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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of group I, claims 1-16 and 20 in the reply filed on January 12th, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected of group II, claims 17-19 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-16 and 20 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 20, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 09/29/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f)/sixth paragraph
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the wavelength conversion cluster being configured to convert a first light generated in the active layer into a second light having a different wavelength”, as recited in claim 1; and “a wavelength selective transmission layer … being configured to reflect incident first light to the light emitting rod”, as recited in claim 4; “the reflective layer being configured to reflect the first light and the second light to the light emitting rod”, as recited in claim 6; “a wavelength conversion layer configured to convert the first light into the second light, as recited in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 11-12, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Han (US 2020/0152841, hereinafter as Han ‘841).
Regarding Claim 1, Han ‘841 teaches a light emitting device comprising:
a light emitting rod (Fig. 1B, (102); [0054]) including a porous (a nanoporous n-GaN); [0055]) first type semiconductor layer (n-GaN (108); [0054]), an active layer (106; [0054]), and a second type semiconductor layer (p-GaN (104); [0054]) which are sequentially arranged; and a wavelength conversion cluster embedded in the porous first type semiconductor layer, the wavelength conversion cluster (116; [0055]) being configured to convert a first light generated in the active layer into a second light having a different wavelength (see para. [0056]).
Examiner notes that claim 1 contains functional limitation “to convert a first light generated in the active layer into a second light having a different wavelength” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. " the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “to convert a first light generated in the active layer into a second light having a different wavelength” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
Regarding Claim 20, Han ‘841 teaches a manufacturing method of a light emitting device (Fig. 1B, (102); [0054]), the method comprising: sequentially forming a first type semiconductor layer (n-GaN (108); [0054]), an active layer (106; [0054]), and a second type semiconductor layer (p-GaN (104); [0054]) on a substrate; making the first type semiconductor layer porous (electrochemically etched in order to produce a nanoporous n-GaN surface layer; [0054]); and forming a wavelength conversion cluster (116; [0055]) comprising quantum dots in the porous first type semiconductor layer (108).
Regarding Claim 2, Han ‘841 teaches the wavelength conversion cluster (116) includes quantum dots (see para. [0056]) converting the first light into the second light, and the quantum dots are disposed in pores included in the porous first type semiconductor layer (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 11, Han ‘841 teaches the porous first type semiconductor layer includes an n-type semiconductor material (n-GaN; see para. [0054]), and the second type semiconductor layer includes a p-type semiconductor material (p-GaN; see para. [0054]).
Regarding Claim 12, Han ‘841 teaches the second light has a longer wavelength than a wavelength of the first light (see para. [0056]).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1B (Han ‘841)
Regarding Claim 13, Han ‘841 teaches a wavelength of the first light is equal to or greater than about 300 nm and equal to or less than about 500 nm (blue LEDs; [0056]).
Regarding Claim 14, Han ‘841 teaches a wavelength of the second light is equal to or greater than about 490 nm and equal to or less than about 780 nm (green LEDs; [0056]).
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.
Claims 3, 6-8, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ‘841 as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Han ‘841 teaches the quantum dots (116) in the pores (see Fig. 1B; para. [0055]).
Han ‘841 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a proportion of the quantum dots in the pores is equal to or greater than about 80% of space in the pores”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a proportion of the quantum dots in the pores is equal to or greater than about 80% of space in the pores on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a proportion of the quantum dots in the pores is equal to or greater than about 80% of space in the pores in order to improve the performance of the LED device.
Regarding Claim 6, Han ‘841 teaches a reflective layer (118; [0060]) disposed on a lower surface of the light emitting rod (102) (see Fig. 1B), the reflective layer being configured to reflect the first light and the second light to the light emitting rod. It would obviously appear that the metal layer (118) reflecting the first light and the second light to the light emitting rod.
Examiner notes that claim 6 contains functional limitation “to reflect the first light and the second light to the light emitting rod” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. " the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “to reflect the first light and the second light to the light emitting rod” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Han ‘841 teaches the reflective layer (118) includes a conductive material (e.g. indium material; [0060]).
Regarding Claim 8, Han ‘841 teaches the reflective layer (118) includes a metal material (e.g. an indium metal material; [0060]).
Regarding Claim 10, Han ‘841 Han ‘841 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a volume of the porous first type semiconductor layer is greater than at least one of: a volume of the active layer and a volume of the second type semiconductor layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a volume of the porous first type semiconductor layer is greater than at least one of: a volume of the active layer and a volume of the second type semiconductor layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a volume of the porous first type semiconductor layer is greater than at least one of: a volume of the active layer and a volume of the second type semiconductor layer in order to improve the performance of the LED device.
Regarding Claim 16, Han ‘841 teaches a first electrode (124; [0063]) electrically connected to the porous first type semiconductor layer (108); and a second electrode (118; [0060]) electrically connected to the second type semiconductor layer, wherein the second electrode is a reflective electrode (metal layer; [0060]). It would obviously appear that the metal layer (118) is a reflective electrode.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ‘841 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2013/0105828, hereinafter as Kim ‘828).
Regarding Claim 3, Han ‘841 teaches an insulator layer (120; [0074]) disposed on a side surface of the light emitting rod.
Han ‘841 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a wavelength selective transmission layer, the wavelength selective transmission layer being configured to reflect incident first light to the light emitting rod, and transmit incident second light to outside of the light emitting rod”.
Kim ‘828 teaches a wavelength selective transmission layer (140; [0063]). It would obviously appear that a light transmissive insulating layer (140) is a wavelength selective transmission layer.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Han ‘841 by having the wavelength selective transmission layer for the purpose of controlling emission of light with various brightness levels and increase an area of light emitting regions (see para. [0007]) as suggested by Kim ‘828.
Examiner notes that claim 4 contains functional limitation “to reflect incident first light to the light emitting rod, and transmit incident second light to outside of the light emitting rod” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. " the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “to reflect incident first light to the light emitting rod, and transmit incident second light to outside of the light emitting rod” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
Regarding Claim 15, Kim ‘828 teaches the wavelength conversion cluster is further embedded in at least one of the active layer (124) (see para. [0053]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ‘841 and Kim ‘828 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2020/0365566, hereinafter as Zhang ‘566).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim ‘828 teaches a wavelength selective transmission layer (140; [0063]).
Han ‘841 and Kim ‘828 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a distributed Bragg reflector”.
Zhang ‘566 teaches a distributed Bragg reflector (50; [0068]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Han ‘841 and Kim ‘828 by having a distributed Bragg reflector for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency (see para. [0068]) as suggested by Zhang ‘566.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han ‘841 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo (US 2017/0301831, hereinafter as Yoo ‘831).
Regarding Claim 9, Han ‘841 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a wavelength conversion layer disposed on a side surface of the light emitting rod and configured to convert the first light into the second light”.
Yoo ‘831 teaches a wavelength conversion layer (Fig. 7, (86); [0042]) disposed on a side surface of the light emitting rod (LED; [0042]) and configured to convert the first light into the second light.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Han ‘841 by having a wavelength conversion layer disposed on a side surface of the light emitting rod for the purpose of producing an “on-chip” white LED (see para. [0042]) as suggested by Yoo ‘831.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Do et al. (US 2016/0148911 A1)
Erchak et al. (US 2008/0128727 A1)
Epler et al. (US 2007/0284607 A1)
Otsuka et al. (US 2006/0113544 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893