Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/335,843

ULTRAVIOLET SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT-EMITTING ELEMENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 15, 2023
Examiner
HSIEH, HSIN YI
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Stanley Electric Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
51%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
57%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 51% of resolved cases
51%
Career Allow Rate
321 granted / 631 resolved
-17.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
688
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
39.3%
-0.7% vs TC avg
§102
23.1%
-16.9% vs TC avg
§112
35.3%
-4.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 631 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Figs. 1 and 2) in the reply filed on 10/09/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/09/2025. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/15/2023 and 07/14/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bondokov et al. (US 2019/0382916 A1). Regarding claim 1, Bondokov et al. teach an ultraviolet semiconductor light-emitting element (800 emitting UV radiation; Fig. 8A, [0129]) comprising: a single crystal AlN substrate (805 of single crystal AlN; Fig. 8A, [0129]); an n-type AlGaN layer (820 of AlGaN; Fig. 8A, [0138]) formed on the single crystal AlN substrate (805); an active layer (825 of MQW layer; Fig. 8A, [0140]) formed on the n-type AlGaN layer (820), the active layer (825) having a light emission peak wavelength of 250 nm or more and 280 nm or less (wavelength, implied as the peak wavelength as disclosed in [0082] and [0087], can be between 250 nm to 280 nm; [0140]); and a p-type AlGaN layer (840 of p-type AlGaN; Fig. 8A, [0142]) formed on the active layer (825). Bondokov et al. do not teach wherein a C concentration in the single crystal AlN substrate is 3×1017 atoms/cm3 or more. In the same reference, Bondokov et al. teach wherein a C concentration in the single crystal AlN substrate (805) is more than 1×1017 cm-3 ([0022]), which overlaps the claimed range of 3×1017 atoms/cm3 or more, that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Regarding claim 2, Bondokov et al. teach the ultraviolet semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the single crystal AlN substrate (805) has an absorption coefficient (see Fig. 3B) relative to a light with the light emission peak wavelength (250 nm or more and 280 nm or less) of the active layer (825). Bondokov et al. do not teach in Fig. 3B, an absorption coefficient of 15 cm-1 or more. Parameters such as the absorption coefficient of the AlN substrate in the art of semiconductor manufacturing process are subject to routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired UV transparency during device fabrication ([0005] of Bondokov et al.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the absorption coefficient of the AlN substrate within the range as claimed in order to achieve the desired UV transparency during device fabrication ([0005] of Bondokov et al.). Regarding claim 3, Bondokov et al. teach the ultraviolet semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein a sum of an Si concentration and an O concentration in the single crystal AlN substrate (805; [0022]) is higher than the C concentration (the ratio of C concentration to the oxygen concentration can be less than 0.5, i.e. the O concentration is more than twice the C concentration, i.e. the sum of the Si concentration and the O concentration would be higher than the C concentration, [0022]). Regarding claim 4, Bondokov et al. teach the ultraviolet semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 1, wherein the single crystal AlN substrate (805) has a region (the region of 805) in a plan view (a top-down view of Fig. 8A) in which an internal transmittance τ (internal transmittance τ defined by Formula 1 below), the internal transmittance τ is expressed by a following Formula 1 when the absorption coefficient relative to the light emission peak wavelength (250 nm or more and 280 nm or less) of the active layer (825) is α (see Fig. 3B below, the absorption coefficient α of 310 is measured to be 7.8 cm-1 at 250 nm and 7.03 cm-1 at 280 nm), and a thickness of the single crystal AlN substrate (805) is x (the thickness x can be from 100 µm to 2 mm; [0122]). Formula 1 τ = exp(−αx) ∙∙∙(1) Bondokov et al. do not teach an internal transmittance τ is 30% or more and 70% or less. In the same reference, Bondokov et al. teach an internal transmittance τ (based on the Formula 1 and α being 7.8 cm-1 at 250 nm and 7.03 cm-1 at 280 nm of 310 in Fig. 3B, and the thickness x can be from 100 µm to 2 mm disclosed in [0122]) is 21% or more and 93% or less, which overlaps the claimed range of 30% or more and 70% or less, that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). PNG media_image1.png 384 472 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale Fig. 3B of Bondokov et al. Regarding claim 5, Bondokov et al. teach the ultraviolet semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 4, wherein the single crystal AlN substrate (805) has a region (the region of 805) in which the internal transmittance τ (internal transmittance τ defined by Formula 1 in claim 4) in a plan view (a top-down view of Fig. 8A). Bondokov et al. do not teach the internal transmittance τ is 40% or more and 60% or less. In the same reference, Bondokov et al. teach an internal transmittance τ (based on the Formula 1 and α being 7.8 cm-1 at 250 nm and 7.03 cm-1 at 280 nm of 310 in Fig. 3B, and the thickness x can be from 100 µm to 2 mm disclosed in [0122]) is 21% or more and 93% or less, which overlaps the claimed range of 40% or more and 60% or less, that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimamura et al. (US 2014/0361328 A1). Regarding claim 7, Shimamura et al. teach an ultraviolet semiconductor light-emitting element (1C having a UV light emitting device; Fig. 4, [0112]) comprising: a single crystal AlN substrate (6, can be single crystal AlN; Fig. 4, [0115]); an n-type AlGaN layer (12; Fig. 2(b), [0082]) formed on the single crystal AlN substrate (6; see Fig. 4 upside down, and Fig. 2(b)); an active layer (13; Fig. 2(b), [0082]) formed on the n-type AlGaN layer (12; see Fig. 2(b)); and a p-type AlGaN layer (14; Fig. 2(b), [0082]) formed on the active layer (13; Fig. 2(b)), wherein a light emission peak (the light emission peak wavelength of the red light; [0090]) in a wavelength range of 450 nm or more and 800 nm or less (580 to 720 nm; [0090]) in a light emission spectrum (red light spectrum; [0090]). Shimamura et al. do not teach the active layer having a light emission peak wavelength of 250 nm or more and 280 nm or less; a light emission peak is in a range of 590 nm or more and 610 nm or less. In the same reference, Shimamura et al. teach the active layer (13) having a light emission peak wavelength in a range of from 250 nm to 425 nm ([0053]), which overlaps the claimed rage of 250 nm or more and 280 nm or less, that establish a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). In the same reference of Shimamura et al., Shimamura et al. teach a light emission peak (the light emission peak of the red light; [0090]) is in a range of from 580 to 720 nm ([0090]), which overlaps the claimed range of 590 nm or more and 610 nm or less, that establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Regarding claim 8, Shimamura et al. teach the ultraviolet semiconductor light-emitting element according to claim 7, wherein an output of light (red light; [0090]) with a wavelength of 590 nm or more and 610 nm or less (in a range of from 580 to 720 nm which covers the claimed range of 590 nm or more and 610 nm or less) during driving (i.e. excited by the UV light; [0090]). Shimamura et al. do not teach an output of light is 0.15 μW or more. Parameters such as the power of the output of light in the art of semiconductor manufacturing process are subject to routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired high luminance during device fabrication ([0003] of Shimamura et al.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the power of the output of light within the range as claimed in order to achieve the desired high luminance during device fabrication ([0003] of Shimamura et al.). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 9 is 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of "the single crystal AlN substrate absorbs a part of an emitted light from the active layer and emits a light in a wavelength range of 590 nm or more and 610 nm or less due to the absorption of the emitted light" as recited in claim 9. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSIN YI HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:00 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, Zandra V Smith can be reached on 571-272-2429. 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. /HSIN YI HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 1/21/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 15, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 15, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 15, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598786
FIELD EFFECT TRANSISTOR STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12575243
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12550486
OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICE WITH AXIAL THREE-DIMENSIONAL LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12538616
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE WITH OPTIMISED ELECTRIC INJECTION FROM A SIDE ELECTRODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12538617
3D LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE AND ASSOCIATED MANUFACTURING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
51%
Grant Probability
57%
With Interview (+6.2%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 631 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month