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 .
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.
Priority
The priority has been considered by the examiner. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on January 18, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered and accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on January 19, 2024, has been considered and accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamaguchi et al. (US 11,031,752).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
146
276
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
250
259
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Hamaguchi disclose a nitride semiconductor laser element (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10, and column 19 – 20, the reference called “surface-emitting laser”) comprising a first epitaxial layer (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10A, column 45 – 61, the reference called “laminate”) including an active layer (see Annotation Figure 1, character 14, column 3, lines 54 – 56 and column 4, lines 54 – 63), a current confinement layer (see Annotation Figures 1 and 2, character 16, Abstract, column 3, lines 48, column 4, lines 64 – 67, column 5, lines 1 – 10, the reference called “current constriction region”) having an opening portion (see Annotation Figure 1, character 16H, Abstract and column 3, lines 45 – 46 and column 5, lines 6 – 9) and a second epitaxial layer (see Annotation Figure 1, character 10B) formed on a semiconductor substrate (see Annotation Figure 1, character 11 and column 3, line 41 – 42) wherein
the current confinement layer (see Annotation Figures 1 and 2, character 16) has an impurity concentration maximum portion where a concentration distribution of an impurity in a depth direction shows a local maximum near an interface (see Annotation Figures 1 and 2, character 100’, column 5, lines 6 – 67) with the first epitaxial layer (see Annotation Figures 1 and 2, character 10A).
Regarding claim 5, Hamaguchi disclose the impurity having the local maximum is Mg or B (see column 4, lines 65 – 67 and column 5, lines 1 – 3).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (US 11,031,752) in view of Ueta (US 5,590,919).
PNG
media_image4.png
296
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hamaguchi discloses the claimed invention except for the current confinement layer contains AlxGayIn1-x-yN. Ueta teaches a current confinement layer contains AlxGayIn1-x-yN. However, it is well known in the art to apply and/or modify the current confinement layer contains AlxGayIn1-x-yN as discloses by Ueta in (see column 2, lines 41 – 45 and column 4, lines 18 - 21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the current confinement layer contains AlxGayIn1-x-yN as suggested to the device of Hamaguchi, could be used because the AlGaInN include tunable bandgap, high efficiency, thermal stability, and phase-dependent electronic properties
(smaller effective masses in c-phase), making it a versatile material for advanced optoelectronic devices, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 3 – 4 and 6 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaguchi et al. (US 11,031,752).
Regarding claim 3, Hamaguchi discloses the claimed invention except for the impurity concentration maximum portion is a maximum value of the concentration distribution between the current confinement layer and the active layer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the impurity concentration maximum portion is a maximum value of the concentration distribution between the current confinement layer and the active layer to the device of Hamaguchi, to significantly alter their properties and behavior, affecting their performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of impurity concentration it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the impurity concentration maximum portion is a maximum value of the concentration distribution between the current confinement layer and the active layer] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the impurity concentration maximum portion is a maximum value of the concentration distribution between the current confinement layer and the active layer] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the impurity concentration maximum portion is a maximum value of the concentration distribution between the current confinement layer and the active layer] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Hamaguchi discloses the claimed invention except for the local maximum of the impurity concentration maximum portion is higher than an average value of concentrations of the impurities contained in the current confinement layer by one or more digits. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the local maximum of the impurity concentration maximum portion is higher than an average value of concentrations of the impurities contained in the current confinement layer by one or more digits to the device of Hamaguchi, to significantly alter their properties and behavior, affecting their performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of impurity concentration it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the local maximum of the impurity concentration maximum portion is higher than an average value of concentrations of the impurities contained in the current confinement layer by one or more digits] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the local maximum of the impurity concentration maximum portion is higher than an average value of concentrations of the impurities contained in the current confinement layer by one or more digits] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the local maximum of the impurity concentration maximum portion is higher than an average value of concentrations of the impurities contained in the current confinement layer by one or more digits] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Hamaguchi discloses the claimed invention except for the impurity concentration maximum portion, the concentration distribution has a full width at half maximum of 10 nm or less. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the impurity concentration maximum portion, the concentration distribution has a full width at half maximum of 10 nm or less to the device of Hamaguchi to provide a compact impurity concentration area and to significantly alter their properties and behavior, affecting their performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of concentration distribution it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the impurity concentration maximum portion, the concentration distribution has a full width at half maximum of 10 nm or less] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the impurity concentration maximum portion, the concentration distribution has a full width at half maximum of 10 nm or less] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the impurity concentration maximum portion, the concentration distribution has a full width at half maximum of 10 nm or less] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Hamaguchi discloses the claimed invention except for the impurity having the local maximum is Mg and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the impurity having the local maximum is Mg and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less to the device of Hamaguchi to significantly alter their properties and behavior, affecting their performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of impurity concentration density, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the impurity having the local maximum is Mg and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the impurity having the local maximum is Mg and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the impurity having the local maximum is Mg and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Hamaguchi discloses the claimed invention except for the impurity having the local maximum is B and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the impurity having the local maximum is B and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less to the device of Hamaguchi to significantly alter their properties and behavior, affecting their performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of impurity concentration density it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [the impurity having the local maximum is B and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [the impurity having the local maximum is B and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [the impurity having the local maximum is B and has an area density of 2×1012 cm−2 or more and 1×1015 cm−2 or less] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Hamaguchi discloses the claimed invention except for a ratio of an arrangement area of the current confinement layer to an area of an element upper surface is 5% or more and less than 40%. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the ratio of an arrangement area of the current confinement layer to an area of an element upper surface is 5% or more and less than 40% to the device of Hamaguchi to provide a compact area where the current pass, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of ratio of the current confinement layer, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [a ratio of an arrangement area of the current confinement layer to an area of an element upper surface is 5% or more and less than 40%] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [a ratio of an arrangement area of the current confinement layer to an area of an element upper surface is 5% or more and less than 40%] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [a ratio of an arrangement area of the current confinement layer to an area of an element upper surface is 5% or more and less than 40%] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 10, Hamaguchi discloses the claimed invention except for a difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is four times or less a thickness of the current confinement layer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is four times or less a thickness of the current confinement layer to the device of Hamaguchi in order to provide a compact area, to significantly alter their properties and behavior, affecting their performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of thickness of the current confinement layer, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [a difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is four times or less a thickness of the current confinement layer] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [a difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is four times or less a thickness of the current confinement layer] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [a difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is four times or less a thickness of the current confinement layer dimensions] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Hamaguchi discloses the claimed invention except for a difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is 300 nm or less. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was to apply and/or modify the difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is 300 nm or less to the device of Hamaguchi to provide to significantly alter their properties and behavior, affecting their performance, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In addition, the selection of difference in level on an element, it’s obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed [difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is 300 nm or less] or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen [difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is 300 nm or less] or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen [difference in level on an element surface between the opening portion and the current confinement layer is 300 nm or less] are critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Delma R. Forde whose telephone number is (571)272-1940. The examiner can normally be reached M - TH 7:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, MinSun O Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/Delma R Forde/Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/XINNING(Tom) NIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights