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 with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2012/0190148).
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al. disclose a stacked structure (fig. 7), comprising stacked structure units disposed along a horizontal direction (fig. 3), wherein each of the stacked structure (top layerand bottom layers of islands, see mark up below) units comprises stacked island structures separated from each other along the horizontal direction (fig. 3, patterned substrate); and an N-type semiconductor layer (5)[0026], a light-emitting layer (6, quantum well)[0026] and a P-type semiconductor layer (7)[0026] sequentially laminated on the stacked structure wherein a gap (10, etched cavity)[0026] is present between the stacked island structures that are adjacent to each other, and a recess (top of etched cavity 10, fig. 7)[0026] concaved away from the stacked structure is further formed at a side of the N-type semiconductor layer in contact with the stacked structure (fig. 7), wherein the recess is formed corresponding to the gap, and the recess and the gap are in communication (fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lin et al. disclose the stacked structure is a photonic crystal structure (fig. 7, periodic islands).
Regarding claim 3, Lin et al. disclose the adjacent stacked structure units that are adjacent to each other are separated from each other (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 6, Lin et al. disclose disclose the stacked structure units are smallest repeating units to form the stacked structure; and each of the stacked structure units comprises at least three stacked island structures separated from each other along the horizontal direction (fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Lin et al. disclose the and an N-type semiconductor layer (5), a light-emitting layer (6) and a P-type semiconductor layer (7) and the method (epitaxial process) does not patentably distinguish the structure from the prior art. MPEP 2113 discloses “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 as or obvious from a product of the prior art, 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 12, Lin et al. disclose a sapphire substrate [0007].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2012/0190148) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0114935) and Jain et al. (US 2017/0104129).
Lin disclose the invention supra.
Lin et al. fails to disclose one of the stacked island structures comprises a buffer layer and a first semiconductor layer sequentially laminated.
Huang et al. disclose one of the stacked island structures (202, 902a) comprises a buffer layer (902, AlN) and a first semiconductor layer (902, GaN) sequentially laminated [0038, 0049].
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 (growing a layer over the patterned substrate using a buffer layer), 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 (The stacked island layers would control reflection of the light from the LED [ Huang 0038, 0040, 0041]. Moreover, the overgrowth of the layer over gaps will have residual stress release since the overgrown layer easily deforms [0005, Jain et al.])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2012/0190148) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0114935) and Jain et al. (US 2017/0104129).
Lin disclose the invention supra.
Lin et al. fails to disclose one of the stacked island structures comprises second semiconductor layers and third semiconductor layers laminated alternately; a material of the second semiconductor layers is Alx1Iny1Ga1-x1-y1N, and a material of the third semiconductor layers is Alx2Iny2Ga1-x2-y2N, wherein X1, Y1, X2 and Y2 are valued from 0 to 1.
Regarding claim 5, Huang et al. disclose one of the stacked island structures (202, 902a) comprises second semiconductor layers (GaN) and third semiconductor layers (AlN) laminated alternately; a material of the second semiconductor layers (GaN, [0038,0049]) is Alx1Iny1Ga1-x1-y1N, and a material of the third semiconductor layers (AlN, [0038, 0049]) is Alx2Iny2Ga1-x2-y2N, wherein X1, Y1, X2 and Y2 are valued from 0 to 1.
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 (growing a layer over the patterned substrate using stacked semiconductor layers), 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 (The stacked island layers would control reflection of the light from the LED [ Huang 0038, 0040, 0041]. Moreover, the overgrowth of the layer over gaps will have residual stress release since the overgrown layer easily deforms [0005, Jain et al.])
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2012/0190148) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0114935) and Jain et al. (US 2017/0104129).
Lin disclose the invention supra.
Lin et al. fails to disclose a shape of a section of one of the stacked island structures is a circle.
Regarding claim 7, Huang et al. disclose a shape of a section of one of the stacked island structures (300a) is a circle (fig. 3A, when viewed from above).
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 (growing a layer over the patterned substrate in the shape of circles), 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 (The stacked island layers would control reflection of the light from the LED [ Huang 0038, 0040, 0041]. Moreover, the overgrowth of the layer over gaps will have residual stress release since the overgrown layer easily deforms [0005, Jain et al.])
Regarding claim 8, Huang et al. disclose the section of the one of the stacked island structures (200, 900a) is a circle (300a, 300b)(fig. 3A and fig 3B, when viewed from above), the section of the one of the stacked island structures (200, 900a, 300b) has a diameter of less than or equal to 50 mm [0039] (The examiner notes figure 3B shows the period 302, which is measured from the midpoint of two different 300b elements. Period 302 is described in [0039] as being 1-20 mm. Therefore, the diameter of the of the 300b would be at maximum 1-20 mm and less than 50 mm.)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2012/0190148) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Huang et al. (US 2009/0114935) and Jain et al. (US 2017/0104129).
Lin disclose the invention supra.
Lin et al. fails to disclose a substrate and a nucleation layer; along a vertical direction, the nucleation layer is disposed between the substrate and the stacked structure and provided with grooves to form a plurality of nucleation-layer-middle-islands separated from each other along the horizontal direction, wherein each stacked island structure corresponds to one nucleation-layer-middle-island.
Regarding claim 11, Huang et al. disclose a substrate (200, 900) and a nucleation layer (bottom layer of stack 902a, AlN [0049], same material as nucleation layer disclosed in specification paragraph 0058); along a vertical direction, the nucleation layer is disposed between the substrate (900) and the stacked structure (902a layers above the first layer) and provided with grooves (spaces between 902a) to form a plurality of nucleation-layer-middle-islands separated from each other along the horizontal direction, wherein each stacked island structure (902a) corresponds to one nucleation-layer-middle-island.
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 (growing a layer over the patterned substrate with nucleation layers), 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 (The stacked island layers would control reflection of the light from the LED [ Huang 0038, 0040, 0041]. Moreover, the overgrowth of the layer over gaps will have residual stress release since the overgrown layer easily deforms [0005, Jain et al.])
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2012/0190148) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 2012/0292649).
Lin et al.disclose the invention supra.
Lin et al.fail to disclose a reflection layer, wherein along the vertical direction, the reflection layer is disposed at a side of the P-type semiconductor layer away from the light-emitting layer; and a transfer layer, wherein along the vertical direction, the transfer layer is disposed at a side of the reflection layer away from the P-type semiconductor layer.
Sugiyama et al. disclose a reflection layer (80), wherein along the vertical direction, the reflection layer (80) is disposed at a side of the P-type semiconductor layer (20) away from the light-emitting layer (30); and a transfer layer (40), wherein along the vertical direction, the transfer layer (40) is disposed at a side of the reflection layer (80) away from the P-type semiconductor layer (20) (fig. 1).
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 (forming a conductive reflection layer on the p-type layer), 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 (the conductive layer would electrically connect the p-type layer to other layers).
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Huang and Sugiyama et al. disclose the structure above, the limitation “the reflection layer (70) and the transfer layer (80) are manufactured by a chip process” does not distinguish the structure. MPEP 2113 discloses “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 as or obvious from a product of the prior art, 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 claims 15 and 16, Sugiyama et al. disclose the reflection layer is silver (a metal layer) [0053].
Claim(s) 13, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 2012/0190148) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2016/0126422).
Lin et al. disclose the invention supra.
Lin et al. fail to disclose a reflection layer, wherein along the vertical direction, the reflection layer is disposed at a side of the P-type semiconductor layer away from the light-emitting layer; and a transfer layer, wherein along the vertical direction, the transfer layer is disposed at a side of the reflection layer away from the P-type semiconductor layer.
Jeon et al. disclose a reflection layer (91), wherein along the vertical direction, the reflection layer (91) is disposed at a side of the P-type semiconductor layer (50) away from the light-emitting layer (40); and a transfer layer (92), wherein along the vertical direction, the transfer layer (92) is disposed at a side of the reflection layer (91) away from the P-type semiconductor layer (50) (fig. 6).
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 (forming reflection layer on the p-type layer), 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 (the reflection layer would direct light in a certain direction and make sure that light was not lost).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Jeon et al. disclosethe reflection layer (91) comprises a DBR layer laminated [0044] and the DBR layer is formed by alternately laminating first material layers made of titanium oxide and second material layers made of silicon oxide[0044].
Conclusion
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