DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the election filed 15 May 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, claims 1-6, 12-17, and 20, in the reply filed on 15 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the patentably distinct species require at least a different keyword search and different class/subclass search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-11 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 15 May 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6 August 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because there is no English translation of NPL document 59. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0091037 A1 to Jung et al. (hereinafter “Jung”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Jung (Fig. 3) discloses a semiconductor light emitting device comprising:
a light emitting structure comprising a first semiconductor layer 130 (¶ 0031) having a first conductivity type (n), a second semiconductor layer 150 (¶ 0035) having a second conductivity type (p) which is different from the first conductivity type, and an active layer 140 (¶ 0033) between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer and configured to emit light having a wavelength in a range of about 620 nm to about 750 nm (¶ 0033 - the disclosed range overlaps the recited range; see note below);
a first electrode 153 (¶ 0037) electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer 130;
a second electrode 155 (¶ 0037) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer 150;
a capping layer 171/151/15 (¶¶ 0036, 0046) on a top surface of the light emitting structure and having a first refractive index in a range of about 2.05 to about 2.58 (¶ 0036 - 151 has a refractive index of 2.0-2.1; ¶ 0040 - listed alternative materials have refractive indices that are within the recited range); and
an encapsulation layer 173 (¶ 0040) on the capping layer and on the light emitting structure, and having a second refractive index which is less than the first refractive index (¶¶ 0040, 47).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, Jung (Fig. 3) discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the capping layer 171/151/15 comprises at least one of silver bromide (AgBr), thallium bromide (TlBr), carbon (C), thallium chloride (TlCl), cobalt (Co), bismuth germanate (Bi.sub.12GeO.sub.20), bismuth germanate (Bi.sub.4Ge.sub.3O.sub.2), lead germanate (Pb.sub.5Ge.sub.3O.sub.11), magnesium hydroxide (MgH.sub.2), titanium hydroxide (TiH.sub.2), lutetium (Lu), manganese (Mn), lead molybdic acid (PbMOO.sub.4), aluminum nitride (AlN), boron nitride (BN), gallium nitride (GaN), silicon nitride (Si.sub.3N.sub.4), vanadium nitride (VN), potassium niobate (KNbO.sub.3), lithium niobate (LiNbO.sub.3), molybdenum trioxide (MoO.sub.3), niobium pentoxide (Nb.sub.2O.sub.5), tantalum pentoxide (Ta.sub.2O.sub.5), tellurium dioxide (TeO.sub.2), titanium oxide (TiO.sub.2), zirconium oxide (ZrO.sub.2), silver gallium sulfide (AgGaS.sub.2), arsenic trisulfide (As.sub.2S.sub.3), barium gallium sulfide (BaGaS.sub.7), cadmium sulfide (CdS), cadmium gallium sulfide (CdGa.sub.2S.sub.4), mercury gallium sulfide (HgGa.sub.2S.sub.4), zinc sulfide (ZnS), zinc selenium (ZnSe), bismuth silicate (Bi.sub.12SiO.sub.20), potassium tantalate (KTaO.sub.3), barium titanate (BaTiO.sub.3), and strontium titanate (SrTiO.sub.3) (¶ 0040 - zirconium oxide).
Regarding claim 3, Jung (Fig. 3) discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the second refractive index (of 173) is in a range of about 1.35 to about 1.60 (¶ 0042).
Jung fails to expressly disclose: a thickness of the capping layer is in a range of about 50 nm to about 100 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recited layer thickness, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, layer thickness is considered a result effective variable because it affects the overall dimensions of the device, and thus discovering an optimum value of layer thickness involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Jung (Fig. 3) discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the capping layer 171/151/15 is on a top surface of the second semiconductor layer 150, wherein the second semiconductor layer 150 comprises Al.sub.xGa.sub.yIn.sub.1-x-yP (where 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, and 0≤x+y≤1) (¶ 0031 - disclosing compound semiconductors including GaP), wherein the second semiconductor layer has a third refractive index (¶ 0008 - “GaP . . . has a refractive index of about 3.5 or 3.6”) which is greater than the first refractive index (¶ 0036 - 151 has a refractive index of 2.0-2.1), and wherein the third refractive index is in a range of about 3.45 to about 3.55 (¶¶ 0031, 08 - disclosing 3.5 or 3.6).
Regarding claim 5, Jung (Fig. 3) discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 4, wherein the light emitted by the light emitting structure has a target wavelength of 660 nm (¶ 0033), wherein the first refractive index is in a range of about 2.05 to about 2.53 (¶ 0036 - 151 has a refractive index of 2.0-2.1).
Jung also fails to expressly disclose: wherein a thickness of the capping layer is in a range of about 50 nm to about 95 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recited layer thickness, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F .2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, layer thickness is considered a result effective variable because it affects the overall dimensions of the device, and thus discovering an optimum value of layer thickness is deemed to involve only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Jung (Fig. 3) discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 5, wherein the first refractive index is in a range of about 2.12 to about 2.43 (¶ 0040 - 171 may be formed of ZrO2; the instant specification at Fig. 3 discloses ZrO2 has a refractive index of 2.148).
Regarding claim 14, Jung discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, however, in the embodiment of Fig. 3 does not disclose: wherein a top surface of the second semiconductor layer comprises a concavo-convex portion, and wherein the capping layer is conformally arranged on the concavo-convex portion.
In another embodiment, Jung (Fig. 6) discloses a top surface of a second semiconductor layer 130 (¶ 0080) comprises a concavo-convex portion (Fig. 6), and wherein the capping layer 171/117 (¶¶ 0077, 0080) is conformally arranged on the concavo-convex portion (Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include modify the embodiment of Fig. 3 of Jung to include the concavo-convex portion configuration as taught by Jung in the embodiment of Fig. 6 for the purpose of improving light extraction efficiency (¶ 0080).
Regarding independent claim 15, Jung (Fig. 3) discloses a semiconductor light emitting device comprising:
a light emitting structure comprising a first semiconductor layer 130 (¶ 0031) having a first conductivity type (n), a second semiconductor layer 150 (¶ 0035) having a second conductivity type (p) which is different from the first conductivity type, and an active layer 140 (¶ 0033) between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer and configured to emit light having a wavelength in a range of about 620 nm to about 750 nm (¶ 0033 - the disclosed range overlaps the recited range; see note below);
a first electrode 153 (¶ 0037) electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer 130;
a second electrode 155 (¶ 0037) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer 150;
a capping layer 171/151/15 (¶¶ 0036, 0046) on a top surface of the light emitting structure, having a first refractive index in a range of about 2.05 to about 2.58 (¶ 0036 - 151 has a refractive index of 2.0-2.1; ¶ 0040 - listed alternative materials have refractive indices that are within the recited range), and an encapsulation layer 173 (¶ 0040) on the capping layer and on the light emitting structure, and having a second refractive index which is less than the first refractive index (¶¶ 0040, 47),
wherein the capping layer 171/151/15 is directly on a top surface of the second semiconductor layer 150, and wherein the second semiconductor layer 150 has a third refractive index (¶ 0031 - 150 comprises GaP; ¶ 0008 - “GaP . . . has a refractive index of about 3.5 or 3.6”) which is greater than the first refractive index (¶ 0036 - 151 has a refractive index of 2.0-2.1).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Jung fails to expressly disclose: wherein a thickness of the capping layer is in a range of about 50 nm to about 100 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recited layer thickness, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, layer thickness is considered a result effective variable because it affects the overall dimensions of the device, and thus discovering an optimum value of layer thickness involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Jung (Fig. 3) discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the second refractive index (of 173) is in a range of about 1.35 to about 1.60 (¶ 0042), wherein the encapsulation layer 173 comprises a silicon resin (¶ 0042), and wherein the encapsulation layer does not include a phosphor (¶ 0042 - phosphor is not disclosed as a component of 173).
Regarding claim 17, Jung (Fig. 3) discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 15, wherein the second semiconductor layer 150 comprises Al.sub.xGa.sub.yIn.sub.1-x-yP (where 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, and 0≤x+y≤1) (¶ 0031 - disclosing compound semiconductors including GaP), wherein the third refractive index is in a range of about 3.45 to about 3.55 (¶ 0008), wherein the light emitted by the light emitting structure has a target wavelength of 660 nm (¶ 0033), and wherein the first refractive index is in a range of about 2.12 to about 2.43 (¶ 0040 - 171 may be formed of ZrO2; the instant specification at Fig. 3 discloses ZrO2 has a refractive index of 2.148).
Jung fails to expressly disclose: wherein the thickness of the capping layer is in a range of about 50 nm to about 95 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the recited layer thickness, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Here, layer thickness is considered a result effective variable because it affects the overall dimensions of the device, and thus discovering an optimum value of layer thickness involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0226345 A1 to Song et al. (hereinafter “Song”).
Regarding claim 12, Jung (Figs. 3, 8) discloses the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 1, further comprising: a housing 210/211/215 (¶¶ 0102-0103), wherein the light emitting structure 101 (¶¶ 0101, 0106) is mounted on a top surface of the housing (Fig. 8); and, wherein the encapsulation layer 173 (¶ 0046) is on a top surface of the capping layer 171/151/15 (Fig. 3).
Jung does not expressly disclose: a reflective layer on side surfaces of the light emitting structure, and wherein the encapsulation layer is on a top surface of the reflective layer. In the same field of endeavor, Song (Fig. 5B) discloses a semiconductor light emitting device including a reflective layer 90 (¶ 0086) on side surfaces of a light emitting structure 70 (¶¶ 0086-87). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jung to include a reflective layer as taught by Song, the combination thus also teaching the encapsulation is on a top surface of the reflective layer as recited (Song at ¶ 0087), for the purpose of improving light extraction efficiency (¶ 0091).
Regarding claim 13, Jung and Song disclose the semiconductor light emitting device of claim 12, wherein the encapsulation layer 173 comprises a silicon resin (¶ 0042), and wherein the encapsulation layer does not include a phosphor (¶ 0042 - phosphor is not disclosed as a component of 173).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Song.
Regarding independent claim 20, Jung (Figs. 3, 8) discloses a semiconductor light emitting device comprising:
a housing 210/211/215 (¶¶ 0102-0103), wherein the light emitting structure 101 (¶¶ 0101, 0106) is mounted on a top surface of the housing (Fig. 8), comprising a first semiconductor layer 130 (¶ 0031) having a first conductivity type (n), a second semiconductor layer 150 (¶ 0035) having a second conductivity type (p) which is different from the first conductivity type, and an active layer 140 (¶ 0033) between the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer and configured to emit light having a wavelength in a range of about 620 nm to about 750 nm (¶ 0033 - the disclosed range overlaps the recited range; see note below);
a first electrode 153 (¶ 0037) electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer 130;
a second electrode 155 (¶ 0037) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer 150;
a capping layer 171/151/15 (¶¶ 0036, 0046) on a top surface of the light emitting structure and having a first refractive index in a range of about 2.05 to about 2.58 (¶ 0036 - 151 has a refractive index of 2.0-2.1; ¶ 0040 - listed alternative materials have refractive indices that are within the recited range); and
an encapsulation layer 173 (¶ 0040) on the light emitting structure on the capping layer, and having a second refractive index which is less than the first refractive index (¶¶ 0040, 47).
In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Jung does not expressly disclose: a reflective layer on side surfaces of the light emitting structure; and wherein the encapsulation layer is on the reflective layer. In the same field of endeavor, Song (Fig. 5B) discloses a semiconductor light emitting device including a reflective layer 90 (¶ 0086) on side surfaces of a light emitting structure 70 (¶¶ 0086-87). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Jung to include a reflective layer as taught by Song, the combination thus also teaching the encapsulation is on the reflective layer as recited (Song at ¶ 0087), for the purpose of improving light extraction efficiency (¶ 0091).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Candice Y. Chan whose telephone number is (571)272-9013. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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, Steven B. Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
CANDICE Y. CHAN
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
7 August 2026
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights