DETAILED ACTION
Based on the applicant’s arguments filed on 3/30/26, the previous non-final rejection mailed on 1/2/26 is withdrawn; however, the following non-final rejection is now applied.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100”, and “200” has been used to designate two different layers in FIG 1 and 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 thru 3, 8, 9, and 12 thru 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Bour et al. US 2018/0374991 A1. Bour discloses (see, for example, FIG. 12B, 11, and 1A) an optoelectronic semiconductor component 195 comprising a semiconductor body 132, a first injection region 110, first protection region 150, second injection region 102/104/106, second protection region 102/104 and active layer 109/108. In paragraph [0065], Bour discloses the first injection region 110 including p-type (i.e. first conductivity type), and in paragraph [0073], discloses the first protection region 150 including p-type. In paragraph [0065], Bour discloses the second injection region 102/104/106 and second protection region 102/104 including n-type (i.e. second conductivity type). In paragraph [0065], Bour discloses the second injection region 102/104/106 all being grown from each other, and therefore, the layers 102/104/106 are interpreted together as the “second injection region.” Therefore, regarding the limitation “a second injection region in which a second protection region is formed”, Bour still discloses (see, for example, FIG. 12B) this limitation since the second protection region 102/104 is formed in the second injection region 102/104/106 as all the layers are grown from each other. In paragraph [0072], Bour discloses a dopant concentration in the first protection region 150 being higher than in the first injection region 110. In paragraph [0094], Bour discloses a dopant concentration in the second protection region 102/104 including a high value n+ such as high as above 1x1019cm-3, and in paragraph [0065], discloses a portion of the second injection region 106 being unintentionally doped, which is grown from the second protection region 102/104/106, and inherently, the dopant concentration in the second protection region 102/104 is higher than in the second injection region 102/104/106. In FIG. 12B, Bour discloses the second protection region 102/104 being arranged on a side of the second injection region 102/104/106 facing away from the active region 109, and the first protection region 150 extends along a lateral surface of the semiconductor body 132 from a side of the first injection region 110 facing away from the active region 109/108 into the second injection region 102/104/106 and completely penetrates the active region 109/108. In FIG. 1A, Bour more clearly discloses the active layer 108 between the second injection layer 102/104/106, and first injection layer 110.
Regarding claim 2, see, for example, paragraph [0065] wherein Bour discloses AlGaAs,
etc.
Regarding claim 3, see, for example, FIG. 1A wherein Bour discloses the shielding layer 104.
Regarding claim 8, see, for example, FIG. 12B wherein Bour discloses the first protection region 150 ends within the shielding region 104.
Regarding claim 9, see, for example, FIG. 12B wherein Bour discloses the first protection region 150 being arranged outside a core region.
Regarding claim 12, see, for example, paragraph [0072] wherein Bour discloses the first protection region 150 having Zn.
Regarding claim 13, seem, for example, paragraph [0066] wherein Bour discloses the active region 108 being formed as a quantum well structure.
Regarding claim 14, Bour does not disclose the active region is intended to emit an electromagnetic radiation in a wavelength range from 580 nm to 1 pm, preferably in a wavelength range from 580 nm to 660 nm; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the active region being intended to emit an electromagnetic radiation in a wavelength range from 580 nm to 1 pm, preferably in a wavelength range from 580 nm to 660 nm in order to produce light according to the preferences of the user. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is invented to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F. 2d 1647 (1987). Also, see the 112 rejection above.
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 thru 7, 10, 11, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour et al. US 2018/0374991 A1 as applied to claim 1-3, 8, 9, and 12-14. Bour does not clearly disclose at least one of the shielding region and the second injection region are formed with a material comprising aluminum, and the shielding region comprises a smaller proportion of aluminum than the second injection region; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the shielding region comprising a smaller proportion of aluminum than the second injection region in order to have a lower resistance in the injection region for better current flow.
Regarding claim 5, Bour does not disclose the shielding region has a composition according to the formula (InGa1-xAlx)0.49P0.51, wherein 0.5 < x <0.9, preferably 0.6 < x <0.8, and particularly preferably x = 0.6; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the shielding region have a composition according to the formula (InGa1-xAlx)0.49P0.51, wherein 0.5 < x <0.9, preferably 0.6 < x <0.8, and particularly preferably x = 0.6 in order to prevent current leakage, and improve light emission since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Bour does not disclose the shielding region having a lower surface recombination speed than the second injection region; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to increase light emission, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Bour does not disclose a dopant concentration in the shielding region being at least a factor 2 higher, preferably at least a factor 4 higher, than the dopant concentration in the first protection region; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have a dopant concentration in the shielding region being at least a factor 2 higher, preferably at least a factor 4 higher, than the dopant concentration in the first protection region in order to improve light emission, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, Bour does not disclose the dopant concentration in the second protection region being at least a factor of 2 higher, preferably at least a factor of 4 higher, than the dopant concentration in the first protection region; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the dopant concentration in the second protection region being at least a factor of 2 higher, preferably at least a factor of 4 higher, than the dopant concentration in the first protection region in order to minimize non-radiative recombination, and therefore improve light emission, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 11, see, for example, Bour does not disclose the first injection region and the second injection region are each based on a material having a composition according to the formula (InGa1-xAlx)0.49P0.51, wherein x = 1; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have the first injection region and the second injection region being each based on a material having a composition according to the formula (InGa1-xAlx)0.49P0.51, wherein x = 1 in order to have a material for producing sufficient light carriers for emission, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, Bour does not disclose a lateral extension of the semiconductor body being less than 100 um, preferably less than 50 um and particularly preferably less than 20 um; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at a time prior to the effective filing date, to have a compact size according to the preferences of the user, and since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the Drawing Objection, it is unclear why the applicant shows the element 100
and 200 twice in the same drawing wherein one element 100 is bracketed to an entire semiconductor layer above the active region 300, and then another element 100 points only to a specific region in the core region 500. The another element 100 that only points to the first injection region in the core region 500 implies that the region 101 is not part of the first injection region 100, which is contradictory to the applicant’s response (see, for example, second paragraph of page 8) that the entire region above the active layer 300 is actually the first injection region 100.
The same reference is being used but the second injection region (i.e. as stated in line 3 of
claim 1) is being re-interpreted as regions 102/104/106. On page 9 of the amendment filed 3/30/26, the applicant argues that n-type cladding layer 104 and the n-type contact layer 102 are formed of different materials than the n-side barrier layer 106, and therefore the n-type cladding layer 104 and the n-type contact layer 102 can not be interpreted as regions of dopants arranged inside the n-side barrier layer 106; however, in paragraph [0065], Bour discloses the n-side barrier layer 106 being grown from the n-type cladding layer 104, and then the n-type cladding layer 104 being grown from the n-type contact layer 102 so that the layers 102/104/106 are originated from each other and the same layer. Therefore, based on the applicant’s argument, and further clarification on page 7 that the “The first protection region 101 as well as the second protection region 201 are now represented by dotted lines in FIGS. 1 and 2 to allow for a better differentiation of these doping regions from the layers of semiconductor material, namely the first injection region 100 and the second injection region 200.”, Bour has been re-interpreted to show that the first injection region 110 is the region above the active region and the second injection region 102/104/106 is the region below the active region.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO CONTACT THE USPTO
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-330 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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
Eugene Lee
May 14, 2026
/EUGENE LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights