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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “the first current limiting layer and the first oxidizing region respectively have a first width and a second width along the direction, and a ratio of the second width to the first width is in a range of 0.01 to 0.3”, and claim 1 recites “a first oxidizing region located around the first non-oxidizing region.” With reference to Fig. 1 and associated description, the Examiner interprets a width of the first oxidizing region to be equal to twice W2, the oxidizing region occupying a W2 width on each side of the oxidizing region; and a width of the first current limiting layer to have a width W1 (the first width of claim 10). The Examiner cannot determine from the language of claim 10, depending on claim 1, whether “the second width” refers to W2 or to twice W2 with respect to Fig. 1. (“Around” may imply twice W2, whereas the ratio provided in paragraph [0031] of the Specification and associated with Fig 3 appears to refer to W2, not twice W2.) Due to this, the Examine finds it unclear how to calculate the ratio, and therefore the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the ratio will be interpreted as W2/W1.
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 1-2, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)as being clearly anticipated by Choi; Junhee et al. (US 2021/0399173; hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a light emitting device (100; Figs 1-3; ¶ [0060-85]), comprising:
an active layer (emission layer 105; Fig 1; ¶ [0060]);
a first semiconductor layer (107; Fig 1; ¶ [0060]) disposed at a first side of the active layer;
a first contact layer (108; Fig 1; ¶ [0065]) disposed at a side of the first semiconductor layer away from the active layer; and
a first current limiting layer (106; Fig 1; ¶ [0060]) disposed between the first contact layer and the active layer and provided with a first non-oxidizing region (106b; Fig 1; ¶ [0068-71]) and a first oxidizing region (106a; Fig 1; ¶ [0068-71]) located around the first non-oxidizing region, and
the first current limiting layer has a first surface facing the active layer and a second surface away from the first surface, wherein the first oxidizing region of the first current limiting layer is extended from the first surface to the second surface (¶ [0068]), and an oxygen content of the first oxidizing region is greater than an oxygen content of the first non-oxidizing region (the first oxidizing region is formed by oxidizing sidewalls of the first non-oxidizing region to create an oxide; ¶ [0078-79]).
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first current limiting layer is disposed between the active layer and the first semiconductor layer (Fig 1; as applied to claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Choi discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein an oxygen content ratio of the first current limiting layer in the first oxidizing region is greater than 10% (106a may include aluminum oxide; ¶ [0079]; aluminum oxide having an oxygen content ratio of 60% {Al.sub.2.O.sub.3; that is, 3 parts oxygen out of 5}).
However, Choi discloses the first current limiting layer may include Al.sub.xGa.sub.1-xAs, where x satisfies x≥0.85 and the first oxidizing region
Claims 1-4, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)as being clearly anticipated by Li; Han-Xuan et al. (CN-115425519-A; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a light emitting device (Fig 4, included below; entire document), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
516
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an active layer (243, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0047]);
a first semiconductor layer (241, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0047]) disposed at a first side of the active layer;
a first contact layer (28; Fig 4; ¶ [n0055]) disposed at a side of the first semiconductor layer away from the active layer; and
a first current limiting layer (25, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0065]) disposed between the first contact layer and the active layer and provided with a first non-oxidizing region (251, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0065]) and a first oxidizing region ({25}, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0065]) located around the first non-oxidizing region, and
the first current limiting layer has a first surface facing the active layer and a second surface away from the first surface, wherein the first oxidizing region of the first current limiting layer is extended from the first surface to the second surface (unoxidized area 251 is described as an opening in layer 25, meaning the rest of the layer is oxidized; ¶ [n0065]), and an oxygen content of the first oxidizing region is greater than an oxygen content of the first non-oxidizing region (the first oxidizing region is formed by oxidizing sidewalls of the first non-oxidizing region to create an oxide, which will have greater oxygen content than the unoxidized region; ¶ [n0065]).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first current limiting layer is disposed between the active layer and the first semiconductor layer (as annotated on the included Fig 4, under claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein another first current limiting layer is disposed between the first contact layer and the first semiconductor layer (as annotated on the included Fig 4, under claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 4, wherein a material of the first current limiting layer and the other first current limiting layer comprises Al(x)Ga(1-x)As, wherein 1≥x>0 (AlGaAs; ¶ [n0065-66]).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, further comprising:
another active layer (243; as annotated on the included Fig 4 below; ¶ [n0047]); and
a tunnel junction layer (23; as annotated on the included Fig 4 below; ¶ [n0046]) disposed between the active layer and the other active layer and in contact with the active layer or the other active layer (in contact with the other active layer through the first semiconductor layer 241; ¶ [n0047]).
PNG
media_image2.png
582
1013
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 12, further comprising:
a second current limiting layer (25; as annotated on the included Fig 4 under claim 12; ¶ [n0066]) disposed between the active layer and the other active layer, the second current limiting layer is provided with a second non-oxidizing region and a second oxidizing region located around the second non-oxidizing region, and the second current limiting layer has a third surface facing the active layer and a fourth surface away from the third surface, wherein the second oxidizing region of the second current limiting layer is extended from the third surface to the fourth surface, and an oxygen content of the second oxidizing region is greater than an oxygen content of the second non-oxidizing region (the second current limiting layer has the same structure (explained under claim 1) as the first current limiting layer; ¶ [n0066]).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, further comprising: a distributed Bragg reflector (22; Fig 4; ¶ [n0053]) disposed at a side of the first semiconductor layer away from the active layer.
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first oxidizing region is overlapped with a portion of the active layer along a stacking direction of the active layer and the first semiconductor layer (as shown in Fig 4, included under claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 15, wherein respective sidewalls of the active layer, the first semiconductor layer, and the first current limiting layer are aligned with each other along the stacking direction (as shown in Fig 4, included under claim 1).
Claim 1 (Second Interpretation) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)as being clearly anticipated by Li; Han-Xuan et al. (CN-115425519-A; hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a light emitting device (Fig 4, included below; entire document), comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
624
1111
media_image3.png
Greyscale
an active layer (243, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0047]);
a first semiconductor layer (242, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0047]) disposed at a first side of the active layer;
a first contact layer (28; Fig 4; ¶ [n0055]) disposed at a side of the first semiconductor layer away from the active layer; and
a first current limiting layer (25, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0065]) disposed between the first contact layer and the active layer and provided with a first non-oxidizing region (251, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0065]) and a first oxidizing region ({25}, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0065]) located around the first non-oxidizing region, and
the first current limiting layer has a first surface facing the active layer and a second surface away from the first surface, wherein the first oxidizing region of the first current limiting layer is extended from the first surface to the second surface (unoxidized area 251 is described as an opening in layer 25, meaning the rest of the layer is oxidized; ¶ [n0065]), and an oxygen content of the first oxidizing region is greater than an oxygen content of the first non-oxidizing region (the first oxidizing region is formed by oxidizing sidewalls of the first non-oxidizing region to create an oxide, which will have greater oxygen content than the unoxidized region; ¶ [n0065]).
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.
Claims 11, and 18-19 are rejected as being unpatentable over Choi; Junhee et al. (US 2021/0399173; hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 11, Choi discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a film thickness of the first current limiting layer is in a range of 30 nm to 50 nm.
However, Choi discloses a film thickness of the first current limiting layer (106; Fig 1) may range from about 5 nm to about 200 nm, which overlaps the claimed range and constitutes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 18, Choi discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein a resistivity of the first current limiting layer in the first oxidizing region is greater than a resistivity thereof in the first non-oxidizing region. (This is obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, and from ¶ [0079] which discloses that current flows through the unoxidized AlGaAs {non-oxidizing region} while the oxidized current blocking portion 106a {first oxidizing region} has high resistance).
Regarding claim 19, Choi discloses the light emitting device of claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the resistivity of the first current limiting layer in the first oxidizing region is greater than 1014Ω·cm.
However, Choi discloses the first oxidizing region may include aluminum oxide (¶ [0078-79]), and a person having ordinary skill in the art would have known or been able to find that the resistivity of aluminum oxide may be on the order of 1014Ω·cm or higher (see, for example, https://precision-ceramics.com/eu/materials/alumina/#properties).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li; Han-Xuan et al. (CN-115425519-A; hereinafter Li) in view of Dai; Van-Truoung et al. (US 2023/0121340; hereinafter Dai).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 1 (see the figure below), wherein the first current limiting layer is provided between the first contact layer and the first semiconductor layer (as annotated on the included Fig 4, below), another first current limiting layer is provided between the first semiconductor layer and the active layer (as annotated on the included Fig 4, below), the first oxidizing region of the first current limiting layer has a second width along a normal direction of a sidewall of the first current limiting layer, the first oxidizing region of the other first current limiting layer has a third width along a normal direction of a sidewall of the other first current limiting layer (each width being in a horizontal direction on Fig 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
611
1103
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Li does not disclose the third width is greater than the second width.
In the same field of endeavor, Dai discloses a light emitting device comprising optical apertures OA (OA: 510,530,550,570; Fig 5c; {oxidizing region}; ¶ [0067-68]) within current confinement layers 51,53,55,57 (¶ [0063]), wherein OA 510 is larger than OA 530, OA 530 being nearer the central active layer 11 (¶ [0063]) and OA 510 being further from the central active area and closer to the light emitting surface. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have configured the non-oxidizing regions of Li in similar fashion such that the third width is greater than the second width (an upper surface {30} being the light emitting surface of Li; Fig 4; ¶ [n0009]) ). One would have been motivated to do this in order to produce a small divergence angle of emitting light (Dai; ¶ [0008]) and would have had a reasonable expectation of success because of the similar layer structures of Li and Dai in the similar endeavors.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li; Han-Xuan et al. (CN-115425519-A; hereinafter Li) in view of Hetzl; Martin et al. (WO 2022/214249 A1; hereinafter Hetzl).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein a material composition of the first current limiting layer in the first non-oxidizing region is Al(x)Ga(1-x)As (¶ [n0065]), and the first oxidizing region is formed by oxidation of the Al(x)Ga(1-x)As (¶ [n0065]).
Li does not disclose that a material composition thereof in the first oxidizing region is Al(y)Ga(z)O(1-y-z)As, wherein 1≥x>0, 1>y>0, and 1>z>0; however, this would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. (For reference, see Hetzl; ¶ [0003]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li; Han-Xuan et al. (CN-115425519-A; hereinafter Li) in view of Hino, Tomonori et al. (US 2005/0139856; hereinafter Hino).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 1, wherein the first oxidizing region and the first non-oxidizing region of the first current limiting layer are arranged along a direction, the first current limiting layer and the first oxidizing region respectively have a first width and a second width along the direction.
Li does not disclose a ratio of the second width to the first width is in a range of 0.01 to 0.3 (see the interpretation of the ratio under 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections).
In the same field of endeavor, Hino discloses a light emitting device comprising an oxidizing region (18B, having a second width WB; Fig 2; ¶ [0038-39]) and a non-oxidizing region (18A, having a third width WA; Fig 2; ¶ [0038-39]) of a current limiting layer (18, having a first width equal to WA plus two WB; Fig 2; ¶ [0030]), wherein the width WB is seven times or less of the width WA (¶ [0039]), that is a ratio of a second width to a first width is in a range of 1/3 to 1/15 or 0.07 – 0.33, which overlaps the range of claim 10.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have applied the range of Hino to the first current limiting layer of Li, since Li has not disclosed the ratio for the similar layer. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similar current limiting layers of Hino and Li in the similar endeavors. Thus combined, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established by the overlapping range. See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Second Interpretation (see the figure below) of Li; Han-Xuan et al. (CN-115425519-A; hereinafter Li) in view of Su; Wen-Herng et al. (US 10516250; hereinafter Su).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 1 (Second Interpretation, see figure below), further comprising:
PNG
media_image5.png
624
1105
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a second semiconductor layer (241, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0047]) disposed at a second side of the active layer away from the first side; and
a second current limiting layer (25, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0065]) disposed between a substrate (10, as annotated on the included Fig 4; ¶ [n0046]) and the active layer and provided with a second non-oxidizing region and a second oxidizing region located around the second non-oxidizing region, and the second current limiting layer has a third surface facing the active layer and a fourth surface away from the third surface, wherein the second oxidizing region of the second current limiting layer is extended from the third surface to the fourth surface (unoxidized area 251 is described as an opening in layer 25, meaning the rest of the layer is oxidized; ¶ [n0065]), and an oxygen content of the second oxidizing region is greater than an oxygen content of the second non-oxidizing region (the first oxidizing region is formed by oxidizing sidewalls of the first non-oxidizing region to create an oxide, which will have greater oxygen content than the unoxidized region; ¶ [n0065]).
Li does not disclose a second contact layer disposed at a side of the second semiconductor layer away from the active layer, the second contact being between the substrate and the second current limiting layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Su discloses a similar light emitting element comprising a first contact layer (90; Fig 1; Col 7, lines 5-6), and a second contact layer (30; Fig 1; Col 7, line 3) disposed at a side of a semiconductor layer (60; Fig 1; Col 7, lines 12-13) away from an active layer (70; Col 7, line 5), the second contact being between a substrate (10; Fig 1; Col 7, lines 2-3) and a current limiting layer (50; Fig 1; Col 7, lines 48-63). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the second contact layer of Su with the light emitting element of Li. One would have been motivated to do this in order to facilitate an electrical connection to the second side of the active area in order for the light emitting element to function. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success due to the similarity in the light emitting elements of Su and Li and because such contact layers are well known in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses the light emitting device of claim 8, wherein another second current limiting layer (25, as annotated the annotated Fig 4 included under claim 8; ¶ [n0065]) is disposed between the active layer and the second semiconductor layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein an aluminum content of the first current limiting layer is higher than an aluminum content of the other first current limiting layer.”
The closest prior art Wang; Jun et al (CN-115986562-A), in combination with the reference Li as applied to the rejection of claim 3, upon which claim 5 depends, teaches away from claim 5, that is, an aluminum content of a first current limiting layer is less than an aluminum content of the other first current limiting layer (Wang; Fig 1; ¶ [n0015]).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRAD KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-4582. The examiner can normally be reached Telework 9:30 -18:30 ET; M-F.
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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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.
/B.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817