DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the response and amendment filed on 10/20/25.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 10/20/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 are elected for examination and claims 11-17 are withdrawn.
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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyono et al (US20100230690 and Kyono hereinafter).
As to claim 1, Kyono discloses a semiconductor device (11a, Fig. 1), comprising:
a light-emitting unit, wherein the unit comprise a substrate (13), an n-type layer (15) disposed on the substrate, a multiple quantum well layer (29) disposed on the n-type layer, and a p-type ion doping layer (19) disposed on the multiple quantum well layer, the p-type ion doping layer comprises an activation region (27) and a passivation region (25), and the activation region is an oxygen doping region ([0075]); a first electrode (33), electrically connected to the p-type ion doping layer; and a second electrode (35), electrically connected to the n-type layer.
Although Kyono does not teach the device comprises a plurality of light-emitting unit, nonetheless, multiple units of light-emitting unit with in a semiconductor device is conventional and well known in the art and duplication of device is within the skill of the ordinary artisan in the art. Examiner herein takes Official notice on this claimed limitation, for support of the Official notice, see MPEP 2144.03 and In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1385, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1092, 165 USPQ at 421.
As to claim 2, Kyono teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of light-emitting units comprises an activation region (25), and activation regions of the plurality of light-emitting units are spaced on a plane parallel to the substrate (Fig. 1).
As to claim 3, Kyono teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the passivation region comprises a first passivation region (left side of 27) and a second passivation region (right side of 27).
As to claim 6, Kyono teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein p-type ions of the p- type ion doping layer comprise magnesium ions ([0111]).
As to claim 8, Kyono teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a doping content of oxygen element in the activation region is less than 1E21/cm3([0076]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eva Yan Montalvo whose telephone number is (571)270-3829. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9AM-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, John Fristoe can be reached at (571) 272-4926. 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.
/EVA Y MONTALVO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights