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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Hsiao et al. (US 20220209049 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Hsiao".
Regarding claim 1,
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 1 of Hsiao discloses an infrared LED element comprising: a first LED laminate (100) including a first cladding layer (002) of a first conductivity type being p type or n type (n-type, ¶ 24), a first light-emitting layer (003) disposed directly or indirectly on top of the first cladding layer (002), and a second cladding layer (004) of a second conductivity type (p-type, ¶ 24) different from the first conductivity type (n-type), the second cladding layer being disposed directly or indirectly on top of the first light-emitting layer (003), a laminate for tunnel junction (005) disposed directly or indirectly on top of the first LED laminate (100), a second LED laminate (200) including: a third cladding layer (006) of the first conductivity type (n-type, ¶ 44) disposed directly or indirectly on top of the laminate for tunnel junction (005), a second light-emitting layer (007) directly or indirectly disposed on top of the third cladding layer (006), and a fourth cladding layer (008) of the second conductivity type (p-type, ¶ 49). Fig. 2 of Hsiao discloses a laminate for tunnel junction (005) including: a first tunnel layer (501-502) disposed directly or indirectly on top of the second cladding layer (004, Fig. 1) and containing a dopant of the second conductivity type (p-type, ¶ 36) at a higher concentration than the second cladding layer (¶ 24, 36), and a second tunnel layer (503-504) disposed directly or indirectly on top of the first tunnel layer (501-502) and below the third cladding layer (006, Fig. 1), containing a dopant of the first conductivity type (n-type, ¶36) at a higher concentration than the third cladding layer (¶ 36, 44), and forming a tunnel junction with the first tunnel layer (005, ¶ 36). The first light-emitting layer (InGaAs, 003, ¶ 32), the second light-emitting layer (InGaAs, 007, ¶ 48), the first tunnel layer (InAlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37), and the second tunnel layer (GaInP, 503-504, ¶ 40) are made of a material that can be lattice-matched to an InP single crystal.
Hsiao discloses an infrared LED element with a wavelength ranging between 760nm and 1100nm, but does not explicitly disclose the peak emission wavelength is 1000nm or more. When the prior art discloses a range which touches or overlaps the claimed range, but no specific examples falling within the claimed range are disclosed, the claimed subject matter must be disclosed in the reference with "sufficient specificity to constitute an anticipation under the statute”. MPEP 2131.01(II). Further, when the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 2144.05(I). Claim 1 does not disclose any allegation of criticality or any evidence demonstrating any difference across the range (“1000nm or more”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention in Hsiao such that the peak emission wavelength is 1000nm or more.
Regarding claim 2, Hsiao discloses the first tunnel layer (AlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37) and the second tunnel layer (GaInP, 503-504, ¶ 40) are made of a material having a band gap corresponding to a wavelength shorter than the peak emission wavelength (¶ 32, 48). The first tunnel layer is made of a material containing AlGaAs with a band gap between 1.42eV and 2.16eV, which corresponds to a wavelength range of 574nm to 873nm (AlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37). The second tunnel layer is made of a material containing GaInP with a bandgap between 1.86eV and 1.90eV, which corresponds to a wavelength range of 653nm to 667nm (GaInP, 503-504, ¶ 40). The entirety of both ranges are shorter than the peak emission wavelength of over 1000 nm.
Regarding claim 3 and 8, Hsiao discloses at least one of the first tunnel layer (501-502) and the second tunnel layer (503-504) is made of a material containing Ga and As (AlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Hsiao discloses the first conductivity type is an n type (002, ¶ 24), the second conductivity type is a p type (004, ¶ 24), but does not explicitly disclose a wavelength corresponding to a band gap of a material constituting the second tunnel layer (503-504) is longer than a wavelength corresponding to a band gap of a material constituting the first tunnel layer (501-502). Fig. 2 of Hsiao does disclose the first tunnel layer is made of a material with a band gap corresponding to a wavelength between 574nm and 873nm (AlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37), and the second tunnel layer is made of a material with a band gap corresponding to a wavelength between 653nm and 667nm (GaInP, 503-504, ¶ 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the second tunnel layer is made out of a material that corresponds to a wavelength that is longer than a wavelength corresponding to a band gap of a material constituting the first tunnel layer as a significant portion of the range of wavelength corresponding to the first tunnel layer (574nm to 652nm) is shorter than the entire range of wavelength corresponding to the second tunnel layer (653nm to 667nm). MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) states that an “obvious to try” rationale for may support an obviousness rejection under routine optimization. Placing the layers in the order above make it possible to prevent light generated by the first light emitting layer (003) and second light emitting layer (007) from being absorbed into the first tunnel layer (501-502, ¶ 37) and second tunnel layer (503-504, ¶ 40). Therefore, under routine optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to modify the device and ranges described in Hsiao such that a wavelength corresponding to a band gap of a material constituting the second tunnel layer (503-504) is longer than a wavelength corresponding to a band gap of a material constituting the first tunnel layer (501-502).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Hsiao does not explicitly teach a Ga (Gallium) composition of material constituting the second tunnel layer (503-504) is higher than a Ga composition of material constituting the first tunnel layer (501-502). Fig. 2 of Hsiao does disclose both the first tunnel layer (AlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37) and the second tunnel layer (GaInP, 503-504, ¶ 40) containing a Ga composition of material. In the first tunnel layer, the ratio of Ga is between 0.2 and 0.9 (501-502, ¶ 37). In the second tunnel layer, the ratio of Ga is between 0.45 and 0.7 (503-504, ¶ 40). MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) states that an “obvious to try” rationale for may support an obviousness rejection under routine optimization. When the Gallium composition is reduced, the band gap increases, which results in a shorter wavelength. Therefore, under routine optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to modify the device and ranges described in Hsiao such that the composition of material constituting the second tunnel layer (GaInP, 503-504, ¶ 40) is higher than a Ga composition of material constituting the first tunnel layer (AlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37) to produce a second tunnel layer with a wavelength longer than the wavelength of the first tunnel layer, while also reducing the forward voltage.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Hsiao does not explicitly teach an As (Arsenic) composition of material constituting the second tunnel layer (AlGaAs, 503-504, ¶ 40) is higher than an As composition of a material constituting the first tunnel layer (AlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37). MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) states that an “obvious to try” rationale for may support an obviousness rejection under routine optimization. Here, the composition of material containing Ga, which is higher in the second tunnel layer (AlGaAs, 503-504, ¶ 40) than the first tunnel layer (AlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37), also contains As. To be lattice-matched to an InP single crystal, the concentration of As needs to increase alongside the Ga. Therefore, under routine optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to try to modify the device described in Hsiao such that an As composition of material constituting the second tunnel layer (AlGaAs, 503-504, ¶ 40) is higher than an As composition of a material constituting the first tunnel layer (AlGaAs, 501-502, ¶ 37). Doing so would reduce the forward voltage while remaining lattice-matched to an InP single crystal.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsiao in view of Wildeson et al. (US 20190198709 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Wildeson".
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Hsiao does not explicitly teach the first light-emitting layer (003) and the second light-emitting layer (007) are made of materials different in composition and a peak wavelength of light generated by one of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer is longer than that of light generated by the other light-omitting layer. Fig. 1A of Wildeson teaches an LED element wherein the first light-emitting layer (101) and the second light-emitting layer (103) are made of materials different in composition and a peak wavelength of light generated by one of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer is longer than that of light generated by the other light-omitting layer (¶ 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hsiao such that the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer are made of materials different in composition and a peak wavelength of light generated by one of the first light-emitting layer and the second light-emitting layer, which is located closer to a light extraction surface, is longer than that of light generated by the other light-omitting layer. Having the light emitting layers produce different wavelengths would broaden the wavelength range the device is able to emit, which allows for more uses of the device, and doing so in this order may avoid or minimize internal absorption of emissions of shorter wavelengths by the active regions of longer wavelengths (¶ 50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE BURRUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0114. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, MATTHEW LANDAU can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/KYLE BURRUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights