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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the embodiment of Fig 1 in the reply filed on 8/14/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that claim 1 is generic to both embodiments and that searching both of them would not present a serious burden to the examiner. This is not found persuasive because applicant did not state on the record that the two embodiments are obvious variants of each other.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant indicated that claims 1-5 and 10 read on the elected embodiment. Accordingly, claims 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
1) The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification does not indicate what Δλ is and what range of values are encompassed by it.
2) The disclosure is objected to because of the following: in paragraph 0030, last sentence “the first low thermally conductive layer 184” should be replaced with “the first low thermally conductive layer 164”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4):
1) reference character “164” has been used to designate both the low thermally conductive layer that’s part of the first mirror 16 and the low thermally conductive layer that’s part of the contact 20 in Fig 1.
2) reference character “182” has been used to designate both the high thermally conductive layer that’s part of the second mirror 18 and the low thermally conductive layer that’s part of the contact 22 in Fig 1.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 discloses a limitation: “a material of the oxide aperture being AlxGaAs”. However, paragraph 0029 of the specification clearly discloses “the material of the oxide layer 14 is AlxGaAs”.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
1) The terms “high thermally conductive layer” and “low thermally conductive layer” in claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms “low” and “high” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
2) Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first low thermally conductive layer" in the bottom lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 discloses a limitation “a first contact layer having a first electrode and the first low thermally conductive layer, the first contact layer being disposed on one side of the first mirror layer by the first low thermally conductive layer”,
However, the claim also discloses “a first mirror layer having … a first low thermally conductive layer arranged between the first high thermally conductive layer and the oxide layer” in the top lines of the claim, thereby creating confusion since there are two different “first low thermally conductive” layers 164. Also, the description of the location of this layer is contradictory to the illustration in Fig 1.
In order to overcome this rejection, the limitation should be amended as:
“a first contact layer having a first electrode and a third low thermally conductive layer, the first contact layer being disposed on one side of the first mirror layer by the first high thermally conductive layer”.
3) Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second high thermally conductive layer" in the bottom lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 discloses a limitation “a second contact layer having a second electrode and the second high thermally conductive layer, the second contact layer being disposed on one side of the second mirror layer by the second high thermally conductive layer”,
However, the claim also discloses “a second mirror layer having a second high thermally conductive layer … the second high thermally conductive layer is arranged between the second low thermally conductive layer and the light-emitting layer” in the top lines of the claim, thereby creating confusion since there are two different “second high thermally conductive” layers 182. Also, the description of the location of this layer is contradictory to the illustration in Fig 1.
In order to overcome this rejection, the limitation should be amended as:
“a second contact layer having a second electrode and a third high thermally conductive layer, the second contact layer being disposed on one side of the second mirror layer by the second low thermally conductive layer”.
4) Claim 1 discloses a limitation “AlxGaAs”, meaning that the percentage of Al in the compound is x, however neither the claims nor the specification indicate which of the other elements in the compound has the corresponding percentage of 1-x. Since this is a chemical formula, it has to follow the established standard in the art of chemistry of correctly identifying element’s composition.
5) Claim 1 discloses a limitation “(n×λ/4)+Δλ”, where n is a positive integer and λ is the wavelength of light emitted by the active layer, however neither the claims nor the specification indicate what Δλ is and what range of values are encompassed by it.
In order to overcome this rejection, Δλ should be removed from the claim.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claim 1. For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered, however no prior art that reads on all the limitations of claim 1 has been identified.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 which lists other references with similar features as the invention. However, none of them anticipate all the features of the pending claims.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights