DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore elements, ‘two expansion sublayers’ cited in claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are again objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: ‘10422-expansion sublayer’ mentioned in specification page 9.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Note: Applicant is being requested to review the drawing fig. 2. The markings (e.g., 1041 etc) are wrong.
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 1-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo; Bun-Hei et al. (US 20110006320 A1, hereinafter Koo‘320) in view of ZHENG, Jin-jian et al. (CN 114843384 A, hereinafter Zheng‘384).
Regarding independent claim 1, Koo‘320 teaches, “A light emitting diode epitaxial structure (fig. 1-5; ¶ [0004] - ¶ [0037]), comprising:
a substrate (201, fig. 2), and an N-type semiconductor layer (202), an intermediate layer (‘current spreading layer’), a multi-quantum well layer (‘active layer’ 203) and a P-type semiconductor layer (204) which are sequentially arranged on the substrate (201),
wherein the intermediate layer (300, ‘current spreading layer’, see annotated fig. 4 in next page) is doped with an n-type impurity, and an average doping concentration of the n-type impurity is less than or equal to 4 X 10¹⁸ atoms/cm³;
the intermediate layer comprises:
a first expansion layer (see annotation), located above the N-type semiconductor layer (202);
a second expansion layer (see annotation), located above the first expansion layer; and
a third expansion layer (see annotation), located between the second expansion layer and the multi-quantum well layer (‘active layer’ 203); and
the second expansion layer comprises at least one insertion layer (see annotation), and
an average doping concentration of the n-type impurity in the insertion
layer (1E17) is less than an average doping concentration of the n-type impurity in the second expansion layer (1E19)”.
Regarding the limitataion, “multi-quantum well layer”, Koo‘320 mentions the element 203 using a general name ‘an active layer’ (¶ [0030]), ‘where electrons and holes are recombined with each other, so that light is emitted from the active layer’ (¶ [0005]).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
805
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Koo‘320 may not be explicit of mentioning this active layer as a multi-quantum well layer.
However, Zheng‘384 teaches a similar LED device (fig. 3), wherein the active layer (125) is a multi-quantum well layer (pages 9-10).
Koo‘320 and Zheng‘384 are analogous art because they both are directed to light emitting diode devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Koo‘320 with the features of Zheng‘384 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Koo‘320 and Zheng‘384 to include multi-quantum well (MQW) layer as active layer according to the teachings of Zheng‘384 with a general motivation of exploiting the advantages of the MQW layer e.g., higher optical gain and efficiency, lower threshold current density, tunable emission wavelengths, improved temperature stability etc.
Regarding claim 2, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 1, wherein the n-type impurity is Si, and the intermediate layer (123, 124, fig. 3, Zheng‘384) is a GaN layer doped with Si (page 9); and/or
average doping concentrations X, Y and Z of the n-type impurity in the first expansion layer, the second expansion layer and the third expansion layer satisfy: Y>Z>X”.
Regarding claim 3, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 2, wherein the average doping concentration of the n-type impurity in the first expansion layer (Koo‘320, see annotated fig. 4, 1E17) is less than 3 X 10¹⁸ atoms/cm³ ; and/or a thickness of the first expansion layer is 100 to 300 nm; and/or a maximum of the doping concentration of the n-type impurity in the second expansion layer is 2 X 10¹⁸ to 4 X 10¹⁸ atoms/cm³; and/or a thickness of the second expansion layer is 50 to 200 nm; and/or the average doping concentration of the n-type impurity in the third expansion layer is less than 3 X 10¹⁸ atoms/cm³; and/or a thickness of the third expanding layer is 100 to 300 nm; and/or the n-type impurity in the first expansion layer is uniformly doped, and the n-type impurity in the third expansion layer is uniformly doped; and/or the thicknesses H1, H2 and H3 of the first expansion layer, the second expansion layer and the third expansion layer satisfy: H1 ≥ H3 > H2.
Regarding claim 4, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 2, wherein a direction from the first expansion layer (Koo‘320, see annotated fig. 4) to the third expansion layer is defined as a first direction, a doping concentration of the n-type impurity in the second expansion layer has a fluctuation along the first direction, the fluctuation of the concentration value of the n-type impurity comprises at least one trough (1E17), and the trough corresponds to a concentration value of the n-type impurity in the insertion layer”.
Regarding claim 5, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 4, wherein the second expansion layer (Koo‘320, see annotated fig. 4) comprises at least two expansion sublayers and an insertion layer arranged between two adjacent expansion sublayers, wherein the average doping concentration of the n-type impurity in the insertion layer (1E17) is less than an average doping concentration of the n-type impurity (1E19) in the expansion sublayers”.
Regarding claim 6, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 5, wherein the fluctuation of the concentration value of the n-type impurity comprises at least one trough (Koo‘320, see annotated fig. 4, 1E17) and at least two peaks (1E19), wherein the trough corresponds to the concentration value of the n-type impurity in the insertion layer, and the peaks correspond to concentration values of the n-type impurity in the expansion sublayers”.
Regarding claim 7, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 6, wherein the concentration values corresponding to the peaks are 2 X 10¹⁸ to 4 X 10¹⁸ atoms/cm³, and the concentration value corresponding to the trough is 7 X 10¹⁷ to 1 X 10¹⁸ atoms/cm³”, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, the concentration values corresponding to the peaks are 1E19 (Koo‘320, see annotated fig. 4) and the concentration value corresponding to the trough is 1E17. While the cited prior art does not explicitly disclose the particular claimed value, the teachings therein would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to discover the claimed value during routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed values are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed values produce a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, because it has been held that where “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1955)), it would have been obvious to add the claimed values to the rest of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 5, wherein a thickness of the expansion sublayer near the first expansion layer is greater than or equal to a thickness of the expansion sublayer away from the first expansion layer (Koo‘320, see annotated fig. 4,thicknesses are equal); and/or a thickness difference between the insertion layer and the expansion sublayer is less than or equal to 10 nm”.
Regarding claim 9, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 4, wherein the third expansion layer (Koo‘320, see annotated fig. 4) is further doped with In (Zheng‘384, 123/124, InGaN)“.
Regarding claim 14, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 1, wherein the P-type semiconductor layer (204, fig. 3, Koo‘320) is a P-type GaN layer doped with Mg (Zheng‘384, page 9), wherein an average doping concentration of Mg is 1 X 10¹⁹ to 1 X 10²¹ atoms/cm³ (Zheng‘384, page 8); and/or the light emitting diode epitaxial structure further comprises a buffer layer arranged between the substrate and the N-type semiconductor layer; and/or the N-type semiconductor layer comprises an undoped GaN layer and an N-type GaN layer doped with Si, wherein a thickness of the undoped GaN layer is 1.5 to 2.5 µm, and a thickness of the N-type GaN layer doped with Si is 1.5 to 2.5 µm”.
Regarding claim 15, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 14, wherein a doping concentration of Si in the N-type GaN layer (301, fig. 4, Koo‘320) doped with Si is 1 X 10¹⁹ to 1 X 10²⁰ atoms/cm³, (1E19) and/or the light emitting diode epitaxial structure further comprises an electron blocking layer arranged between the multi-quantum well layer and the P-type semiconductor layer”.
Regarding claim 16, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 2, wherein the intermediate layer (123-124, fig. 3, page 6, Zheng‘384) is doped with a carbon impurity”.
Regarding claim 17, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 16, wherein a maximum doping concentration of the carbon impurity in the intermediate layer is ≤ 5 X 10¹⁷ atoms/cm³”, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, wherein a maximum doping concentration of the carbon impurity in the intermediate layer is 1E18 /cm3 (page 4, Zheng‘384)”.
Regarding claim 18, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 16, wherein a maximum doping concentration of the carbon impurity in the intermediate layer is 3 X 10¹⁶ to 3 X 10¹⁷ atoms/cm³”, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, wherein a maximum doping concentration of the carbon impurity in the intermediate layer is 1E18 /cm3 (page 4, Zheng‘384)”. While the cited prior art does not explicitly disclose the particular claimed value, the teachings therein would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to discover the claimed value during routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed values are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed values produce a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, because it has been held that where “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1955)), it would have been obvious to add the claimed values to the rest of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 16, wherein average doping concentrations M, N and R of the carbon impurity in the first expansion layer, the second expansion layer and the third expansion layer satisfy: N ≥ R > M; and/or a difference between a doping concentration of the carbon impurity in the first expansion layer and a concentration of the carbon impurity in the N-type semiconductor layer is less than or equal to 4 X 10¹⁶ atoms/cm³ (‘less than’, page 4, Zheng‘384), and the doping concentration of the carbon impurity in the first expansion layer is greater than a concentration of the carbon impurity in the multi-quantum well layer (ABSTRACT, Zheng‘384); and/or
a maximum of the doping concentration of the carbon impurity in the second expansion layer and the third expansion layer is not higher than three times a maximum concentration of the carbon impurity in the N-type semiconductor layer; and/or
the maximum of the doping concentration of the carbon impurity in the second expansion layer and the third expansion layer is not higher than six times a maximum carbon impurity concentration in the multi-quantum well layer.
Regarding claim 20, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 further teaches, “A light emitting diode, comprising the light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 1 (both of Koo‘320 and Zheng‘384 teach LED)”.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 as applied to claim 9 as above, and further in view of YE (US 20230024236 A1, hereinafter Ye‘236).
Regarding claim 10, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 teaches all the limitations described in claim 9.
But Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 is silent upon the provision of wherein a concentration of In in the third expansion layer is less than a concentration of In in the multi-quantum well layer.
However, Ye‘236 teaches a similar light emitting diode epitaxial structure (fig. 1), wherein a concentration of In in the third expansion layer (14) is less than a concentration of In in the multi-quantum well layer (15) (see concentration profile 100 and 300 in fig. 2).
Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 and Ye‘236 are analogous art because they both are directed to light emitting diode and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 with the features of Ye‘236 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 and Ye‘236 to heavily dope the source/drain extension regions according to the teachings of Ye‘236 with a motivation of reducing ‘current leakage channels’. See Ye‘236, ¶ [0003].
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 as applied to claim 9 as above, and further in view of Yeh et al. (US 20170104128 A1, hereinafter Yeh‘128).
Regarding claim 11, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 teaches all the limitations described in claim 9.
But Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 is silent upon the provision of wherein the multi-quantum well layer comprises at least one potential well/barrier pair sublayer, and a distance D1 between a center of the insertion layer and a center of the nearest potential well satisfies: 100 nm ≤ D1 ≤ 300 nm.
However, Yeh‘128 teaches a similar LED device, wherein the multi-quantum well layer comprises at least one potential well/barrier pair sublayer (fig. 1).
Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 and Yeh‘128 are analogous art because they both are directed to LED devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 with the features of Yeh‘128 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 and Yeh‘128 to include potential well/barrier pair sublayer in multi-quantum well layer according to the teachings of Yeh‘128 as this is conventional and useful component of a LED device.
Regarding, ‘a distance D1 between a center of the insertion layer and a center of the nearest potential well satisfies: 100 nm ≤ D1 ≤ 300 nm’, the cited prior arts do not explicitly disclose the particular claimed value, the teachings therein would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to discover the claimed value during routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed values are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed values produce a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, because it has been held that where “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1955)), it would have been obvious to add the claimed values to the rest of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, “The light emitting diode epitaxial structure according to claim 11, wherein a thickness of the potential well/barrier pair sublayer is 10 to 15 nm”, the cited prior arts do not explicitly disclose the particular claimed value, the teachings therein would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to discover the claimed value during routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed values are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., the invention would not work without the specific claimed values). Also, the applicant has not shown that the claimed values produce a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Thus, because it has been held that where “the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 223, 225 (CCPA 1955)), it would have been obvious to add the claimed values to the rest of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 as applied to claim 1 and 14 as above, and further in view of Yeh‘128.
Regarding claim 13, Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 teaches all the limitations described in claim 1.
But Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 is silent upon the provision of wherein the multi-quantum well layer comprises a first multi-quantum well layer, a second multi-quantum well layer and a third multi-quantum well layer which are sequentially arranged from bottom to top;
the first multi-quantum well layer comprises at least a first In-containing potential well/barrier pair sublayer;
the second multi-quantum well layer comprises at least a second In-containing potential well/barrier pair sublayer;
the third multi-quantum well layer comprises at least a third In-containing potential well/barrier pair sublayer,
wherein In content in the multi-quantum well layer satisfies: In content in the third In-containing potential well > In content in the second In-containing potential well > In content in the first In-containing potential well.
However, Yeh‘128 teaches a similar LED device (fig. 1; ¶ [0034]), wherein the multi-quantum well layer comprises a first multi-quantum well layer (4A), a second multi-quantum well layer (4E) and a third multi-quantum well layer (4H) which are sequentially arranged from bottom to top;
the first multi-quantum well layer (4A) comprises at least a first In-containing potential well/barrier pair sublayer (‘Low-In Well Layer’/’Barrier’);
the second multi-quantum well layer (4E) comprises at least a second In-containing potential well/barrier pair sublayer (‘Moderate-In Well Layer’/’Barrier’);
the third multi-quantum well layer (4H) comprises at least a third In-containing potential well/barrier pair sublayer (‘High-In Well Layer’/’Barrier’),
wherein In content in the multi-quantum well layer satisfies: In content in the third In-containing potential well > In content in the second In-containing potential well > In content in the first In-containing potential well (High>Intermediate>Low).
Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 and Yeh‘128 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 with the features of Yeh‘128 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Koo‘320 modified with Zheng‘384 and Yeh‘128 to distribute the Indium concentration low to high from bottom to low in the MQW layer according to the teachings of Yeh‘128 with a motivation of generating ‘a pre-strain effect on the barrier layers thus facilitating high indium intake within the upper most MQW set’. See Yeh‘128, ¶ [0034].
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817