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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the language “the length of the second side is greater than 100 μm the current density of the light-emitting diode is greater than 10 A/cm2 with the proviso that a thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from 50 nm to 120 nm or the length of the second side is less than or equal to 100 μm, and the thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from greater than 0 nm to 50 nm with the proviso that the current density of the light-emitting diode is less than or equal to 10 A/cm2” appears to attempt to claim two structures simultaneously in a single product claim because “the length of the second side” is defined into two separate, non-overlapping ranges – it is thus unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim language are.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected based on their dependent status from Claim 12.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneissl et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0224781) (“Kneissl”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kneissl teaches a light-emitting diode, comprising: a semiconductor epitaxial stack (see Figure 1) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other and comprising a first-type semiconductor layer (Figure 9, item 150), an active layer (Figure 9, item 173+179+175+181+177), and a second-type semiconductor layer (Figure 9, item 190) stacked in sequence in a direction from the first surface to the second surface, the active layer comprising n periods of quantum well structure (see Figure 9), and each period of quantum well structure comprising a well layer and a barrier layer deposited sequentially (see Figure 9, items 173+179+175+181+177); wherein a first spacer layer (Figure 9, item 160) is disposed between the first-type semiconductor layer and the active layer.
Kneissl does not specifically teach a ratio of a thickness (nm) of the first spacer layer to a current density (A/cm2) of the light-emitting diode ranges from 0.01 to 10, although Kneissl does specifically teach the relationship of spacer layer and current density (see Figure 10). Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness/current density ratio (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimized light emission from the device. It has been held that discovering an 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 2, Kneissl does not specifically teach the ratio of the thickness (nm) of the first spacer layer to the current density (A/cm2) of the light-emitting diode ranges from 1 to 5, however absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness/current density ratio (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimized light emission from the device. It has been held that discovering an 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 3, Kneissl further teaches the thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from greater than 0 nm to 120 nm (see Figure 10 and ¶0048).
Regarding Claim 4, Kneissl does not specifically teach the current density of the light-emitting diode is greater than 10 A/cm2 and the thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from 50 nm to 120 nm (see Figure 10), however absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness/current density ratio (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimized light emission from the device. It has been held that discovering an 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 5, Kneissl further teaches a length of at least one side of the light-emitting diode is greater than 100 μm (¶0074).
Regarding Claim 6, Kneissl does not specifically teach the current density of the light-emitting diode is less than or equal to 10 A/cm2 and the thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from greater than 0 nm to 50 nm, however absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness/current density ratio (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimized light emission from the device. It has been held that discovering an 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, Kneissl further teaches a length of at least one side of the light-emitting diode is greater than 100 μm (¶0074).
Regarding Claim 9, Kneissl further teaches a doping of the first spacer layer is n-type doping, and a concentration of the n-type doping is less than 2E17/cm3 (¶0048).
Regarding Claim 10, Kneissl further teaches the light-emitting diode further comprises a second spacer layer (Figure 9, item 180), and the second spacer layer is located between the active layer and the second-type semiconductor layer (see Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 12 in so far as definite and as provisionally interpreted by the Examiner, Kneissl teaches a light-emitting diode (Figure 1), comprising: a semiconductor epitaxial stack (see Figure 1) having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other and comprising a first-type semiconductor layer (Figure 9, item 150), an active layer (Figure 9, item 173+179+175+181+177), and a second-type semiconductor layer (Figure 9, item 190) stacked in sequence in a direction from the first surface to the second surface, the active layer comprising n periods of quantum well structure (see Figure 9), and each period of quantum well structure comprising a well layer and a barrier layer deposited sequentially (see Figure 9, items 173+179+175+181+177); wherein a first spacer layer (Figure 9, item 160) is disposed between the first-type semiconductor layer and the active layer; wherein the light-emitting diode has a first side, a second side, a third side, and a fourth side surrounding in turn, wherein the first side is parallel to the third side, the second side is parallel to the fourth side, a length of the first side is greater than or equal to a length of the second side.
Kneissl does not specifically teach the length of the second side is greater than 100 μm (¶0074) and the current density of the light-emitting diode is greater than 10 A/cm2 with the proviso that a thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from 50 nm to 120 nm or the length of the second side is less than or equal to 100 μm (¶0074), and the thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from greater than 0 nm to 50 nm (¶0048) with the proviso that the current density of the light-emitting diode is less than or equal to 10 A/cm2. However, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness/current density ratio (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimized light emission from the device. It has been held that discovering an 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 14, Kneissl further teaches a doping of the first spacer layer is n-type doping, and a concentration of the n-type doping is less than 2E17/cm3 (¶0048).
Regarding Claim 15, Kneissl teaches a light-emitting device, comprising a drive unit and a light-emitting diode (see Figure 11 which shows light emission from the LED of Kneissl, thus the LED has been connected electrically to a drive unit), wherein the drive unit is electrically connected to the light-emitting diode having a first surface and a second surface opposite to each other and comprising a first-type semiconductor layer (Figure 9, item 150), an active layer (Figure 9, item 173+179+175+181+177), and a second-type semiconductor layer (Figure 9, item 190) stacked in sequence in a direction from the first surface to the second surface, the active layer comprising n periods of quantum well structure (see Figure 9), and each period of quantum well structure comprising a well layer and a barrier layer deposited sequentially (see Figure 9, items 173+179+175+181+177); wherein a first spacer layer (Figure 9, item 160) is disposed between the first-type semiconductor layer and the active layer.
Kneissl does not specifically teach a ratio of a thickness (nm) of the first spacer layer to a current density (A/cm2) of the light-emitting diode ranges from 0.01 to 10 (see Figure 10). However, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness/current density ratio (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimized light emission from the device. It has been held that discovering an 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 16, Kneissl does not specifically teach the ratio of the thickness (nm) of the first spacer layer to the current density (A/cm2) of the light-emitting diode ranges from 1 to 5 (see Figure 10). However, absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness/current density ratio (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimized light emission from the device. It has been held that discovering an 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 17, Kneissl does not specifically teach the current density of the light-emitting diode is greater than 10 A/cm2 and the thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from 50 nm to 120 nm (see Figure 10), however absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness/current density ratio (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimized light emission from the device. It has been held that discovering an 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 18, Kneissl does not specifically teach the current density of the light-emitting diode is less than or equal to 10 A/cm2 and the thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from greater than 0 nm to 50 nm, however absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness/current density ratio (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve optimized light emission from the device. It has been held that discovering an 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 20, Kneissl further teaches a doping of the first spacer layer is n-type doping, and a concentration of the n-type doping is less than 2E17/cm3 (¶0048).
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneissl as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0212631) (“Takeuchi”).
Regarding Claim 8, Kneissl teaches Claim 1 as indicated above. Kneissl does not specifically teach a material of the first spacer layer is AlaGa1-aInP, wherein a ranges from 0.2 to 1. However, Takeuichi teaches using AlaGa1-aInP as a spacer layer between a multi quantum well and a cladding layer (see Figure 1) for red light emission (¶0004-0010). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the material of Takeuichi in the device of Kneissl as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 11, Kneissl teaches Claim 1 as indicated above. Kneissl does not specifically teach a material of the second spacer layer is AlbGa1-bInP, wherein b ranges from 0.2 to 1. However, Takeuichi teaches using AlbGa1-bInP as a spacer layer between a multi quantum well and a cladding layer (see Figure 1) for red light emission (¶0004-0010). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the material of Takeuichi in the device of Kneissl as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneissl as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0212631) (“Takeuchi”).
Regarding Claim 13, Kneissl teaches Claim 12 as indicated above. Kneissl does not specifically teach a material of the first spacer layer is AlaGa1-aInP, wherein a ranges from 0.2 to 1. However, Takeuichi teaches using AlaGa1-aInP as a spacer layer between a multi quantum well and a cladding layer (see Figure 1) for red light emission (¶0004-0010). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the material of Takeuichi in the device of Kneissl as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kneissl as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0212631) (“Takeuchi”).
Regarding Claim 19, Kneissl teaches Claim 15 as indicated above. Kneissl does not specifically teach a material of the first spacer layer is AlaGa1-aInP, wherein a ranges from 0.2 to 1. However, Takeuichi teaches using AlaGa1-aInP as a spacer layer between a multi quantum well and a cladding layer (see Figure 1) for red light emission (¶0004-0010). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to use the material of Takeuichi in the device of Kneissl as it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed to the 102 rejections made in the prior office action, the Examiner notes the present amendments have required the updated rejections above under 35 USC 103. The Examiner notes a simple citation of the number does not sufficiently distinguish the claimed range from any other cited range in the specification. As such, any criticality that may be found for the cited range (i.e. “ranges from 0 to 10”) in the specification cannot be used to distinguish those cited ranges from the specific claimed range of “from 0.1 to 10.” In order to distinguish the claimed range from the cited ranges in the specification, additional criticality must be provided which shows the “from 0.1 to 10” claimed range provides some critical/unexpected result over the range cited in the specification of “from 0 to 10.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARK W TORNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30-4:30 EST.
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.
MARK W. TORNOW
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2891
/MARK W TORNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights