Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/348,893

LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 07, 2023
Examiner
YEMELYANOV, DMITRIY
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Tianjin Sanan Optoelectronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
393 granted / 538 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
581
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.4%
+12.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 538 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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 with traverse of Invention I, Species IB (Fig. 2, Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because 2. Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process that does not require bonding the laminate structure to a supporting substrate through a bonding layer with said second semiconductor layer facing said bonding layer, and removing said growth substrate and instead LED can be manufactured on growth substrate 3. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) apply: a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter c) the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes /subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention. And There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth in Restriction/Election requirement dated 10/02/2025 because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to the other species. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Kim et al. (KR 20220086167 A) in view of Wu et al. (US 2018/0166607 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Kim (Fig. 4) discloses a light-emitting device, comprising: an epitaxial structure (130, 140, 150) that includes a first semiconductor layer (150), an active layer (140), and a second semiconductor layer (130) disposed sequentially in such order; an ohmic contact layer (151) that is disposed on a surface opposite to said first semiconductor layer (150); a first electrode (152) that is disposed on a surface of said ohmic contact layer (151) and that is electrically connected to said first semiconductor layer (150); and a second electrode (131) that is disposed on and electrically connected to said second semiconductor layer (130). Kim does not explicitly disclose a diffusion blocking layer that is disposed on a surface of said first semiconductor layer opposite to said active layer Wu (Fig. 10) discloses a diffusion blocking layer (114) that is disposed on a surface of first semiconductor layer (112) opposite to active layer (120) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light-emitting device by incorporating diffusion blocking layer in Kim in view of Wu such that a diffusion blocking layer that is disposed on a surface of said first semiconductor layer opposite to said active layer, and an ohmic contact layer that is disposed on a surface of said diffusion blocking layer and a first electrode that is disposed on a surface of said ohmic contact layer opposite to said diffusion blocking layer to have better contact efficiency and improving the performance of the LED chip [0025] Regarding Claim 2, Kim in view of Wu discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an insulation layer (170) formed on said epitaxial structure, said insulation layer having two through holes (172, 171), said first electrode (152) and said second electrode (132) respectively extending into said through holes to electrically connect to said first semiconductor layer (150) and said second semiconductor layer (130), respectively. Regarding Claim 3, Kim in view of Wu discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 2, wherein said ohmic contact layer (151) is exposed from said insulation layer (170) through a respective one of said through holes (172) and is spaced apart from said insulation layer by a gap (gap created by 152), said first electrode (152) extending into said gap to contact said diffusion blocking layer (114 Wu). Regarding Claim 4, Kim in view of Wu discloses the discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a supporting substrate (110) and a bonding layer (120), said bonding layer (120) being disposed between said supporting substrate (110) and said epitaxial structure (130, 140, 150) (Fig. Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 5, Kim in view of Wu discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said diffusion blocking layer (114) has a thickness (less than or equal to 1000 Å) Kim in view of Wu does not explicitly disclose a thickness ranging from 50 Å to 500 Å. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a light-emitting device in Kim in view of Wu such that a diffusion blocking layer has a thickness ranging from 50 Å to 500 Å to avoid the semiconductor layer from being overly thick and absorbing light while attaining good ohmic contact effect better contact efficiency and improving the performance of the LED chip [0025] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding Claim 6, Kim in view of Wu discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said diffusion blocking layer (114) has a composition that is represented by GaxIn1-xP, and 0≤X≤1. (“carbon-doped gallium phosphide (GaP)”) [Wu 0025] Regarding Claim 7, Kim in view of Wu discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein a projection of said ohmic contact layer (151) on said epitaxial structure falls within a projection of said first electrode (152) on said epitaxial structure. (Fig. 4 Kim,) Regarding Claim 8, Kim in view of Wu discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of said first electrode (152) and said second electrode (132) is a metal electrode. (“connection electrodes 132 and 152 may be formed using Cr, Ti, Ni, or an alloy thereof for stable electrical contact, and may include a reflective metal layer such as Al or Ag.”) Kim Regarding Claim 9, Kim in view of Wu discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein an upper surface of said first electrode (152) is flush with an upper surface of said second electrode (132) (Kim Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 10, Kim in view of Wu discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first electrode (152, 182) includes a first contact electrode (152) and a first electrode pad (182) formed on said first contact electrode, said second electrode (132, 181) includes a second contact electrode (132) and a second electrode pad (181) formed on said second contact electrode (132). Regarding Claim 11, Kim in view of Wu discloses the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein said light-emitting device radiates one of red light and infrared light. (“light emitting device used for red light emission may be exemplified.”, “However, since the problem of UV absorption by the transmissive conductive layer increases when the wavelength band is shortened,“) Kim Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m. 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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. /DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 07, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604565
MICRO LIGHT-EMITTING COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12581773
INDIUM GALLIUM NITRIDE LIGHT EMITTING DIODES WITH REDUCED STRAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575096
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEMORY DEVICES AND METHODS FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568724
DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12568716
WAFER-SCALE SEPARATION AND TRANSFER OF GAN MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
73%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+18.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 538 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