DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 4/22/2026.
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 7-8 and 10-15 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 4-6, 10, and 14 have been amended.
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 1-6 and 9 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.
Claim 1 reciting “an insertion layer, located on the light emitting structure layer, wherein a surface, away from the light emitting structure layer is a roughened surface, … wherein the insertion layer is an n-type semiconductor layer of the light emitting structure layer” render the claim indefinite. At first, the insertion layer is recited as a separate layer located on the light emitting structure layer with the insertion layer having a surface that is away from the light emitting structure layer. The claim subsequently reciting the insertion layer a layer of the light emitting structure layer is contradictory. It unclear how would the insertion layer be a layer of the light emitting structure layer and also have a surface that is “away from the light emitting structure layer” If the insertion is a layer of the light emitting structure layer, its surface would define a surface of the light emitting structure layer and cannot be away from the light emitting structure layer. Therefore, it is unclear how are the insertion layer and the light emitting structure layer intended to be structurally related.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drago et al. US 2020/0235264 A1 (Drago).
PNG
media_image1.png
296
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Drago discloses (e.g. FIGs. 7-9) a light emitting device 10, comprising:
a first substrate 8 (¶ 80);
a light emitting structure layer 6,7 (¶ 80), located on the first substrate 80; and
an insertion layer 3+4, located on the light emitting structure layer 6,7, wherein, a surface (bottom surface of 3), away from the light emitting structure layer 6,7, of the insertion layer 3+4 is a roughened surface (see FIG. 7B, roughened bottom surface of 3; or FIG. 9 showing roughened bottom surface of 3), and the insertion layer 3+4 has a protective effect on the light emitting structure layer 6,7 (the presence of layer 3+4 provides physical protection for layer 6,7 during removal of growth substrate 1, ¶ 81),
wherein “the insertion layer 3+4 is an n-type semiconductor layer (impurities such as C and Si are n-type dopants in III-V semiconductor, ¶ 27) of the light emitting structure layer” (as best understood, n-type semiconductor layer “on” the light emitting structure layer).
In re claim 2, Drago discloses (e.g. FIGs. 7-9) wherein an orthographic projection, on the first substrate 8, of the insertion layer 3+4 at least partially covers an orthographic projection, on the first substrate 8, of the light emitting structure layer 6,7.
In re claim 3, Drago discloses (e.g. FIGs. 7-9) wherein a material of the insertion layer 3+4 comprises at least one of AlN or AlGaN (¶ 72,76, 85).
In re claim 4, Drago discloses (e.g. FIGs. 7-9) further comprising: a transition layer 5 (¶ 78), located between the light emitting structure layer 6,7 and the insertion layer 3+4, wherein an orthographic projection, on the first substrate 8, of the transition layer 5 at least partially covers the orthographic projection, on the first substrate 8, of the light emitting structure layer 6,7.
In re claim 5, Drago discloses (e.g. FIGs. 7-9) wherein a material of the transition layer 5 is at least one of GaN, AlGaN or AlInGaN (GaN, ¶ 78).
In re claim 6, Drago discloses (e.g. FIGs. 7A-7B) wherein a lattice constant of the transition layer 5 (e.g. GaN, ¶ 78) is between a lattice constant of the insertion layer 3+4 (AlGaN of 4, ¶ 76) and a lattice constant of the light emitting structure layer 6,7 (e.g. InGaN, ¶ 79).
In re claim 9, Drago disclose (e.g. FIGs. 7A-7B) wherein along a direction from the first substrate 8 to the insertion layer 3+4, a size range of the insertion layer 3+4 is greater than 0 nm, and less than or equal to 200 nm (100nm+40 nm thickness, ¶ 72, 76).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Drago, Applicant argues Drago’s cover layer 4 fails to teach “an n-type semiconductor layer (Remark, page 6).
This is not persuasive. Drago teaches impurities including C and/or Si can be included at a concentration up to 5×1022 cm-3 or 5×1023 cm-3 in layers (¶ 27). C and Si are both n-type dopants in III-V semiconductor. A possibility of layers 4, 3, 2 to be undoped (¶ 78) is not understood to mean an absolute exclusion of dopants. In light of specific disclosure in Drago’s specification at ¶ 27 for inclusion of impurities dopants, forming these layers to be n-type is taught by Drago.
Applicant further argues Drago’s cover layer 4 is separated from the function layer sequence 7 and is not an n-type region within the function layer sequence 7 (Remark, page 6).
This is not persuasive. As detailed in the § 112b rejection above, the claim recites the insertion layer as a separate layer from the light emitting structure layer with a surface “away from the light emitting structure layer”. Therefore, it is unclear how can the insertion layer also a layer of the light emitting structure layer. As best understood, the insertion layer and the light emitting structure layer are separate from each other. Therefore, as best understood, the insertion is taught by Drago’s layer 3+4 which is located on the light emitting structure layer 6,7.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM 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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights