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 .
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.
The following title is suggested: SEMICONDUCTOR LIGHT EMITTING DEVICES WITH QUANTUM WELL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the quantum well includes a periodic structure consisting of a well layer and a barrier layer, the periodic structure having a count of periods of 1 to 50” in lines 13-14 however the phrase “having a count of periods of 1 to 50” would allow for only a single period to be present in the quantum well however the term “periodic” would appear to require more than one period is present and the claim require first, second and third quantum wells and it isn’t clear if each of these is required to have such a period for the purpose of examination only one period will be interpreted to be required however examiner if applicant wishes each of the first second and third quantum well to have such a structure examiner suggests amending the claim to --the first quantum well, the second quantum well and the third quantum well each includes a period structure consisting of a well layer and a barrier layer, the period structure having a count of periods of 1 to 50”.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 10-14, the claims are dependent on and require all the limitations of claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
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 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 of this title, 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- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debray et. Al. (US 20140264408 A1 hereinafter Debray) in view of Chen et. Al. (Tei-Chen Chen*, Yuh-Ju Lee, Hsiang-Chi Wu, Chang-Hsien Ho; 2008/03/01; 291-299; Influences of thermal annealing and indium content on mechanical stresses and optoelectronic characteristics of light emitter diodes; Vol 31; 10.1080/02533839.2008.9671382; Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, hereinafter Chen) and Yuan et. Al. (An, Yuan, Ren, Kailin, Yin, Luqiao, Zhang, Jianhua; 2023/02/22; 1087; Modeling on Monolithic Integration Structure of AlGaN/InGaN/GaN High Electron Mobility Transistors and LEDs: 2DEG Density and Radiative Recombination; Vol 12; 10.3390/electronics12051087; Electronics, hereinafter Yuan).
Regarding claim 1, Debray teaches in 1 and 5A-5B with associated text a semiconductor light-emitting device, comprising: a substrate 113, a Negative-type semiconductor 112 (Fig. 1A, [0061]), a quantum well 506 (Fig. 5A-5B, [0104]), an electron-blocking layer 108 (Fig. 1A, [0044]), and a Positive-type semiconductor 104 arranged in a sequential stack (Figs. 1A and 5A-5B, [0044]), wherein the quantum well includes a first quantum well (516C and 514C), a second quantum well (516B and 514B), and a third quantum well (516A and 514A); and there are differences among a dielectric constant, a refractive index, a forbidden bandwidth, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, a forbidden bandwidth, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, a forbidden bandwidth, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, forbidden bandwidths and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction (Fig. 5B, [0106]); and the quantum well includes a periodic structure consisting of a well layer (514A, 514B or 514C) and a barrier layer (516A, 516B or 516C), the periodic structure having a count of periods of 1 to 50 (here there are 3 periods (Fig. 5A-5B); a coefficient of thermal expansion of the well layer is smaller than or equal to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the barrier layer; an elastic coefficient of the well layer is smaller than or equal to an elastic coefficient of the barrier layer; a lattice constant of the well layer is greater than or equal to a lattice constant of the barrier layer; and a coefficient of spontaneous polarization of the well layer is smaller than or equal to a coefficient of spontaneous polarization of the barrier layer (Debray discloses making the well layers and barrier layer with InGaN where the well layers have higher indium concentration [0064])..
Dabray does not specify a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction however Dabray teaches barrier layers in the first, second and third quantum wells have different bandgaps and are InGaN with increasing amounts of In going from the n-type layer to the p-type layer [0108] as the material changes one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the material properties such as the dielectric constant, refractive index, and electron effective mass would change so that a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device would be distributed in a gradient in at least one direction.
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Dabray show all the features of the claimed invention, “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” are an inherent property of Dabray.
Dabray does not specify a coefficient of thermal expansion of the well layer is smaller than or equal to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the barrier layer; an elastic coefficient of the well layer is smaller than or equal to an elastic coefficient of the barrier layer; a lattice constant of the well layer is greater than or equal to a lattice constant of the barrier layer; and a coefficient of spontaneous polarization of the well layer is smaller than or equal to a coefficient of spontaneous polarization of the barrier layer however Debray discloses making the well layers and barrier layer with InGaN where the well layers have higher indium concentration [0064]).
Chen discloses in Tables 1 and 3 with associated text the relationship between the coefficient of thermal expansion, elastic coefficient and lattice constant of In and GaN to show that as the In concentrations become greater the quantities change as claimed similarly Yuan shows in Table 1 the relationship of the coefficient of spontaneous polarization to show that as the In concentrations become greater the quantities change as claimed.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the coefficient of thermal expansion of the well layer is smaller than or equal to a coefficient of thermal expansion of the barrier layer; an elastic coefficient of the well layer is smaller than or equal to an elastic coefficient of the barrier layer; a lattice constant of the well layer is greater than or equal to a lattice constant of the barrier layer; and a coefficient of spontaneous polarization of the well layer is smaller than or equal to a coefficient of spontaneous polarization of the barrier layer with routine experiment and optimization. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 2, Debray in view of Chen and Yuan teaches the semiconductor light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Dabray does not specify a dielectric constant of the Negative-type semiconductor is a, a dielectric constant of the well layer of the first quantum well is b, a dielectric constant of the well layer of the second quantum well is c, a dielectric constant of the well layer of the third quantum well is d, and a dielectric constant of the electron-blocking layer is e, a dielectric constant of the Positive-type semiconductor is f, and a gradient relationship of the dielectric constants of the semiconductor light-emitting device is 12 > d >c> b >f> a >e> 8 however Dabray teaches the claimed structure.
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “a dielectric constant of the Negative-type semiconductor is a, a dielectric constant of the well layer of the first quantum well is b, a dielectric constant of the well layer of the second quantum well is c, a dielectric constant of the well layer of the third quantum well is d, and a dielectric constant of the electron-blocking layer is e, a dielectric constant of the Positive-type semiconductor is f, and a gradient relationship of the dielectric constants of the semiconductor light-emitting device is 12 > d >c> b >f> a >e> 8” the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Dabray show all the features of the claimed invention, “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” are an inherent property of Dabray. Furthermore, making the quantities as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Debray in view of Chen and Yuan teaches the semiconductor light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Dabray does not specify a refractive index of the Negative-type semiconductor is g, a refractive index of the well layer of the first quantum well is h, a refractive index of the well layer of the second quantum well is i, a refractive index of the well layer of the third quantum well is j, a refractive index of the electron-blocking layer is k, a refractive index of the Positive-type semiconductor is I, and a gradient relationship of the refractive indexes of the semiconductor light-emitting device is 3.5 > j > i > h > I > g >k> 1.5. however Dabray teaches the claimed structure.
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “a refractive index of the Negative-type semiconductor is g, a refractive index of the well layer of the first quantum well is h, a refractive index of the well layer of the second quantum well is i, a refractive index of the well layer of the third quantum well is j, a refractive index of the electron-blocking layer is k, a refractive index of the Positive-type semiconductor is I, and a gradient relationship of the refractive indexes of the semiconductor light-emitting device is 3.5 > j > i > h > I > g >k> 1.5.” the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Dabray show all the features of the claimed invention, “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” are an inherent property of Dabray. Furthermore, making the quantities as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 4, Debray in view of Chen and Yuan teaches the semiconductor light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Dabray does not specify a forbidden bandwidth of the Negative-type semiconductor is u, a forbidden bandwidth of the well layer of the first quantum well is v, a forbidden bandwidth of the well layer of the second quantum well is w, a forbidden bandwidth of the well layer of the third quantum well is x, a forbidden bandwidth of the electron blocking layer is y, a forbidden bandwidth of the Positive-type semiconductor is z, and a gradient relationship of the forbidden bandwidths of the semiconductor light-emitting device is 6.5 eV >y>u>z>v>w_x> 0.5 eV however Dabray teaches the claimed structure.
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “a forbidden bandwidth of the Negative-type semiconductor is u, a forbidden bandwidth of the well layer of the first quantum well is v, a forbidden bandwidth of the well layer of the second quantum well is w, a forbidden bandwidth of the well layer of the third quantum well is x, a forbidden bandwidth of the electron blocking layer is y, a forbidden bandwidth of the Positive-type semiconductor is z, and a gradient relationship of the forbidden bandwidths of the semiconductor light-emitting device is 6.5 eV >y>u>z>v>w_x> 0.5 eV.” the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Dabray show all the features of the claimed invention, “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” are an inherent property of Dabray. Furthermore, making the quantities as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 5, Debray in view of Chen and Yuan teaches the semiconductor light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Dabray does not specify an electron effective mass of the Negative-type semiconductor is o, an electron effective mass of the well layer of the first quantum well is p, an electron effective mass of the well layer of the second quantum well is q, and an electron effective mass of the well layer of the third quantum well is r, an electron effective mass of the electron-blocking layer is s, an electron effective mass of the Positive-type semiconductor is t, and a gradient relationship of the electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device is 10 me o_t_p_q_r 0.01 me however Dabray teaches the claimed structure.
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “an electron effective mass of the Negative-type semiconductor is o, an electron effective mass of the well layer of the first quantum well is p, an electron effective mass of the well layer of the second quantum well is q, and an electron effective mass of the well layer of the third quantum well is r, an electron effective mass of the electron-blocking layer is s, an electron effective mass of the Positive-type semiconductor is t, and a gradient relationship of the electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device is 10 me o_t_p_q_r 0.01 me” the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Dabray show all the features of the claimed invention, “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” are an inherent property of Dabray. Furthermore, making the quantities as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 10, Debray in view of Chen and Yuan teaches the Negative-type semiconductor and the Positive-type semiconductor include at least one of AIGaN, GaN, InGaN, In, AIInN, AIInGaN, AIN, GaAs, GaP, InP, AIGaAs, AlInGaAs, AIGaInP, InGaAs, InGaAsN, AlInAs, AIInP, AIGaP, InGaP, GaSb, InSb, InAs, InAsSb, AIGaSb, AISb, InGaSb, AIGaAsSb, InGaAsSb, SiC, Ga2O3, or BN (InGaN [0041]); a depth of the Negative-type semiconductor is 5 A~80,000 A (10 nm to 3000 nm or 100 A to 30000 A [0061]), and a depth of the Positive-type semiconductor is 5 A~9,000 A (2 nm to 50 nm or 20 A to 500 A [0085]); and the substrate includes at least one of sapphire, silicon, Ge, SiC, AIN, InAs, GaSb, GaN, GaAs, InP, a sapphire/SiO2 composite substrate, a sapphire/AIN composite substrate, sapphire/SiNx, magnesium-aluminum spinel MgAl2O4, MgO, ZnO, ZrB2, LiAIO2, or a LiGaO2 composite substrate ([0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Debray in view of Chen and Yuan teaches the semiconductor light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Dabray does not specify among the first quantum well, the second quantum well, and the third quantum well, a forbidden bandwidth of the well layer sequentially decreases from the first quantum well to the third quantum well; and a dielectric constant of the well layer sequentially increases from the first quantum well to the third quantum well.
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “among the first quantum well, the second quantum well, and the third quantum well, a forbidden bandwidth of the well layer sequentially decreases from the first quantum well to the third quantum well; and a dielectric constant of the well layer sequentially increases from the first quantum well to the third quantum well” the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Dabray show all the features of the claimed invention, “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” are an inherent property of Dabray. Furthermore, making the quantities as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 12, Debray in view of Chen and Yuan teaches the semiconductor light-emitting device according to claim 1 wherein a forbidden bandwidth of the electron-blocking layer is greater than forbidden bandwidths of the Negative-type semiconductor, the Positive-type semiconductor (Fig. 1B, [0087]).
Dabray does not specify an electron effective mass of the electron-blocking layer is greater than electron effective masses of the Negative-type semiconductor, the Positive-type semiconductor, and the well layers of the quantum well; a dielectric constant of the electron-blocking layer is smaller than dielectric constants of the Negative-type semiconductor, the Positive-type semiconductor, and the well layers of the quantum well; and a refractive index of the electron-blocking layer is smaller than refractive indexes of the Negative-type semiconductor, the Positive-type semiconductor, and the well layers of the quantum well.
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “an electron effective mass of the electron-blocking layer is greater than electron effective masses of the Negative-type semiconductor, the Positive-type semiconductor, and the well layers of the quantum well; a dielectric constant of the electron-blocking layer is smaller than dielectric constants of the Negative-type semiconductor, the Positive-type semiconductor, and the well layers of the quantum well; and a refractive index of the electron-blocking layer is smaller than refractive indexes of the Negative-type semiconductor, the Positive-type semiconductor, and the well layers of the quantum well” the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Dabray show all the features of the claimed invention, “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” are an inherent property of Dabray. Furthermore, making the quantities as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 13, Debray in view of Chen and Yuan teaches the semiconductor light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Dabray does not specify a forbidden bandwidth and an electron effective mass of the Negative-type semiconductor are respectively greater than a forbidden bandwidth and an electron effective mass of the Positive-type semiconductor; and a dielectric constant and a refractive index of the Negative-type semiconductor are respectively smaller than a dielectric constant and a refractive index of the Positive-type semiconductor.
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “a forbidden bandwidth and an electron effective mass of the Negative-type semiconductor are respectively greater than a forbidden bandwidth and an electron effective mass of the Positive-type semiconductor; and a dielectric constant and a refractive index of the Negative-type semiconductor are respectively smaller than a dielectric constant and a refractive index of the Positive-type semiconductor” the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Dabray show all the features of the claimed invention, “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” are an inherent property of Dabray. Furthermore, making the quantities as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 14, Debray in view of Chen and Yuan teaches the semiconductor light-emitting device according to claim 1.
Dabray does not specify a refractive index of the well layer of the third quantum well is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the well layer of the second quantum well; the refractive index of the well layer of the second quantum well is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the well layer of the first quantum well; the refractive index of the well layer of the first quantum well is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the Positive-type semiconductor; the refractive index of the Positive-type semiconductor is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the Negative-type semiconductor; and the refractive index of the Negative-type semiconductor is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the electron-blocking layer.
In reference to the claim language pertaining to “a refractive index of the well layer of the third quantum well is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the well layer of the second quantum well; the refractive index of the well layer of the second quantum well is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the well layer of the first quantum well; the refractive index of the well layer of the first quantum well is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the Positive-type semiconductor; the refractive index of the Positive-type semiconductor is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the Negative-type semiconductor; and the refractive index of the Negative-type semiconductor is greater than or equal to a refractive index of the electron-blocking layer” the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. (In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Swinehart, 439 F. 2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971); please see MPEP § 2112). Since Dabray show all the features of the claimed invention, “a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the first quantum well, a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the second quantum well, and a dielectric constant, a refractive index, and an electron effective mass of the third quantum well to make dielectric constants, refractive indexes, and electron effective masses of the semiconductor light-emitting device distributed in a gradient in at least one direction” are an inherent property of Dabray. Furthermore, making the quantities as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights