Notice of Pre-ALA or ALA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the ALA.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s remarks filed 7/13/2026 state “The correction conforms the claim to the specification”. Remarks at pg. 7. Paragraphs [0007] and [0074] of the originally filed specification (filed 11/9/2023) are inconsistent with these remarks because these paragraphs only describe the “third bandgap energy” opposite the configuration of the instant set of claims (filed (7/13/2026). For example, the claim now reads “a third bandgap energy larger than the second bandgap energy” and this is opposite the originally filed specification which only includes “smaller”. Applicant is required to amend the US-filed Specification such that it is consistent with a certified copy of the foreign application, based on MPEP 217(I) and (II) and 37 C.F.R. 1.57(b)(1).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s remarks filed 7/13/2026 (See pg. 7) have not pointed out distinctly or specifically where the new claim 1 limitation “third bandgap energy larger than the second bandgap energy” is supported; nor does there appear to be a written description of this limitation in the application as filed. MPEP 2163.04.
Applicant asserts “The correction conforms the claim to the specification and the certified priority document” (See pg. 7; i.e., changing smaller to larger). However, the Specification only discloses the opposite of the amendment; and the two foreign priority documents are not in English. It is not clear where applicant believes support can be found, in either: (1) in the Specification of instant national stage application; (2) in the foreign priority application KR10-2021-0060792; or (3) in the foreign priority application KR10-2021-0072818.
Applicant's originally filed Specification indicates the comparative relationship of the 3rd/4th/5th sub-layer bandgap energies at two locations: paragraphs [0007] and [0074]. Both of these paragraphs indicate the fifth sub-layer made of AlGaN has a third bandgap energy “smaller” than the fourth sub-layer’s (i.e., InGaN) second bandgap energy. These disclosures are opposite to the now amended “third bandgap energy larger than the second bandgap energy,” in independent claim 1 filed 7/13/2026. Applicant asserts their foreign priority documents purportedly support this amendment; however, applicant has not provided sufficient evidence from applicant's originally filed Specification (i.e., English translation accompanied by a certification statement that the translation is accurate per 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(4), or some other convincing evidence of an obvious error and obvious correction under In re Oda, 443 F.2d 1200 (CCPA 1971)). MPEP 2163.07:
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference (or combination of references), but are disclosed or rendered obvious by secondary references or remarks.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo (US 20190296187 A1) in view of Bergmann (US 20110187294 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses a method for manufacturing a Group III nitride semiconductor light emitting structure (Fig. 7) that emits red light (a different color of visible light is relied upon here, See additional remarks below; [0051]: “for example, green light”) having a peak emission wavelength of greater than 600 nm ([0051]: “a longer wavelength band than that of blue light may be emitted”, this open ended range overlaps the claimed range, See additional remarks below), the method comprising:
growing a first superlattice region (137b; [0076]: “a superlattice structure”) formed of alternating stacked first sub-layers and second sub-layers; and
growing an active region (140) on the first superlattice region ([0083]: “formed directly on”), the active region including
a third sub-layer (145b) made of an Al-containing Group III nitride semiconductor comprising Alz1Ga1-z1N (z1>0) ([0073]: “AlzGa(1-z)N (0<z<1)”) and having a first bandgap energy (See bandgap energy diagram Fig. 6B: 145b),
a fourth sub-layer (143) made of an In-containing Group III nitride semiconductor comprising Inz2Ga1-z2N (z2>0) ([0062]: “InxGa(1-x)N”) and having a second bandgap energy (See bandgap energy diagram Fig. 6B: 145b) smaller than the first bandgap energy (“smaller” is the bandgap relation illustrated in Fig. 6B) and,
a fifth sub-layer (145a) made of an Al-containing Group III nitride semiconductor comprising Alz3Ga1-z3N (z3>0) ([0073]: “AlzGa(1-z)N (0<z<1)… having approximately the same Al composition ratio”) and having a third bandgap energy (See bandgap energy diagram Fig. 6B: 145a) larger than the second bandgap energy (“larger” is the bandgap relation illustrated in Fig. 6B),
wherein the In content z2 in the fourth sub-layer is set ([0059]: “may be controlled corresponding to a wavelength emitted from the long wavelength light emitting device”) such that the fourth sub-layer emits light having a peak emission wavelength of 600 nm or less if z1 and z3 are both zero (Yoo as cited teaches z1 and z3 are greater than zero, and thus fails to teach this “zero” condition; [0073]: “a composition ratio (z) of Al may be 0.001 to 0.025”. See additional remarks below.), and
wherein the Al content z1 in the third sub-layer and the Al content z3 in the fifth sub-layer are set ([0073]: “a composition ratio (z) of Al may be 0.001 to 0.025”) such that the fourth sub-layer emits red light (a different color of visible light is relied upon here, See additional remarks below; [0051]: “for example, green light”) having the peak emission wavelength of greater than 600 nm ([0051]: “a longer wavelength band than that of blue light may be emitted”, this open ended range overlaps the claimed range, See additional remarks below).
Illustrated below are Figs. 6B and 7 of Yoo.
PNG
media_image1.png
633
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yoo fails to explicitly teach emitting red light. Thus, Yoo fails to teach “a Group III nitride semiconductor light emitting structure that emits red light having a peak emission wavelength of greater than 600 nm
[…]
wherein the Al content z1 in the third sub-layer and the Al content z3 in the fifth sub-layer are set such that the fourth sub-layer emits red light having the peak emission wavelength of greater than 600 nm.”
Nevertheless, Yoo teaches the peak emission wavelength is reasonably close to the claimed wavelength, because Yoo teaches:
the wavelength is within the visible light spectrum ([0051]: “for example, green light”);
the wavelength as an open-ended range overlapping the claimed wavelength ([0051]: “a longer wavelength band than that of blue light may be emitted”, this open-ended range overlaps the claimed range because red light has a longer wavelength than blue light.);
the wavelength is a resultant variable based on composition of the fourth sub-layer ([0051]: “adjusted by controlling the composition”).
Thus, Yoo establishes a scale for the “peak emission wavelength” that is reasonably close to the claimed wavelength (i.e., in the visible light spectrum; longer wavelength than blue light). Therefore, the claimed wavelength configuration would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Yoo fails to teach the claimed “zero” condition because Yoo only teaches situations where z1 and z3 are both greater than zero ([0073]: “Al may be 0.001 to 0.025”). Thus, Yoo fails to teach:
“wherein the In content z2 in the fourth sub-layer is set such that the fourth sub-layer emits light having a peak emission wavelength of 600 nm or less if z1 and z3 are both zero”
In reference to the claim language referring to the “peak emission wavelength of 600 nm or less if z1 and z3 are both zero”, it has been held that 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, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, because the claimed “fourth sub-layer” and the prior art “fourth sub-layer” (of Yoo) are 1) identical or substantially identical in structure or composition (Yoo: [0062]: “InxGa(1-x)N”; Claimed composition: “a fourth sub-layer made of an In-containing Group III nitride semiconductor comprising Inz2Ga1-z2N (z2>0)”), and 2) are produced by substantially identical processes (Yoo: [0059]: “may be controlled corresponding to a wavelength emitted from the long wavelength light emitting device”; Claimed method: “the In content z2 in the fourth sub-layer is set”), the claimed property or function of “peak emission wavelength of 600 nm or less” is presumed to be inherent under the “zero” condition and is therefore prima facie obvious. MPEP 2112 (III).
Yoo fails to teach any specific structural detail for the first superlattice region. Thus, Yoo fails to teach “growing a first superlattice region formed of alternating stacked first sub-layers and second sub-layers”.
Bergmann discloses growing a first superlattice region (Fig. 1: 16) formed of alternating stacked first sub-layers and second sub-layers ([0058]: “alternating layers of InXGa1-XN and InYGa1-YN”). Modifying the first superlattice region (of Yoo) by incorporating the configuration disclosed by Bergmann would arrive at the claimed first superlattice region. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation of success doing so because in each situation: 1) the region is used in the same way as a base for the subsequently formed active layer (Yoo: [0083]: “The active layer 140 may be formed directly on the second layer”; Bergmann: [0059]: “on which to grow”); and the base improves the structure of the active layer (Yoo: [0083]: “the crystalline quality of the active layer 140 may be improved”; Bergmann: [0059]: “a better surface may be provided on which to grow the InGaN-based active region 18”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the claimed “first superlattice region” configuration because it is a known configuration found elsewhere in the prior art, and is used in the same way for the same purpose. MPEP 2143 (I)(C).
Illustrated below is Fig. 1 of Bergmann.
PNG
media_image2.png
733
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yoo in view of Bergman discloses the method for manufacturing a Group III nitride semiconductor light emitting structure of Claim 1 (Yoo: Fig. 7), wherein the active region comprises a quantum well structure ([0050]: “a multiple quantum well structure”), the fourth sub-layer is a quantum well layer ([0073]: “well layer”), and the third and fifth sub-layers are quantum barriers ([0073]: “capping layer”).
Regarding claim 9, Yoo in view of Bergmann discloses the method for manufacturing a Group III nitride semiconductor light emitting structure of Claim 1 (Fig. 7), wherein the active region comprises a superlattice structure (Figs. 6A and 6B each show active region 140 includes repeated layers 145b/143/145a, which is consistent with the ordinary and customary use of “superlattice”, as well as Applicant’s use of “superlattice”, such as in Applicant’s disclosure, Fig. 11: superlattice 42).
Regarding claim 10, Yoo in view of Bergmann discloses the method for manufacturing a Group III nitride semiconductor light emitting structure of Claim 9, wherein the third sub-layer and the fifth sub-layer are made of GaN-AlGaN (MPEP 2111: Broadest Reasonable Interpretation. The 3rd and 5th sub-layers are each cited in the claim 1 rejection as AlGaN; Yoo: [0073]. The claim as written reasonable overlaps the teaching of this reference because it does not require each layer to include a nested layer configuration. Rather, each sub-layer could be separately mapped to one of the claimed GaN-AlGaN materials. Furthermore, GaN is inclusive within the cited AlGaN material. Thus, Yoo in view of Bergmann reasonably reads on the claim.).
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-10 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Yoo in view of Bergmann, as necessitated by claim amendment. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claims 3-8 were not found in, or rendered obvious by the prior art of record, or elsewhere in the prior art. However, allowability could not be indicated based on the current rejection of claim 1 under 112(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Applicant argues with respect to amended claim 1 that “The correction…is consistent with the Examiner’s analysis of the cited art”.
Examiner’s reply:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Applicant has amended the bandwidth configuration to be “larger” instead of the previously examined configuration “smaller”. Accordingly, the new ground of rejection raised in the instant Office action has been necessitated by the claim amendment.
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 WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights