DETAILED ACTION
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
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments filed June 1, 2026. Claims 1-2 have been amended. No claims have been added. Claim 6 has been canceled. Claims 4 and 11 stand withdrawn. Currently, claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 12-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that Srinlvas fails to disclose the limitations of newly amended claim 1 because “Srinlvas does not disclose that the second reflector layer covering the side wall of the light-emitting structure layer and the second surface of the light-emitting structure layer is formed” and “Srinlvas describes concave shapes covered by a growth restrict mark while opening regions remain for growth, and separately describes a long-cavity resonating cavity between mirrors”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions. Firstly, Srinlvas was not relied upon to disclose the limitation “the second reflector layer covering the side wall of the light-emitting structure layer and the second surface” which was required by originally presented claim 6. This limitation was disclosed by Liu as outlined in the previous Office Action. Secondly, Srinlvas discloses “The III-nitride epitaxial layers 105 take the concave shape 403 at the window on either side of the open region 405” and “The device 111 configuration is best suited for a long-cavity resonating cavity 412 between two light reflecting mirrors 408, 413” in ¶ [0486-0487]. Further, Srinlvas discloses in ¶ [0152] and Fig. 4(g), “the top and bottom DBR mirrors of the removed III-nitride epitaxial layers 105, 106, 109 at the wing region of the ELO III-nitride layers 105 can be used as a resonant cavity”, meaning disclosing the resonant cavity 412 does not distinguish Srinlvas from the instant application because the resonant cavity includes the light-emitting structure layer.
The Applicant further asserts that the combination of Srinlvas and Liu does not disclose the limitations of newly amended claim 1, which were taken from originally presented claim 6. Specifically, that “Liu does not disclose or suggest modifying Srinlvas so that, after removing the epitaxial base, the same second reflector layer that covers the protruding second surface of the light-emitting structure layer also covers the side wall of that light-emitting structure layer” and Liu discloses “a different LED structure and includes penetrating holes for electrode contact, rather than a reflector layer formed over the protruding second surface and side wall to cooperate with a first reflector layer in the claimed curved-cavity arrangement”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these assertions. 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).
Firstly, Liu was not relied upon to disclose the limitations prior to the forming of the second reflector covering the side wall of the light-emitting structure layer. Srinlvas disclosed the limitations of claim 1 as outlined in the previous Office Action. Further, Srinlvas discloses forming a second reflector on the second surface of the light-emitting structure layer (“two light reflecting mirrors 408, 413”, in ¶ [0487] and Fig. 4(g)). Liu was only relied upon to disclose the method of forming second reflector such that it covered the side wall of the light-emitting structure layer, which is shown in Fig. 29 of Liu and described in ¶ [0061-0061]. Liu discloses that the reflector on the side wall increases the light extraction from the light emitting device which would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Srinlvas and Liu in the way suggested in the Office Action despite differences in the structures. The fact that Liu discloses penetrating holes for electrode contact does not distinguish the structure from the instant application which discloses “the second electrode 10 can be inserted into the second reflector layer 8 and contact with the light-emitting structure layer 2” in ¶ [0070], as shown in Fig. 10 and claim 10.
Further, Srinlvas discloses a second reflector layer 413 which cooperates with the first reflector layer 408 in the curved-cavity arrangement. However, it is noted that “a reflector layer… to cooperate with a first reflector layer in the claimed curved-cavity arrangement” is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained as appropriate and presented in full herein.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinlvas et al. (US 20240079856 A1) herein after “Srinlvas” in view of Liu et al. (US 20210066549 A1) herein after “Liu”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 4(a)-4(g) of Srinlvas disclose a method for manufacturing a light-emitting device (“a method for fabricating good quality light emitting apertures of Vertical Cavity Surface Emitting Lasers (VCSELs) on wings of an Epitaxial Lateral Overgrowth (ELO) region”, ¶ [0016]), comprising
providing an epitaxial base (Fig. 4(a), substrate 101, layer 401, ¶ [0472]) with a first concave portion (Fig. 4(d), concave shapes 403, ¶ [04716), wherein an inner surface of the first concave portion (403) is a curved surface;
epitaxially growing a light-emitting structure layer (Fig. 4(f), epitaxial layers 105, base layers 106, ¶ [0486]) on the epitaxial base (101, 401), wherein the light-emitting structure layer (105, 106) comprises a first surface (top surface in Fig. 4(f)) and a second surface (bottom surface in Fig. 4(f)) opposite the first surface, and the second surface protrudes towards the first concave portion (Fig. 4(f), “the III-nitride epitaxial layers 105 take the concave shape 403 at the window on either side of the open region 405”, ¶ [0486]);
forming a first reflector layer (Fig. 4(g), reflecting mirrors 408, ¶ [0487]) on the first surface; and
removing the epitaxial base (Fig. 4(g), “devices 111 are then removed from the substrate 101”, ¶ [0489]) to form a second reflector layer (Fig. 4(g), reflecting mirrors 413, ¶ [0487]) covering the second surface (Fig. 4(g), “the top and bottom DBR mirrors of the removed III-nitride epitaxial layers 105, 106, 109 at the wing region of the ELO III-nitride layers 105 can be used as a resonant cavity”, ¶ [0152]);
wherein the light-emitting structure layer (105) further comprises a side wall connecting the first surface and the second surface (shown in Fig. 4(g), and forming the second reflector layer (413) covering the second surface (bottom surface in Fig. 4(g)).
Srinlvas fails to disclose wherein forming the second reflector layer covering the side wall of the light-emitting structure layer and the second surface.
In the similar field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Fig. 29 of Liu discloses forming the second reflector layer (Fig. 29, reflective insulating member 153, ¶ [0061]) covering the side wall of the light-emitting structure layer (Fig. 29, epitaxial layered structure 120, ¶ [0024]) and the second surface (top surface in Fig. 29) (“The first insulating layer 141 and the reflective structure 150 are integrally formed as a reflective insulating member 153”, ¶ [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to modify the light-emitting device of Srinlvas with the second reflector as disclosed by Liu, to improve the light extraction efficiency (see Liu, ¶ [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, and further disclose wherein the epitaxial base (101, 401) comprises a substrate (Fig. 4(a), layer 401, ¶ [0472]), and the first concave portion (403) is formed in the substrate (Fig. 4(d), “The highly doped III-nitride layer 401 is selectively etched… The resulting concave shapes 403 can appear at the selectively etched regions”, ¶ [0474-0475]).
Regarding claim 3, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, and further disclose wherein the epitaxial base (101, 401) comprises a substrate (401) and a nucleation layer (Fig. 4(e), growth restrict mark 404, ¶ [0471]) from bottom to top, the first concave portion (403) is formed in the substrate (401), and the nucleation layer (404) is formed on the substrate (401) in a same shape with the first concave portion (Fig. 4(e), “The resulting concave shapes 403 are covered with a growth restrict mark 404”, ¶ [0476]).
Regarding claim 5, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, and further disclose wherein the first concave portion (403) is plural in number (shown in Fig. 4(d)).
Regarding claim 8, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, and further disclose wherein the second reflector layer (413) is made of insulating material (“The second reflecting layer is a combination of one or more dielectric layers”, ¶ [0231]).
Regarding claim 13, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, and Figs. 1(c) and 4(g) further disclose a light-emitting device (Fig. 1(c), a VCSEL device 111, ¶ [0120]), wherein the light-emitting device is manufactured by the method of claim 1 (“FIG. 4(g) is a VCSEL device 111 fabricated using the substrate 101”, ¶ [0127]).
Regarding claim 14, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 4(g) further discloses wherein area of the first reflector layer (408) is smaller than area of an opening of the first concave portion (403).
Regarding claim 15, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 4(g) further discloses wherein a plurality of first reflector layers (408) corresponds to a plurality of first concave portions (403) one by one.
Regarding claim 17, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, and Fig. 4(g) further discloses further comprising: forming a support layer (Fig. 4(g), p-pad 409, ¶ [0488]) wrapping the first reflector layer (408).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinlvas (US 20240079856 A1) and Liu (US 20210066549 A1) in further view of Huang et al. (CN 107369746 A) herein after “Huang”.
Regarding claim 7, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, but Srinlvas fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second reflector layer has a reflectivity of 50%-80%.
In the similar field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Fig. 1 of Huang discloses wherein the second reflector layer has a reflectivity of 50%-80% (Fig. 1, “DBR 9 is the exit mirror of the resonant cavity, with a reflectivity of approximately 55%”, ¶ [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to modify second reflector layer of Srinlvas with the reflectivity as disclosed by Huang, to obtain desired light output (see Huang, ¶ [0065]).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinlvas (US 20240079856 A1) and Liu (US 20210066549 A1) in further view of Pan (US 20110114917 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, but Srinlvas fails to disclose wherein the light-emitting structure layer further comprises an active layer, which comprises a first conductive type semiconductor layer, a light-emitting layer, and a second conductive type semiconductor layer from top to bottom, and the method further comprising:
forming a first electrode electrically connected to the first conductive type semiconductor layer; and
forming a second electrode electrically connected to the second conductive type semiconductor layer.
In the similar field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Fig. 5I of Pan discloses wherein the light-emitting structure layer further comprises an active layer, which comprises a first conductive type semiconductor layer (Fig. 5I, Group III-V compound layer 440, ¶ [0058]), a light-emitting layer (Fig. 5I, quantum-well layer 430, ¶ [0058]), and a second conductive type semiconductor layer (Fig. 5I, Group III-V compound layer 420, ¶ [0058]) from top to bottom, and the method further comprising:
forming a first electrode (Fig. 5I, upper electrode 460, ¶ [0058]) electrically connected to the first conductive type semiconductor layer (440); and
forming a second electrode (Fig. 5I, lower electrode 470, ¶ [0058]) electrically connected to the second conductive type semiconductor layer (420).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to modify the light-emitting structure of Srinlvas with the layers as disclosed by Pan, to optimize light emission (see Pan, ¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 10, Srinlvas, Liu and Pan together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 9 as applied above, and Srinlvas further discloses wherein the first electrode (p-electrode) and the second electrode (n-electrode) are respectively disposed on both sides of the light-emitting structure layer (“the top and bottom electrode configuration”, ¶ [0152]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinlvas (US 20240079856 A1) and Liu (US 20210066549 A1) in further view of Otoma et al. (US 6661823 B1) herein after “Otoma”.
Regarding claim 12, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, but Srinlvas fails to disclose wherein the light-emitting structure layer comprises an active layer and an oxide layer stacked, and the oxide layer comprises a low resistance region and a high resistance region surrounding the low resistance region.
In the similar field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Fig. 1B of Otoma discloses wherein the light-emitting structure layer comprises an active layer (Fig. 1B, active layer 103, col. 10, line 29) and an oxide layer (Fig. 1B, AlAs layer 104, col. 10, line 32) stacked, and the oxide layer (104) comprises a low resistance region (Fig. 1B, non-oxidized region 104B, col. 19, lines 18-19) and a high resistance region (Fig. 1B, oxidized region 104A, col. 19, line 18) surrounding the low resistance region (104B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to modify the light-emitting structure of Srinlvas with the layers as disclosed by Otoma, to limit the current path (see Otoma,col. 1, lines 50-51).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinlvas (US 20240079856 A1) and Liu (US 20210066549 A1) in further view of Futagawa et al. (US 20150044795 A1) herein after “Futagawa”.
Regarding claim 16, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, but Srinlvas fails to disclose further comprising: forming an ITO layer on the first surface.
In the similar field of endeavor of manufacturing a light emitting element, Fig. 5 of Futagawa discloses further comprising: forming an ITO layer (Fig. 5, second electrode 32, ¶ [0096]) on the first surface (Fig. 5, second surface 22b, ¶ [0096]) (“the transparent conductive material that configures the second electrode include indium tin oxide”, ¶ [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to modify the light-emitting structure of Srinlvas with the ITO layer as disclosed by Futagawa, to efficiently supply a current to the element region (see Futagawa, ¶ [0078]).
Regarding claim 18, Srinlvas and Liu together disclose the method for manufacturing a light-emitting device according to claim 1 as applied above, but Srinlvas fails to disclose further comprising: forming a metal protection layer covering the first reflector layer.
In the similar field of endeavor of manufacturing a light emitting element, Fig. 5 of Futagawa discloses further comprising: forming a metal protection layer (Fig. 5, bonding layer 25, ¶ [0101]) covering the first reflector layer (42) (“a bonding layer 25 formed from a solder layer including a gold (Au) layer or a tin (Sn) layer”, ¶ [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filling date of the invention to modify the light-emitting structure of Srinlvas with the metal protection layer as disclosed by Futagawa, to support the device (see Futagawa, ¶ [0101]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CORALIE NETTLES whose telephone number is (571)270-5374. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 11:30am-7pm ET.
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, Yara J Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/C.A.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights