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 .
Response to Amendment
The present amendment, filed on or after 7/22/2026, has been entered. The Applicant has amended claims 1-2, 10, 13-14, and 17, and canceled claim15. Accordingly, claims 1-14 and 16-20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant' s amendments to claims 2, 10, 14, and 17 have overcome all claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 05/14/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Taiwanese Patent Application No. 108102483, filed on 1/23/2019.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 1:
A light-emitting device, comprising:
a light-emitting stack; and
a distributed Bragg reflection structure formed on one side light-emitting stack, comprising a first film stack, a second film stack;
wherein the first film stack comprises a plurality of first dielectric-layer pairs consecutively arranged, the second film stack comprises a plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs consecutively arranged, each of the first dielectric-layer pairs and each of the second dielectric-layer pairs respectively comprises a first dielectric layer having an optical thickness and a second dielectric layer having an optical thickness;
wherein the second dielectric layer has a refractive index higher than that of the first dielectric layer;
wherein in each of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack, the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer has a first ratio, and in each of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack, the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer has a second ratio;
wherein the first ratio is greater than the second ratio.
Claim 2:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the first film stack is farther from the one side of the light-emitting stack than the second film stack.
Claim 10:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising a substrate between the one side of the light-emitting stack and the distributed Bragg reflection structure.
Claim 1:
A light-emitting device, comprising:
a substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface;
a light-emitting stack formed on the first surface of the substrate;
a distributed Bragg reflection structure formed on the second surface of the substrate, wherein the distributed Bragg reflection structure comprises a first film stack and a second film stack;
wherein the first film stack comprises a plurality of first dielectric-layer pairs consecutively arranged, the second film stack comprises a plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs consecutively arranged, each of the first dielectric-layer pairs and each of the second dielectric-layer pairs respectively comprises a first dielectric layer having an optical thickness and a second dielectric layer having an optical thickness;
wherein the second dielectric layer has a refractive index higher than that of the first dielectric layer;
wherein in each of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack, the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer has a first ratio, and in each of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack, the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer has a second ratio;
wherein the first ratio is greater than the second ratio; and
wherein the first film stack is farther from the second surface of the substrate than the second film stack; and
a third film stack comprising a plurality of third dielectric-layer pairs; wherein the third film stack is between the first film stack and the second film stack, or nearer to or farther from the second surface of the substrate than the first film stack and the second film stack.
Regarding claim 1, Cho’s claim 1 (where the third film stack is farther away from the substrate) recites the limitations of claim 1 that are shown in the table above.
Cho does not disclose that the limitation that the distributed Bragg reflection structure comprises
a conversion layer between the first and the second film stacks;
wherein the conversion layer has an optical thickness ranging between that of the first dielectric layer of one of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack and that of the first dielectric layer of one of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack.
He, on the other hand, teaches a reflector structure with improved reflectivity that can be used in LEDs (Fig. 2, [0008]-[0009]), wherein the reflector structure comprises
a conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2 (the layer between Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2), [0018]) between the first (Bragg reflector DBR1, Fig. 2, [0019]) and the second (Bragg reflector DBR2, Fig. 2, [0019]) film stacks.
He further discloses that a conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2) between the stacked Bragg reflectors (Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2) helps to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum, achieving the targeted reflection spectrum profile more effectively ([0018]. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to include a conversion layer between the first and second film stacks in the light-emitting device of Cho, as taught by He, to shape the reflection spectrum to obtained a desired reflection profile (He, [0018]).
He, however, does not specifically teach that
the conversion layer has an optical thickness ranging between that of the first dielectric layer of one of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack and that of the first dielectric layer of one of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack.
He, on the other hand, teaches that the phase adjustment layer between the Bragg reflectors has an optical thickness which differs from the thickness of the Bragg reflector layers on either side ([0018]), and that the thickness of the phase adjustment layer can be adjusted to determine the shape of the reflection spectrum which is beneficial to improve the luminous efficiency of the light emitting diodes ([0018]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of the conversion layer in the light-emitting device of Cho in view of He, through routine optimization, as He identified the thickness of the conversion layer as a result-effective variable for optimizing the shape of the reflection spectrum. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an optical thickness of the conversion layer to be between that of the first dielectric layer of one of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack and that of the first dielectric layer of one of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Cho’s claim 1 recites the limitations of claim 2 as shown in the table above, and therefore Cho in view of He teaches all the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, Cho’s claim 1 recites the limitations of claim 10 as shown in the table above (According to Cho claim 1, the light emitting stack is on the first surface of the substrate and the distributed Bragg reflection structure is on the second surface of the substrate, which implicates that the substrate is between the side of the light-emitting stack and the distributed Bragg reflection structure, as disclosed in claim 10), and therefore Cho’s claim 1 in view of He teaches all the limitations of claim 10.
Claims 3-4 and 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
Regarding claim 3, Cho’ claim 1 in view of He teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 2, wherein
Cho’s claim 1 further teaches that the plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs comprises a last dielectric-layer pair which is most close to the first film stack (a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs comprises a last dielectric-layer pair which is most close the first film stack).
Cho, however, is silent about a conversion layer and therefore, does not teach that the conversion layer is formed on the first dielectric layer of the last dielectric-layer pair and comprises the same material as that of the first dielectric layer.
He, on the other hand, teaches that the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2 (the layer between Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2, [0018]) between and directly in contacts with the first (Bragg reflector DBR2, Fig. 2, [0019]) and the second (Bragg reflector DBR1, Fig. 2, [0019]) film stacks and comprises the same material as the first material layer (Al0.6Ga0.4As, [0019] and [0021]) of the first and second film stacks.
He further discloses that the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2) between the stacked Bragg reflectors (Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2) helps to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum, and thereby, to achieve a desired and effective reflection spectrum profile ([0018]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to form the conversion layer in the light-emitting device of Cho in view of He from the same material as that of the first dielectric layer and on the first dielectric layer of the last dielectric-layer pair, as disclosed by He, which would further provide the benefits of optically and materially matching the conversion layer to other layers of the first and second film stacks, and simplifying the manufacturing process by using identical materials in the conversion layer and film stacks.
Thus, the combination of Cho and He meets all the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, while Cho’s claim 1 in view of He teaches the limitations of claims 3,
Cho is silent about a conversion layer and therefore does not teach that the conversion layer and the first dielectric layer of the last dielectric-layer pair have a total optical thickness greater than that of the first dielectric layer of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack.
He, on the other hand, teaches a reflector structure (Fig. 2, [0019]), wherein the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2: the layer between Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2, [0019]) and the first layer (Al0.6Ga0.4As layer, [0019]) of the last layer pair (last Al0.6Ga0.4As/AlAs pair of the DBR2, Fig. 2, [0019]) have a total optical thickness ([0019]: all first layers of the Bragg reflector DBR2 are Al0.6Ga0.4As with a thickness of 1.08 time ¼ wavelength) greater than that of the first layer (first Al0.6Ga0.4As/AlAs pair of the DBR2, Fig. 2) of the first layer pairs (Al0.6Ga0.4As/AlAs pair, Fig. 2) of the first film stack (Bragg reflector DBR2, Fig. 2: because all Al0.6Ga0.4As layers in the Bragg reflector DBR2 have the same thickness, the conversion layer and the first layer of the last layer pair have a total optical thickness greater than that of the first layer of the first layer pairs of the first film stack).
He further discloses that the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2) between the stacked Bragg reflectors (Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2) helps to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum, achieving the targeted reflection spectrum profile more effectively ([0018]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to form the conversion layer and the layers of the first and second film stacks from the same material, and use the dielectric layers of uniform thickness in each film stack, as taught by He, to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum. Thus, the combination of Cho and He leads to a light-emitting device wherein the conversion layer and the first dielectric layer of the last dielectric-layer pair have a total optical thickness greater than that of the first dielectric layer of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack.
Regarding claim 7, while Cho’s claim 1 in view of He teaches all the limitations of claim 1,
Cho is silent about a conversion layer and therefore does not teach that the conversion layer comprises the same material as that of the first dielectric layer.
He, on the other hand, teaches a reflector structure (Fig. 2, [0019]), wherein the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2: the layer between Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2, [0019]: Al0.6Ga0.4As) comprises the same material as that of the first layer (Al0.6Ga0.4As layer, [0019]: layer pairs comprise Al0.6Ga0.4As/AlAs).
He further discloses that the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2) between the stacked Bragg reflectors (Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2) helps to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum, achieving the targeted reflection spectrum profile more effectively ([0018]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to form the conversion layer in the light-emitting device of Cho in view of He from the same material as that of the first dielectric layer, as disclosed by He, which would provide the benefits of optically and materially matching the conversion layer to first and second film stacks and simplifying the manufacturing process by using identical materials in alternating layers.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 5:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first ratio is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.8.
Claim 2:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first ratio is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.8.
Regarding claim 5, Cho’s claim 1 in view of He teaches all limitations of claim 1, and Cho’s claim 2 recites all the limitations of claim 5 as shown in the table above.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 6:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the second ratio is greater than or equal to 0.8, and less than or equal to 1.2.
Claim 3:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the second ratio is greater than or equal to 0.8, and less than or equal to 1.2.
Regarding claim 6, Cho’s claim 1 in view of He teaches all limitations of claim 1, and Cho’s claim 3 recites all the limitations of claim 6 as shown in the table above.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 8:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric-layer pairs comprise a half pair of the first dielectric-layer pairs and/or the second dielectric-layer pairs comprises a half pair of the second dielectric-layer pairs.
Claim 12:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric-layer pairs comprise a half pair of the first dielectric-layer pairs and/or the second dielectric-layer pairs comprises a half pair of the second dielectric-layer pairs.
Regarding claim 8, Cho’s claim 1 in view of He teaches all limitations of claim 1, and Cho’s claim 12 recites all the limitations of claim 8 as shown in the table above.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 9:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layers of the first dielectric-layer pairs and the first dielectric layers of the second dielectric-layer pairs comprise the same materials.
Claim 13:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layers of the first dielectric-layer pairs and the first dielectric layers of the second dielectric-layer pairs comprise the same materials.
Regarding claim 9, Cho’s claim 1 in view of He teaches all limitations of claim 1, and Cho’s claim 13 recites all the limitations of claim 9 as shown in the table above.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 11:
The light-emitting device according to claim 10, further comprising an interface layer between the substrate and the distributed Bragg reflection structure.
Claim 4:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising an interface layer between the substrate and the distributed Bragg reflection structure.
Regarding claim 11, Cho’s claim 1 in view of He teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 10, and Cho’s claim 4 recites all the limitations of claim 11 as shown in the table above.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 12:
The light-emitting device according to claim 11, wherein the interface layer has an optical thickness between about 100 nm and 1000 nm
Claim 5:
The light-emitting device according to claim 4, wherein the interface layer has an optical thickness which is greater than or equal to a length of a central wavelength of a visible light band.
Regarding claim 12, Cho’s claim 1 and 4 in view of He teaches all limitations of claims 11, and Cho’s claim 5 recites the limitations of claim 12 as shown in the table above (According to Cho’s claims 5, the optical thickness of the interface layer is equal to the length of the central wavelength of the visible light band, which ranges between 400nm and 700nm (see also claim 6 of Cho as evidence), which is in the range of optical thicknesses disclosed in claim 12, and therefore Cho’s claims 1 and 4-5 in view of He teaches all the limitations of claim 12).
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 13: A light-emitting device, comprising:
a light-emitting stack; and
a distributed Bragg reflection structure formed on one side of the light-emitting stack, wherein the distributed Bragg reflection structure comprises a first film stack and a second film stack;
wherein the first film stack comprises a plurality of first dielectric-layer pairs consecutively arranged, the second film stack comprises a plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs consecutively arranged, each of the first dielectric-layer pairs and each of the second dielectric-layer pairs respectively comprises a first dielectric layer having an optical thickness and a second dielectric layer having an optical thickness;
wherein the second dielectric layer has a refractive index higher than that of the first dielectric layer;
wherein in each of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack, the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer has a first ratio, and in each of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack, the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer has a second ratio;
wherein the first ratio is greater than the second ratio;
wherein the first film stack is farther from the second surface of the substrate than the second film stack; and
wherein the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack is greater than the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack.
Claim 1: A light-emitting device, comprising:
a substrate comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite to the first surface;
a light-emitting stack formed on the first surface of the substrate;
a distributed Bragg reflection structure formed on the second surface of the substrate, wherein the distributed Bragg reflection structure comprises a first film stack and a second film stack;
wherein the first film stack comprises a plurality of first dielectric-layer pairs consecutively arranged, the second film stack comprises a plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs consecutively arranged, each of the first dielectric-layer pairs and each of the second dielectric-layer pairs respectively comprises a first dielectric layer having an optical thickness and a second dielectric layer having an optical thickness;
wherein the second dielectric layer has a refractive index higher than that of the first dielectric layer;
wherein in each of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack, the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer has a first ratio, and in each of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack, the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer has a second ratio;
wherein the first ratio is greater than the second ratio; and
wherein the first film stack is farther from the second surface of the substrate than the second film stack; and
a third film stack comprising a plurality of third dielectric-layer pairs; wherein the third film stack is between the first film stack and the second film stack, or nearer to or farther from the second surface of the substrate than the first film stack and the second film stack.
Regarding claim 13, Cho’s claim recites the limitations of claim 1 that are shown in bold in the table above.
Cho does not disclose that the limitation that
the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack is greater than the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack.
Kim, on the other hand, teaches a reflector structure with improved reflectivity that can be used in LEDs (Fig. 2, [0008]-[0009]), wherein the light-emitting device (LED, Fig. 2, [0035]) comprising a first film stack (DBR 150, Fig. 2, [0045]) and the second film stack (DBR 140, Fig. 2, [0045]), where the first film stack is farther from the light emitting stack (active layer 127, Fig. 2, [0036]). Kim further teaches that the first film stack (DBR 150, Figs. 2 and 4) comprises a plurality of first dielectric-layer pairs (comprising third material layers 150a and fourth material layer 150b, Fig. 4, [0049]: TiO2 and SiO2 layers) and the second film stack (DBR 140, Figs. 2 and 4) comprises a plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs (comprising first material layers 140a and second material layer 140b, Fig. 4, [0049]: TiO2 and SiO2 layers), wherein the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer (third material layers 150a, Fig. 4) of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack (DBR 150, Fig. 4) is greater than the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer (first material layers 140a) of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack (DBR 140, Fig. 4; [0048]: “the material layers in the second DBR 150 may have the optical thickness thicker than the material layers in the first DBR 140”).
Kim further discloses that in some embodiments the optical thickness of the first material layers 140a and the second material layers 140b in the first DBR 140 is thicker than that of the third material layers 150a and the fourth material layers 150b in the second DBR 150 ([0048]); and the film stack with thicker layers is used to reflect longer wavelength, and the film stack with thinner layers is used to reflect shorter wavelengths ([0048]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the film stack with thicker layer farther from the light-emitting stack in the light emitting device of Cho, as taught by Kim, so that light with shorter wavelengths are reflected back from the second film stack (thinner layers) before reaching the first film stack (thicker layers) which would prevent the absorption of light of shorter wavelength by the material of the first film stack and potential interference of the short wavelength of light in the thicker dielectric layers. Furthermore, Kim discloses that alternatively the first dielectric layer of the second film stack can be thicker than the first dielectric layer of the second film stack alternatively ([0048]), without an adverse effect. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack being greater than the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack over the only other alternative to be able form a reflector than reflects both long and short wavelengths (see MPEP (2143 (I)(E)).
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of claim 2 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 14:
The light-emitting device according to claim 13, wherein the first ratio is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.8.
Claim 2:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the first ratio is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.8.
Regarding claim 14, Cho claim 1 in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 13, and Cho’s claim 2 recites all the limitations of claim 14 as shown in the table above.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of and claim 3 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 16:
The light-emitting device according to claim 13, wherein the second ratio is greater than or equal to 0.8, and less than or equal to 1.2.
Claim 3:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the second ratio is greater than or equal to 0.8, and less than or equal to 1.2.
Regarding claim 16, Cho claim 1 in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 13, and Cho’s claim 3 recites all the limitation of claim 16 as shown in the table above.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of and claim 4 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 17:
The light-emitting device according to claim 13, further comprising an interface layer between the one side of the light-emitting stack and the distributed Bragg reflection structure.
Claim 4:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising an interface layer between the substrate and the distributed Bragg reflection structure.
Regarding claim 17, Cho claim 1 in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of claim 13, and Cho’s claim 4 recites all the limitations of claim 17 as shown in the table above.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in views of Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) and claim 4 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of claim 5 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 18:
The light-emitting device according to claim 17, wherein the interface layer has an optical thickness which is greater than or equal to a length of a central wavelength of a visible light band.
Claim 5:
The light-emitting device according to claim 4,
wherein the interface layer has an optical thickness which is greater than or equal to a length of a central wavelength of a visible light band.
Regarding claim 18, Cho’s claim 1 in views of Kim and Cho’s claim 4 teaches the limitations of claim 17, and Cho’s claim 5 recited all the limitation of claim 18 as shown in the table above.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of claim 9 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 19:
The light-emitting device according to claim 13, further comprising an anti-interference layer, wherein the distributed Bragg reflection structure is located between the side of the light-emitting stack and the anti-interference layer.
Claim 9:
The light-emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising an anti-interference layer, wherein the distributed Bragg reflection structure is located between the substrate and the anti-interference layer.
Regarding claim 19, Cho’s claim 1 in view of Kim teaches the limitations of claim 13, and Cho’s claim 9 recites all the limitation of claim 19 as shown in the table above.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in views of Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) and claim 9 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of claim 10 of Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2).
Instant Application- 18/389,428
Cho (US Pat. No. 11,855,240 B2)
Claim 20:
The light-emitting device according to claim 19, wherein the anti-interference layer has an optical thickness which is 1/8 times a central wavelength of a visible light band.
Claim 10:
The light-emitting device according to claim 9, wherein the anti-interference layer has an optical thickness which is 1/8 times a central wavelength of a visible light band.
Regarding claim 20, Cho’s claim 1 in views of Kim and Cho’s claim 9 teaches the limitations of claim 19, and Cho’s claim 10 recites all the limitation of claim 20 as shown in the table above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13. 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches a light-emitting device (LED, Fig. 6, [0061]), comprising:
a light-emitting stack (comprising active layer 127, clad layer 129, third nitride semiconductor layer 130, first nitride semiconductor layer 125, and substrate 121; Fig. 6, [0063] and [0066]); and
a distributed Bragg reflection structure (DBR 145, Fig. 6, [0053]) formed on one side of the light-emitting stack (under the bottom surface of substrate 121, Fig. 6), wherein the distributed Bragg reflection structure (DBR 145, Fig. 6) comprises a first film stack (second DBR 150, Fig. 6, [0053]) and a second film stack (first DBR 140, Fig. 6, [0053]);
wherein the first film stack (second DBR 150, Fig. 6) comprises a plurality of first dielectric-layer pairs (plurality of pairs of third material layers 150a and fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4, [0048]) consecutively arranged (Fig. 4), the second film stack (first DBR 140, Fig. 6) comprises a plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs (plurality of pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4, [0048]) consecutively arranged (Fig. 4), each of the first dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) and each of the second dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) respectively comprises a first dielectric layer (second material layers 140b and fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4, [0049]: “the second material layers 140b and the fourth material layers 150b may be formed of SiO2 (refractive index n: about 1.5)”) having an optical thickness (Fig. 4, [0048]) and a second dielectric layer (([0049]: ”the first material layer 140a and the third material layers 150a may be formed of TiO2 (refractive index n: about 2.5)”) having an optical thickness (Fig. 4, [0048]);
wherein the second dielectric layer ([0049]: “TiO2 (refractive index n: about 2.5)” has a refractive index higher than that of the first dielectric layer ([0049]: “SiO2 (refractive index n: about 1.5)”);
wherein in each of the first dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of third material layers 150a and fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4) of the first film stack (second DBR 150, Figs. 4 and 6), the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer (fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4) to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer (third material layers 150a, Fig. 4) has a first ratio (([0050]: “The optical thickness of the third material layer 150a is substantially an integer multiplied by the optical thickness of the fourth material layer 150b”, where the integer can be 1, for which the first ratio will be 1), and in each of the second dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) of the second film stack (first DBR 140, Figs. 4 and 6), the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer (second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer (first material layers 140a, Fig. 4) has a second ratio ([0050]: “the optical thickness (refractive index x actual thickness) of the first material layer 140a is substantially an integer multiplied by is the optical thickness of the second material layer 140b”, where the integer can be 2, for which the second ratio will be 0.5);
wherein the first ratio (1) is greater than the second ratio (0.5);
wherein the first film stack (second DBR 150, Fig. 6) is farther from the one side of the light-emitting stack (under the bottom surface of substrate 121, Fig. 6) than the second film stack (first DBR 140, Fig. 6,); and
wherein the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer (fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4) of the first dielectric-layer pairs (plurality of pairs of third material layers 150a and fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4) of the first film stack (second DBR 150, Fig. 4) is greater than the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer (second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) of the second dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) of the second film stack (first DBR 140, Fig. 6; [0048]: “the material layers in the second DBR 150 may have the optical thickness thicker than the material layers in the first DBR 140”).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 13, wherein
Kim also teaches that the light emitting device further comprises an interface layer between the one side of the light-emitting stack (under the bottom surface of the substrate 121, [0058]: “Furthermore, the first and last layers of the DBR 145 may be formed of SiO2. SiO2 layers may be disposed as the first and last layers of the DBR 145, so that it is possible to stably attach the first DBR 140 to the substrate 121”) and the distributed Bragg reflection structure (DBR 145, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 13, wherein
Kim also teaches that the light-emitting device further comprises an anti-interference layer (the last layer of the DBR, which is a SiO-2- layer, [0058]: “SiO2 layers may be disposed as the first and last layers of the DBR 145, so that it is possible to stably attach the first DBR 140 to the substrate 121 and to protect the second DBR 150.”), wherein the distributed Bragg reflection structure (DBR 145, Fig. 6, [0053]) is located between the side of the light-emitting stack (under the bottom surface of substrate 121, Fig. 6) and the anti-interference layer (last layer of the DBR, Fig. 4, [0058]: the last layer of the DBR is under the DBR 150).
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 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a light-emitting device (LED, Fig. 6, [0061]), comprising:
a light-emitting stack (comprising active layer 127, clad layer 129, third nitride semiconductor layer 130 and first nitride semiconductor layer 125, Fig. 6, [0063] and [0066]); and
a distributed Bragg reflection structure (DBR 145, Fig. 6, [0053]) formed on one side light-emitting stack (under the bottom surface of first nitride semiconductor layer 125, Fig. 6), comprising a first film stack (second DBR 150, Fig. 6, [0053]), a second film stack (first DBR 140, Fig. 6, [0053]);
wherein the first film stack (second DBR 150, Figs. 4 and 6) comprises a plurality of first dielectric-layer pairs (plurality of pairs of third material layers 150a and fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4, [0048]) consecutively arranged (Fig. 4), the second film stack (first DBR 140, Figs. 4 and 6) comprises a plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs (plurality of pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4, [0048]) consecutively arranged (Fig. 4), each of the first dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of third material layers 150a and fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4) and each of the second dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) respectively comprises a first dielectric layer (second material layers 140b and fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4, [0049]: “the second material layers 140b and the fourth material layers 150b may be formed of SiO2 (refractive index n: about 1.5)”) having an optical thickness (Fig. 4, [0048]) and a second dielectric layer ([0049]: ”the first material layer 140a and the third material layers 150a may be formed of TiO2 (refractive index n: about 2.5)”) having an optical thickness (Fig. 4, [0048]);
wherein the second dielectric layer ([0049]: “TiO2 (refractive index n: about 2.5)”) has a refractive index higher than that of the first dielectric layer ([0049]: “SiO2 (refractive index n: about 1.5)”);
wherein in each of the first dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of third material layers 150a and fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4) of the first film stack (second DBR 150, Figs. 4 and 6), the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer (fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4) to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer (third material layers 150a, Fig. 4) has a first ratio ([0050]: “The optical thickness of the third material layer 150a is substantially an integer multiplied by the optical thickness of the fourth material layer 150b”, where the integer can be 1, for which the first ratio will be 1), and in each of the second dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) of the second film stack (first DBR 140, Figs. 4 and 6), the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer (second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) to the optical thickness of the second dielectric layer (first material layers 140a, Fig. 4) has a second ratio ([0050]: “the optical thickness (refractive index x actual thickness) of the first material layer 140a is substantially an integer multiplied by is the optical thickness of the second material layer 140b”, where the integer can be 2, for which the second ratio will be 0.5);
wherein the first ratio (1) is greater than the second ratio (0.5).
Kim, however, does not teach that
a conversion layer between the first and the second film stacks;
the conversion layer has an optical thickness ranging between that of the first dielectric layer of one of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack and that of the first dielectric layer of one of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack.
He, on the other hand, teaches a reflector structure with improved reflectivity that can be used in LEDs (Fig. 2, [0008]-[0009]), wherein the reflector structure comprises
a conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2 (the layer between Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2), [0018]) between the first (Bragg reflector DBR2, Fig. 2, [0019]) and the second (Bragg reflector DBR1, Fig. 2, [0019]) film stacks.
He further discloses that a conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2) between the stacked Bragg reflectors (Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2) helps to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum, achieving the targeted reflection spectrum profile more effectively ([0018]. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to include a conversion layer between the first and second film stacks in the light-emitting device of Kim, as taught by He, to shape the reflection spectrum to obtained a desired reflection profile (He, [0018]).
He, however, does not specifically teach that
the conversion layer has an optical thickness ranging between that of the first dielectric layer of one of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack and that of the first dielectric layer of one of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack.
He, on the other hand, teaches that the phase adjustment layer between the Bragg reflectors has an optical thickness which differs from the thickness of the Bragg reflector layers on either side ([0018]), and that the thickness of the phase adjustment layer can be adjusted to determine the shape of the reflection spectrum which is beneficial to improve the luminous efficiency of the light emitting diodes ([0018]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thickness of the conversion layer in the light-emitting device of Kim in view of He, through routine optimization, as He identified the thickness of the conversion layer as a result-effective variable for optimizing the shape of the reflection spectrum. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an optical thickness of the conversion layer to be between that of the first dielectric layer of one of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack and that of the first dielectric layer of one of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of He teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein
Kim further teaches that the first film stack (second DBR 150, Fig. 6) is farther from the one side of the light-emitting stack (under the bottom surface of first nitride semiconductor layer 125) than the second film stack (first DBR 140, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of He teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 2, wherein
Kim further teaches that the plurality of second dielectric-layer pairs (plurality of pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) comprises a last dielectric-layer pair (bottom most pair of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4) which is most close to the first film stack (second DBR 150, Figs. 4).
Kim, however, is silent about a conversion layer, and therefore, does not teach that the conversion layer is formed on the first dielectric layer of the last dielectric-layer pair and comprises the same material as that of the first dielectric layer.
He, on the other hand teaches that the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2) is directly between the first film stack (Bragg reflector DBR2, Fig. 2) and second film stack (Bragg reflector DBR1, Fig. 2), and is made from the same material ([0019]; AI0.6Ga0.4As) as the first layer ([0019]: AI0.6Ga0.4As) of the first film stack (Bragg reflector DBR2, Fig. 2, [0019]). He further discloses that the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2) between the stacked Bragg reflectors (Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2) helps to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum, and thereby, to achieve a desired and effective reflection spectrum profile ([0018]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to form the conversion layer in the light-emitting device of Kim in view of He from the same material as that of the first dielectric layer and on the first dielectric layer of the last dielectric-layer pair, as disclosed by He, which would further provide the benefits of optically and materially matching the conversion layer to other layers of the first and second film stacks, and simplifying the manufacturing process by using identical materials in the conversion layer and film stacks.
Thus, the combination of Kim and He also meets the limitation that the conversion layer is formed on the first dielectric layer of the last dielectric-layer pair and comprises the same material as that of the first dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 4, while Kim 1 in view of He teaches the limitations of claims 3,
Kim is silent about a conversion layer and therefore does not teach that the conversion layer and the first dielectric layer of the last dielectric-layer pair have a total optical thickness greater than that of the first dielectric layer of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack.
He, on the other hand, teaches a reflector structure (Fig. 2, [0019]), wherein the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2: the layer between Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2, [0019]) and the first layer (Al0.6Ga0.4As layer, [0019]) of the last layer pair (last Al0.6Ga0.4As/AlAs pair of the DBR2, Fig. 2, [0019]) have a total optical thickness ([0019]: all first layers of the Bragg reflector DBR2 are Al0.6Ga0.4As with a thickness of 1.08 time ¼ wavelength) greater than that of the first layer (first Al0.6Ga0.4As/AlAs pair of the DBR2, Fig. 2) of the first layer pairs (Al0.6Ga0.4As/AlAs pair, Fig. 2) of the first film stack (Bragg reflector DBR2, Fig. 2: because all Al0.6Ga0.4As layers in the Bragg reflector DBR2 have the same thickness, the conversion layer and the first layer of the last layer pair have a total optical thickness greater than that of the first layer of the first layer pairs of the first film stack).
He further discloses that the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2) between the stacked Bragg reflectors (Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2) helps to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum, achieving the targeted reflection spectrum profile more effectively ([0018]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to form the conversion layer and the layers of the first and second film stacks from the same material, and use the dielectric layers of uniform thickness in each film stack, as taught by He, to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum in the light-emitting device of Kim in view of He. Thus, the combination of Kim and He leads to a light-emitting device wherein the conversion layer and the first dielectric layer of the last dielectric-layer pair have a total optical thickness greater than that of the first dielectric layer of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack.
Regarding claim 7, while Kim in view of He teaches all the limitations of claim 1,
Kim is silent about a conversion layer and therefore does not teach that the conversion layer comprises the same material as that of the first dielectric layer.
He, on the other hand, teaches a reflector structure (Fig. 2, [0019]), wherein the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2: the layer between Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2, [0019]: Al0.6Ga0.4As) comprises the same material as that of the first layer (Al0.6Ga0.4As layer, [0019]: layer pairs comprise Al0.6Ga0.4As/AlAs).
He further discloses that the conversion layer (phase adjustment layer, Fig. 2) between the stacked Bragg reflectors (Bragg reflector DBR1 and Bragg reflector DBR2) helps to effectively adjust the shape of the reflection spectrum, achieving the targeted reflection spectrum profile more effectively ([0018]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to form the conversion layer in the light-emitting device of Kim in view of He from the same material as that of the first dielectric layer, as disclosed by He, which would provide the benefits of optically and materially matching the conversion layer to first and second film stacks and simplifying the manufacturing process by using identical materials in alternating layers.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of He teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein
Kim further teaches that the first dielectric-layer pairs comprise a half pair of the first dielectric-layer pairs and/or the second dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Figs. 4 and 6) comprises a half pair of the second dielectric-layer pairs ([0058]: “the first and last layers of the DBR 145 may be formed of SiO2. SiO2 layers may be disposed as the first and last layers of the DBR 145, so that it is possible to stably attach the first DBR 140 to the substrate 121 and to protect the second DBR 150.”, and therefore there is a half pair comprising SiO2 (identical to the material of second material layers 140b, [0049]) between the top first material layers 140a and the substrate 121 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of He teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein
Kim further teaches that the first dielectric layers (fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4, [0048]) of the first dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of third material layers 150a and fourth material layers 150b, Fig. 4, [0048]) and the first dielectric layers (second material layers 140b, Fig. 4, [0048]) of the second dielectric-layer pairs (pairs of first material layers 140a and second material layers 140b, Fig. 4, [0048]) comprise the same materials ([0049]: “the second material layers 140b and the fourth material layers 150b may be formed of SiO2 (refractive index n: about 1.5)”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of He teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein
Kim also teaches that the light emitting device further comprises a substrate (substrate 121, Fig. 6, [0058]) between the one side of the light-emitting stack (under the bottom surface of first nitride semiconductor layer 125, Fig. 6) and the distributed Bragg reflection structure (DBR 145, Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of He teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 10, wherein
Kim also teaches that the light emitting device further comprises an interface layer between the substrate (SiO2 layer, [0058]: “Furthermore, the first and last layers of the DBR 145 may be formed of SiO2. SiO2 layers may be disposed as the first and last layers of the DBR 145, so that it is possible to stably attach the first DBR 140 to the substrate 121”) and the distributed Bragg reflection structure (DBR 145, Fig. 6).
Claims 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) in view of Heo (US 2020/0212263 A1) as applied to claims 1-4 and 7-11 above and further in view of Heo (US 2020/0212263 A1).
Regarding claim 5, while Kim in view of He teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1,
Kim and He do not teach that the first ratio is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.8.
Heo, on the other hand, teaches a distributed Bragg reflector structure (DBR 43, Fig. 1, [0069]) for a light emitting diode (light emitting diode 100, Fig. 1, [0069]), wherein the distributed Bragg reflector structure comprises alternating SiO2 (analogous to the first dielectric layer of Kim) and TiO2 (analogous to the second dielectric layer of Kim) layers (Fig. 7, [0145]) and the ratio of the optical thicknesses of the SiO2 and -TiO2 layer vary in different regions (Fig. 7: region 1 has pairs with SiO-2 layer has optical thickness larger than the optical thickness of TiO2 layer) of the distributed Bragg reflector structure (see layer thicknesses in Fig. 7). Heo further discloses that varying the thicknesses of the dielectric pairs in different regions of the distributed Bragg reflector structure would provide the benefit of enabling removal of ripples generated in the stop band as an incident angle increases ([0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thicknesses of the first and second dielectric layers in the first dielectric-pairs of the first film stack in the light-emitting device of Kim in view of He, to improve the reflection spectrum at different angles of incidence by reducing ripples in the stop band, through routine optimization, as taught by Yeo. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have the claimed limitation regarding the range of first ratio being greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.8, as discovering the optimum first ratio values according to the reflection spectrum at different angles of incidence involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range of first ratio is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. that the invention would not work without the claimed range of first ratio values (see MPEP 2144.05, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d)).
Thus, the combination of Kim, He, and Yeo meets all the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, while Kim in view of He teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 1, wherein
Kim and He do not teach that the second ratio is greater than or equal to 0.8, and less than or equal to 1.2.
Heo, on the other hand, teaches a distributed Bragg reflector structure (DBR 43, Fig. 1, [0069]) for a light emitting diode (light emitting diode 100, Fig. 1, [0069]), wherein the distributed Bragg reflector structure comprises alternating SiO2 (analogous to the first dielectric layer of Kim) and TiO2 (analogous to the second dielectric layer of Kim) layers (Fig. 7, [0145]) and the ratio of the optical thicknesses of the SiO2 and -TiO2 layer vary in different regions (Fig. 7: region 1 has pairs where SiO-2 layer has optical thickness larger than the optical thickness of TiO2 layer, and region 3 has pairs where SiO2 layer has optical thickness smaller than the optical thickness of TiO2 layer) of the distributed Bragg reflector structure (see layer thicknesses in Fig. 7). Heo further discloses that varying the thicknesses of the dielectric pairs in different regions of the distributed Bragg reflector structure would provide the benefit of enabling removal of ripples generated in the stop band as an incident angle increases ([0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thicknesses of the first and second dielectric layers in the second dielectric-layer of the second film stack in the light-emitting device of Kim in view of He, to improve the reflection spectrum at different angles of incidence by reducing ripples in the stop band, through routine optimization, as taught by Yeo. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have the claimed limitation regarding the range of second ratio being greater than or equal to 0.8 and less than or equal to 1.2, as discovering the optimum second ratio values according to the reflection spectrum at different angles of incidence involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range of second ratio is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. that the invention would not work without the claimed range of first ratio values (see MPEP 2144.05, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d)).
Thus, the combination of Kim, He, and Heo meets all the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, while Kim in view of He teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 11,
Kim and He are silent about the optical thickness of the interface layer and therefore do not teach that the interface layer has an optical thickness between about 100 nm and 1000 nm.
Heo, on the other hand, teaches an interface layer (interfacial layer 41, Fig. 1, [0069]) disposed between the light emitting structure (active layer 27, Fig. 1, [0071]) and the distributed Bragg reflection structure (DBR 43, Fig. 1, [0069]), wherein interface layer has an optical thickness between about 100 nm and 1000 nm ([0078]: 300nm to 500nm, which corresponds to an optical thickness of 1.47 (refractive index of SiO2) times 300nm to 500nm = 441nm to 735 nm).
Heo further discloses that the interfacial layer serves to prevent the DBR formed on the bottom surface of the substrate from being affected by the surface state of the bottom surface of the substrate, and is thicker than the dielectric layers of the film stacks layers, other than the interfacial layer may also reduce influence of a rough bottom surface of the substrate on the DBR formed on the bottom surface of the substrate ([0040]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to set the thickness of the interface layer in the light-emitting device of Kim in view of He to be between about 100 nm and 1000 nm, as taught by Heo, to be able to prevent the DBR formed on the bottom surface of the substrate from being affected by the surface state of the bottom surface of the substrate.
Claims 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) as applied to claims 13, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Heo (US 2020/0212263 A1).
Regarding claim 14, while Kim teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 13, wherein
Kim does not teach that the
first ratio is greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.8.
Heo, on the other hand, teaches a distributed Bragg reflector structure (DBR 43, Fig. 1, [0069]) for a light emitting diode (light emitting diode 100, Fig. 1, [0069]), wherein the distributed Bragg reflector structure comprises alternating SiO2 (analogous to the first dielectric layer of Kim) and TiO2 (analogous to the second dielectric layer of Kim) layers (Fig. 7, [0145]) and the ratio of the optical thicknesses of the SiO2 and -TiO2 layer vary in different regions (Fig. 7: region 1 has pairs where SiO¬2 layer has optical thickness larger than the optical thickness of TiO2 layer) of the distributed Bragg reflector structure (see layer thicknesses in Fig. 7). Heo further discloses that varying the thicknesses of the dielectric pairs in different regions of the distributed Bragg reflector structure would provide the benefit of enabling removal of ripples generated in the stop band as an incident angle increases ([0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thicknesses of the first and second dielectric layers in the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack in the light-emitting device of Kim, to improve the reflection spectrum at different angles of incidence by reducing ripples in the stop band, through routine optimization, as taught by Yeo. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have the claimed limitation regarding the range of first ratio being greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.8, as discovering the optimum first ratio values according to the reflection spectrum at different angles of incidence involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range of first ratio is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. that the invention would not work without the claimed range of first ratio values (see MPEP 2144.05, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d).
Thus, the combination of Kim and Heo meets all the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, while Kim teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 13, wherein
Kim does not teach that the second ratio is greater than or equal to 0.8, and less than or equal to 1.2.
Heo, on the other hand, teaches a distributed Bragg reflector structure (DBR 43, Fig. 1, [0069]) for a light emitting diode (light emitting diode 100, Fig. 1, [0069]), wherein the distributed Bragg reflector structure comprises alternating SiO2 (analogous to the first dielectric layer of Kim) and TiO2 (analogous to the second dielectric layer of Kim) layers (Fig. 7, [0145]) and the ratio of the optical thicknesses of the SiO2 and -TiO2 layer vary in different regions (Fig. 7: region 1 has pairs where SiO-2 layer has optical thickness larger than the optical thickness of TiO2 layer, and region 3 has pairs where SiO2 layer has optical thickness smaller than the optical thickness of TiO2 layer) of the distributed Bragg reflector structure (see layer thicknesses in Fig. 7). Heo further discloses that varying the thicknesses of the dielectric pairs in different regions of the distributed Bragg reflector structure would provide the benefit of enabling removal of ripples generated in the stop band as an incident angle increases ([0167]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the thicknesses of the first and second dielectric layers in the second dielectric-layer of the second film stack in the light-emitting device of Kim, to improve the reflection spectrum at different angles of incidence by reducing ripples in the stop band, through routine optimization, as taught by Heo. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have the claimed limitation regarding the range of second ratio being greater than or equal to 0.8 and less than or equal to 1.2, as discovering the optimum second ratio values according to the reflection spectrum at different angles of incidence involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed range of second ratio is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. that the invention would not work without the claimed range of first ratio values (see MPEP 2144.05, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d)).
Thus, the combination of Kim and Heo meets all the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, while Kim teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 17,
Kim is silent on the thickness of the interface layer and therefore does not teach that the interface layer has an optical thickness which is greater than or equal to a length of a central wavelength of a visible light band.
Heo, on the other hand, teaches an interface layer (interfacial layer 41, Fig. 1, [0069]) disposed between the light emitting structure (active layer 27, Fig. 1, [0071]) and the distributed Bragg reflection structure (DBR 43, Fig. 1, [0069]), wherein interface layer has an optical thickness ([0078]: 400nm, which corresponds to an optical thickness of 1.47 (refractive index of SiO2) times 400nm =588nm which is a length of a central wavelength of visible light) which is greater than or equal to a length of a central wavelength of a visible light band.
Heo further discloses that the interfacial layer serves to prevent the DBR formed on the bottom surface of the substrate from being affected by the surface state of the bottom surface of the substrate, and is thicker than the dielectric layers of the film stacks layers, other than the interfacial layer may also reduce influence of a rough bottom surface of the substrate on the DBR formed on the bottom surface of the substrate ([0040]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to set the thickness of the interface layer in the light-emitting device of Kim to be a length of a central wavelength of visible light, as taught by Heo, to be able to prevent the DBR formed on the bottom surface of the substrate from being affected by the surface state of the bottom surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 20, while Kim in view of Heo teaches the light-emitting device according to claim 19,
both Kim and Heo are silent on the thickness of the anti-interference layer, and therefore, do not teach that the anti-interference layer has an optical thickness which is 1/8 times a central wavelength of a visible light band.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, however, that the anti-interference layer as the last layer of the distributed Bragg reflection structure can be further constructed to improve the reflection at the last surface of the distributed Bragg reflection structure. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to optimize the thickness of the anti-interference layer to increase the reflections from the distributed Bragg reflection structure. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found the claimed limitation regarding the thickness of the anti-interference layer being 1/8 times a central wavelength of a visible light band, as discovering the optimum thickness according to the reflection spectrum at different angles of incidence involves only routine skill in the art. (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)). Furthermore, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed thickness of the anti-interference layer is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. that the invention would not work without the claimed thickness value (see MPEP 2144.05, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d)).
Response to Arguments
It has been acknowledged that the applicant amended claims 1-2, 10, 13-14 and 17 and canceled claim 15 per response dated on 7/20/2026. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been fully considered.
Applicant argues in substance:
(Under Claims 1-4 and 7-12 over Cho in view of He, pages 9-10 of Applicant’s response): Claim 1 recites, among other features, a distributed Bragg reflection structure comprising a first film stack, a second film stack, and a conversion layer between the first and second film stacks, wherein the conversion layer has an optical thickness ranging between that of the first dielectric layer of one of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack and that of the first dielectric layer of one of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack. This is the key limitation that Cho does not disclose and that the Office Action attempts to supply using He.
He, however, does not teach the claimed relationship. He discloses a phase-adjustment layer between Bragg reflectors and states that the thickness of the phase-adjustment layer can be adjusted to influence the shape of the reflection spectrum. But He does not merely fail to expressly disclose the claimed between relationship. Rather, He's concrete working examples show the opposite configuration, namely that the phase-adjustment layer thickness is greater than both adjacent Bragg layers, not between them.
PNG
media_image1.png
119
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, in each working example, the phase-adjustment layer is greater than both adjacent Bragg layers; it is not between them. He's disclosure is therefore not simply silent as to the claimed relationship. He's specific examples affirmatively show a different thickness relationship than the one now claimed.
The claimed limitation is not merely a numerical value or an arbitrary result-effective variable. It is a specific relational thickness ordering relative to the two neighboring first dielectric layers. The Office Action has not adequately explained why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the presently claimed between relationship instead of the greater-than-both configuration actually exemplified in He. Accordingly, the rejection lacks sufficient articulated reasoning with rational underpinning and relies on hindsight reconstruction.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The Applicant mainly argues that He does not teach that the phase-adjustment layer (analogous to the conversion layer) has an optical thickness ranging between that of the first dielectric layer of one of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack and that of the first dielectric layer of one of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack. As evidence, the Applicant points at He’s working examples (see the table above provided by the Applicant). As stated by the Applicant, in each working example, the phase-adjustment layer is greater than both adjacent Bragg layers; it is not between them. The Examiner notes that “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” (MPEP 2123(II)). He explicitly discloses that “the optical thickness of the phase adjusting layer is different from those of Prague reflector layers on the two sides; the thickness of the phase adjusting layer can be adjusted; because of the addition of phase adjusting layer between the superposed Prague reflectors, it can make effective adjustment on the reflection spectrum shape, more effectively achieving the reflecting purpose and beneficial to raising light-emitting efficiency of the LED.” (Abstract). He does not prohibit or discourage the phase-adjustment layer having an optical thickness ranging between that of the first dielectric layer of one of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack and that of the first dielectric layer of one of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack. The examples provided by He are just two examples selected for demonstrative purposes among a large number of possibilities, and cannot be used as a limitation, if such a limitation is not explicitly disclosed. He clearly discloses that the thickness of the phase adjustment layer can be adjusted without any limitation to achieve a reflection spectrum shape.
The Applicant further argues that “the claimed limitation is not merely a numerical value or an arbitrary result-effective variable.” To be persuasive, this argument should be supported by specific limitations claim 1. He definitely presents the thickness of the phase adjustment layer as a result-effective variable for adjusting the shape of the reflection spectrum, which is clearly stated as “He identified the thickness of the conversion layer as a result-effective variable for optimizing the shape of the reflection spectrum” in the non-final office action. In response to Applicant’s arguments this point is further clarified in the current office action above (see claim 1 rejections above). Accordingly, claim 1 remains rejected under same grounds as in the non-final office action (double patenting rejection under Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2) in view of He (CN 1571173 A), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection under Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1) in view of He (CN 1571173 A).
(Under Claims 13-20 over Cho, pages 10-11 of Applicant’s response): The Office Action rejects claims 13-20 as allegedly unpatentable over various claims of Cho. Applicants have amended independent claim 13 to further clarify and distinguish the claimed subject matter. In particular, claim 13 no longer recites the "greater than or equal to 1.5 and less than or equal to 1.8" limitation in the independent claim. Instead, claim 13 now recites a structural cross-stack thickness relationship: the first film stack is farther from the one side of the light-emitting stack than the second film stack, and the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer of the first dielectric-layer pairs of the first film stack is greater than the optical thickness of the first dielectric layer of the second dielectric-layer pairs of the second film stack.
Cho claims 1 and 2 do not recite this claimed cross-stack first-dielectric-layer thickness ordering. Cho claim 2 is directed to a first-ratio range, while amended claim 13 claims a particular structural ordering of first dielectric layer optical thicknesses across the first and second film stacks. For at least this reason, amended claim 13 is patentably distinct over Cho claims I and 2. Claims 14 and 16-20 depend from amended claim 13 and are patentable for at least the same reasons. Withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 13-20 is respectfully requested.
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant that amended claim 13 overcomes the nonstatutory double patenting rejection based on Cho (U.S. Patent No. 11,855,240 B2). However, claims 13-20 are now rejected under new grounds by the combination of Cho with a new prior art Kim (US 2011/0316026 A1), as detailed in the office action above.
(Under Claims 1-4 and 7-11 over Kim in view ofHe ; claims 5-6 and 12 further in view of Heo; pages 11-12 of Applicant’s response): Kim does not disclose the claimed conversion layer. He discloses a phase-adjustment layer between DBRs, but He does not disclose the claimed thickness relationship. More importantly, He's actual examples show that the phase-adjustment layer is thicker than both adjacent Bragg layers, not between them.
The Examiner's routine-optimization reasoning is insufficient. The claimed limitation is a specific relational limitation, not merely an arbitrary thickness value. The Office Action has not shown why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the claimed between relationship rather than the greater-than-both configuration actually taught in He's examples.
As elaborated in response (a) above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that He does not teach the optical thickness relationship between the phase adjustment layer and the DBRs. The Examiner’s explanations reading this issue will not be repeated, and the Applicant is referred to response (a) above.
(Under Claims 1-4 and 7-11 over Kim in view of He ; claims 5-6 and 12 further in view of Heo; page 12 of Applicant’s response): This deficiency is particularly significant because He's phase-adjustment-layer teaching is disclosed in the context of an AlGaAs/ AlAs epitaxial semiconductor DBR, whereas Kim is directed to a SiO2/TiO2 oxide DBR. The AlGaAs/AlAs epitaxial DBRs and SiO2/TiO2 deposited DBRs differ in growth/deposition, interface properties, refractive-index dispersion, and process reliability, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success that He's explicit thickness working points would yield equivalent optical behavior in Kim's oxide DBR absent additional technical guidance or data. This difference further weakens any assertion that He's specific phase-adjustment-layer teaching would have been directly and straightforwardly applied to Kim to arrive at the claimed relational ordering.
The Examiner respectfully disagreed with the Applicant in that the material composition of the DBRs actually is a factor in combining Kim and He. First, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would know that the optical features (reflectance and transmittance) of a DBR depends on the optical thicknesses of the stacked layers. He does not report any interface property, growth/deposition condition, process reliability, and refractive-index dispersion as effective variables on the optical properties of the DBRs. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for a person of ordinary skill in the art to assume that these features have a significant effect on the optical features of the DBRs until expressed by the prior art. The Examiner directs the Applicant to the Abstract and paragraphs [0001]-[0011] of He, where the invention and inventive concept is discussed. These paragraphs solely discuss the inventive concept independent of material composition and purely from optical perspective, and disclose that the phase adjustment layer can be used to adjust the reflection spectrum of conventional DBRs. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the teachings of He applies to DBRs irrespective of material composition, and therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the teachings of He in improving the light emitting device of Kim. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-4 and 7-11, and also claims 5-6 and 12 remain.
(Under Claims 13-20 over Kim in view of Heo; page 13 of Applicant’s response): Kim states that the optical thickness of layer 140b is greater than that of layer 150b. Thus, under the Office's own mapping, Kim teaches that the first dielectric layer of the second film stack is thicker than that of the first film stack. That is the opposite of amended claim 13, which requires that the first dielectric layer of the first film stack be thicker than that of the second film stack.
The Examiner agrees with the Applicant that Kim discloses that the optical thickness of layer 140b is greater than that of layer 150b. However, Kim also discloses that this relationship can be reversed (see [0048]: “the material layers in the second DBR 150 may have the optical thickness thicker than the material layers in the first DBR 140”). Therefore, claim 13 is still rejected based on Kim. Accordingly, claims 14-20 are also rejected by Kim or Kim in view of Heo.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that incorporating limitation related to optical thickness variations in the film stacks and conversion layer might render independent claims 1 and 13 overcome the current rejections.
The Examiner is available for an interview at Applicant' s convenience if the Applicant would like to discuss the application.
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 ILKER OZDEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, William B Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/ILKER NMN OZDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
