.2019] discloses “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”] formed on or above the n-type region, a p-type region (20, transparent AlGaN, fig. 1A) formed on or above the active region, and at least one ultraviolet transparent contact (UVTC) (22)[0042, the p-type contact layer 22 can comprise metallic regions annealed to the p-type AlGaN layer 20. These regions can be transparent to …the target radiation (i.e. UV)] formed on or above the p- type region, and the n-type region [0078 discloses 54 is transparent, and 0067 discloses layer 54 is made up of AlGaN, and figure 1A discloses layer18 is AlGaN, therefore since layer 18 is the same material as the transparent layer the examiner submits 18 is transparent ], the p-type region (figure 1A) and the ultraviolet transparent contact [0042] are transparent to the UV light .
Inchinose et al. disclose transparent contact made of beta- Ga2O3 [0059] (fig. 1). (Selim US 20230377903 discloses the beta- Ga2O3 has a bandgap of 4.5 to 5ev[0049].)
Shur et al. fails to explicitly disclose an ultraviolet transparent contact made beta- Ga2O3.
Inchinose et al. disclose transparent contact (7) made of beta- Ga2O3 [0059] (fig. 1). (Selim US 20230377903 discloses the beta- Ga2O3 has a bandgap of 4.5 to 5ev[0049].)
The combination would result in the active layer, GaN, having a lower band gap than beta- Ga2O3.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using the transparent contact made of beta- Ga2O3 in an LED), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e. beta- Ga2O3 would perform as a transparent contact).
Regarding claims 18, Inchinose et al. disclose transparent contact made of beta- Ga2O3 [0059] (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Shur et al. disclose the ultraviolet transparent contact is bonded on or above the p-type layer [0042].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur et al. (US 2017/0117437) (Shur 2017), in view of Inchinose et al. (US 2008/0142795) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Park (US 20170309780) Selim (US 20230377903) and Shur et al. (US 2019/0207059)(hereinafter Shur 2019).
Shur 2017 and Inchinose et al. disclose the invention supra.
Regarding claims 8, Shur 2017 and Inchinose et al. fails to explicitly disclose the n-type region, the p-type region and the ultraviolet transparent contact each has a bandgap larger than the active region.
Selim discloses the beta- Ga2O3 has a bandgap of 4.5 to 5ev[0049].
Shur 2019 disclose the UV LED use AlGaN because of the tunable band gap between 3.4 and 6.2 eV [0004].
Park disclose if n-type and p-type nitride semiconductor layers have smaller energy band-gaps than energy of UV light emitted from an active layer, UV light emitted from the active layer can be absorbed into the n-type and p-type nitride semiconductor layers in the light emitting diode [0002].
The combination of Shur 2017 in view of Inchinose et al. Park Selim and Shur et al. Shur 2019 disclose the claimed invention except for the active layer having a smaller band gap than the n-type layer the p-type layer and the transparent contact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to tune the band gap of the active layer to be less than 4.4 eV (through tuning) and make the band gaps of the n-type layer greater than 4.5 eV(through tuning) the p-type layer greater than 4.5 eV (through tuning) and the transparent contact 4.5 eV-5.0eV, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Shur 2017 in view of Inchinose et al. Park Selim and Shur et al. Shur 2019 because the combined teachings would direct one of ordinary skill in the art to form a LED where the active region has a lower band gap (i.e. through band gap tuning) than the n-type layer the p-type layer and the transparent contact so that the light from the active layer will not be absorbed by the the n-type layer the p-type layer and the transparent contact [Park 0002].
Claim(s) 22, 23, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shur et al. (US 2017/0117437) in view of Inchinose et al. (US 2008/0142795) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Yonkee et al. (WO2018/035322) , (2021/0104504 is the child of WO2018/035322 and has the same disclosure. The examiner will use the paragraph numbers in 2021/0104504 to evidence where elements are disclosed).
Shur 2017 and Inchinose et al. disclose the invention supra. Shur et al. disclose n-type region is a first n-type region
Shur 2017 and Inchinose et al. fail to disclose, a second n-type region is formed on or above the p-type region, wherein the second n-type region is transparent to the UV light.
Yonkee et al. disclose a second n-type region [0324] is formed on or above the p-type region [0324], wherein the second n-type region is transparent to the UV light [0324].
The combination of Shur et al and Inchinose et al. and Yonkee et al. would result in
the ultraviolet transparent contact is formed on or above the second n-type region (i.e. above both the p-type region and the second n-type region).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Shur et al. and Yonkee et al. because second n-type region on the p-type region will form a tunnel junction and will result in current spreading and improve hole injections into the p-type region [Yonkee et al. 0320] and enables high light extraction efficiency UV LEDs by improving current spreading [Yonkee et al. 0324].
Regarding claim 23, Yonkee et al. disclose the second n-type region forms a tunnel junction with the p-type region [320,324].
Regarding claim 27, Yonkee et al. disclose wherein the second n-type region is a comprised of n-AlGaN (1916)(see fig. 19a).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11-13, 19 and 24-26 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.
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 BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights