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
Status of Claims
1. Applicant's submittal of claims 1-20 in the “Claims” filed on 01/24/2024 is acknowledged and entered 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bergmann et al. (US 20110187294 A1; hereinafter Bergmann).
Regarding claim 1, Bergmann teaches a light emitting apparatus (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0001+], and as cited below), comprising:
a light emitting device (40; Fig. 1; [0050, 0056]) and a circuit substrate (see [0056], where it says the LED device may be bonded using solder to a printed circuit board) on which the light emitting device (40; Fig. 1; [0050, 0056]) is mounted,
wherein the light emitting device (40; Fig. 1; [0050, 0056]) comprises a first conductivity type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]), an active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]) disposed on the first conductivity type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]), and a second conductivity type semiconductor layer (30; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]) disposed on the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]),
the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]) comprising a plurality of sub-active layers having different energy bandgaps (see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material sandwiched by high bandgap cladding or confinement layers).
Regarding claim 2, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the plurality of sub-active layers (Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0078]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) are sequentially disposed from up to down and have gradually increasing energy bandgaps with decreasing distance to a light emission surface.
Regarding claim 3, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the active layer (18; Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0078]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) comprises: a first sub-active layer (Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0078]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) formed on the first conductive-type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]) and having a first energy bandgap; and a second sub-active layer (Fig. 1; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes high bandgap cladding or confinement layers) formed on the first sub-active layer (Fig. 1; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material) and having a second energy bandgap different from the first energy bandgap (Fig. 1; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material sandwiched by high bandgap cladding or confinement layers), the second sub-active layer (Fig. 1; see [0052, 0062, 0063, 0078-0079]) having a greater indium content than the first sub-active layer.
Regarding claim 4, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the light emitting device (40; Fig. 1; [0050]) further comprises a light control layer (16; Fig. 1; see [0050], where it says a nitride superlattice structure 16 that may include alternating layers of silicon-doped GaN and/or InGaN; see also [0125] of the US PGPub of the instant invention where it says “the light control layer 140 may be a multilayer structure in which GaN layers and InGaN layers are alternately stacked one above another”; thus, it is construed that superlattice structure 16 is a light control layer) disposed between the first conductive-type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]) and the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]) to form a light control structure within the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]).
It is the Examiner’s position that the limitation of "wherein the light emitting device further comprises a light control layer disposed between the first conductive-type semiconductor layer and the active layer to form a light control structure within the active layer” is a functional limitation of the apparatus claimed. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431- 32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2114. Furthermore, because the device of Bergmann has all of the structural limitations of the claimed invention the device is capable of operating in the manner claimed by the applicant. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Moreover, as per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Bergmann teaches the structure of the claims as detailed above. Thus, Bergmann teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Regarding claim 5, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the first conductivity type semiconductor (12; Fig. 1; [0050]; n-type) layer is an n-type semiconductor layer, the second conductivity type semiconductor layer (30; Fig. 1; [0050]; p-type) is a p-type semiconductor layer, and the light emitting device further comprises a boundary layer (22; Fig. 1; [0050]; AlGaN) disposed between the active layer (18) and the p-type semiconductor layer (30; Fig. 1; [0050]; p-type) and having Al.
Regarding claim 6, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 5.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the active layer (18; Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0078]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) has a multi-quantum well structure in which barrier layers (see [0063], where it says the active region 18 includes a multiple well structure that includes multiple InGaN well layers separated by barrier layers) and well layers are alternately stacked one above another, and the boundary layer (22; [0076];35 angstroms) has a smaller thickness than one pair of barrier layer and well layer (see [0081]; 50 to 250 angstroms).
Regarding claim 7, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 5.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the active layer (18; Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0078]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) has a multi-quantum well structure in which barrier layers and well layers are alternately stacked one above another, and the boundary layer (22; [0076]; 35 angstroms) has a smaller thickness than the barrier layer (see [0081]; 50 to 250 angstroms).
Regarding claim 20, Bergmann teaches a light emitting apparatus (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0001+], and as cited below), comprising:
an n-type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]; n-type),
an active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]) disposed on the n-type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]; n-type), and
a p-type semiconductor layer (30; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]; p-type) disposed on the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]),
wherein the active layer (18; Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0079]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material sandwiched by high bandgap cladding or confinement layers; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) comprises a plurality of sub-active layers having different energy bandgaps (see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material sandwiched by high bandgap cladding or confinement layers; see also 220; Fig. 3A; [0078]) and a tunnel barrier layer (see [0063], where it says “the active region 18 includes a multiple well structure that includes multiple InGaN well layers separated by barrier layers”; see also 218;Fig. 3A; [0078]) between adjacent sub-active layers (see Fig. 1 in view of 220/218/220; Fig. 3A; [0078]).
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (US 20110187294 A1; hereinafter Bergmann), in view of Kusunoki et al. (US 20140209921 A1; hereinafter Kusunoki).
Regarding claim 8, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 5.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the light emitting device (40; Fig. 1; [0050]) further comprises a light control layer (16; Fig. 1; see [0050], where it says a nitride superlattice structure 16 that may include alternating layers of silicon-doped GaN and/or InGaN; see also [0125] of the US PGPub of the instant invention where it says “the light control layer 140 may be a multilayer structure in which GaN layers and InGaN layers are alternately stacked one above another”; thus, it is construed that superlattice structure 16 is a light control layer) disposed between the first conductive-type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]) and the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]) to form a light control structure within the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]), the light control structure (16; Fig. 1; see [0050], where it says a nitride superlattice structure 16 that may include alternating layers of silicon-doped GaN and/or InGaN; see also [0125] of the US PGPub of the instant invention where it says “the light control layer 140 may be a multilayer structure in which GaN layers and InGaN layers are alternately stacked one above another”; thus, it is construed that superlattice structure 16 is a light control layer) (see below for “being a V-shaped groove having a V-shaped cross-section across”) the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]).
As noted above, Bergmann does not expressly disclose “the light control structure being a V-shaped groove having a V-shaped cross-section across the active layer”.
However, in the analogous art, Kusunoki teaches a semiconductor light emitting element using a group III nitride semiconductor ([0003]), wherein (Fig. 1+; [0026+]) p-cladding layer (161; Fig. 4; [0055, 0080]) comprising of Al.sub.xGa.sub.1-xN has a V-shaped concave and located over adjacent well and barrier layers ([0076, 0082]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Bergmann’s light control layer with Kusunoki’s v-shaped cladding layer, and thereby, modified Bergmann’s (by Kusunoki) device will have wherein the light control structure (Bergmann 16; Fig. 1; see [0050], where it says a nitride superlattice structure 16 that may include alternating layers of silicon-doped GaN and/or InGaN; see also [0125] of the US PGPub of the instant invention where it says “the light control layer 140 may be a multilayer structure in which GaN layers and InGaN layers are alternately stacked one above another”; thus, it is construed that superlattice structure 16 is a light control layer in view of Kusunoki Fig. 4; 161; Fig. 4; [0055, 0080]; v-shaped) being a V-shaped groove having a V-shaped cross-section (in view of Kusunoki Fig. 4; [0055, 0080]; v-shaped) across the active layer (Bergmann 18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062] in view of Kusunoki Fig. 4; [0076, 0082 )
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bergmann in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a V-shaped concave portion, which is configured with inclined surfaces of a concave portion opened toward the p-type semiconductor layer, is generated in the light emitting layer, and in at least one of the n-side well layers, a concentration of atoms of In on the inclined surface is not more than 50% of a concentration of atoms of In existing in the same n-side well layer (Kusunoki [0008]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Bergmann (by Kusunoki) teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Modified Bergmann (by Kusunoki) further teaches wherein the active layer (18; Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0079]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) comprises: a first sub-active layer (Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0079]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) formed on the first conductive-type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]) and having a first energy bandgap; and a second sub-active layer (Fig. 1; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes high bandgap cladding or confinement layers) formed on the first sub-active layer (Fig. 1; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material) and having a second energy bandgap different from the first energy bandgap (Fig. 1; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material sandwiched by high bandgap cladding or confinement layers), a maximum width of the V-shaped groove (in view of Kusunoki Fig. 4; [0055]; 400 nm) being greater than a thickness of the first sub-active layer (Bergmann [0081]; greater than 20 angstrom).
Regarding claim 10, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the active layer (18; Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0079]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) comprises: a first sub-active layer (Fig. 1 in view of Fig. 3A; [0062, 0079]; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material; see [0078], where it says multiple well structures illustrated in FIGS. 3A and 3B may provide the active region of the LEDs illustrated in FIG. 1) formed on the first conductive-type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]) and having a first energy bandgap; and a second sub-active layer (Fig. 1; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes high bandgap cladding or confinement layers) formed on the first sub-active layer (Fig. 1; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material) and having a second energy bandgap different from the first energy bandgap (Fig. 1; see [0062], where it says active region 18 includes multiple light emitting wells that include thin layers of low bandgap semiconductor material sandwiched by high bandgap cladding or confinement layers), a maximum width of the V-shaped groove (in view of Kusunoki Fig. 4; [0055]; 400 nm) being greater than a thickness of the second sub-active layer (Bergmann [0081]; greater than 20 angstrom).
Regarding claim 11, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 50% to 150% (Bergmann [0081]; where some of the values of barrier (250 angstrom) and well layers (greater than 20 angstrom) are withing the thickness range) of a maximum width of the V-shaped groove (in view of Kusunoki Fig. 4; [0055]; 400 nm).
Regarding claim 12, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Bergmann further teaches wherein the boundary layer (Bergmann 22; [0076]) covers a surface of the V-shaped groove (in view of Kusunoki Fig. 4; [0055, 0080]; v-shaped) to form a boundary between the V-shaped groove (in view of Kusunoki Fig. 4; [0055, 0080]; v-shaped) and the p-type semiconductor layer (Bergmann 30; Fig. 1; [0050]; p-type).
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (US 20110187294 A1; hereinafter Bergmann), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 13, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 5.
Bergmann further teaches wherein (see below for “an effective index of refraction of”) the boundary layer (Bergmann 22; [0076]) (see below for “is less than an effective index of refraction of”) the p-type semiconductor layer (Bergmann 30; Fig. 1; [0050]; p-type).
In regards to wherein an effective index of refraction of the boundary layer is less than an effective index of refraction of the p-type semiconductor layer”, it has been held that “wherein an effective index of refraction of the boundary layer is less than an effective index of refraction of the p-type semiconductor layer” (emphasis added) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein an effective index of refraction of the boundary layer is less than an effective index of refraction of the p-type semiconductor layer is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein an effective index of refraction of the boundary layer is less than an effective index of refraction of the p-type semiconductor layer is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein an effective index of refraction of the boundary layer is less than an effective index of refraction of the p-type semiconductor layer as claimed in device because having the wherein an effective index of refraction of the boundary layer is less than an effective index of refraction of the p-type semiconductor layer can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired.
Moreover, as per MPEP 2112.01.I guideline, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In this case, Bergmann teaches the structure of the claims as detailed above. Thus, Bergmann teaches all of the structural elements of the claimed product, and when the structure recited in a reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
5. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (US 20110187294 A1; hereinafter Bergmann), in view of Lex et al. (US 20250185417 A1; hereinafter Lex).
Regarding claim 14, Bergmann teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Bergmann further comprising: a substrate (10; Fig. 1; [0004, 0050, 0056]) for growth of the first conductive-type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]), wherein (see below for “a plurality of protrusions is formed on”) one surface of the substrate (10; Fig. 1; [0004, 0050, 0056]).
As noted above, Bergmann does not expressly disclose “a substrate for growth of the first conductive-type semiconductor layer, wherein a plurality of protrusions is formed on one surface of the substrate”.
However, in the analogous art, Lex teaches semiconductor structures may each be a protrusion protruding from a substrate, like a growth substrate, in a direction away from the substrate ([0023]), wherein a growth substrate (15; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]) has multiple protrusions ({13, 5}; Fig. 19; [0120, 0122, 0125]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Lex’s protrusions into Bergmann’s device, and thereby, modified Bergmann’s (by Lex) device will have wherein a substrate (Bergmann 10; Fig. 1; [0004, 0050, 0056] in view of Lex 15; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]) for growth of the first conductive-type semiconductor layer (12; Fig. 1; [0050]), wherein a plurality of protrusions (in view of Lex {13, 5}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]) is formed on one surface of the substrate (Bergmann 10; Fig. 1; [0004, 0050, 0056] in view of Lex 15; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]).
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bergmann in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a growth substrate with multiple protrusions (Lex [0023]), which allows for s surface that enhances efficient deposition.
Regarding claim 15, modified Bergmann (by Lex) teaches all of the features of claim 14.
Modified Bergmann (by Lex) further teaches wherein each of the protrusions (in view of Lex {13, 5}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]) comprises a first protrusion (in view of Lex {13}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]) integrally formed with the substrate (in view of Lex 15; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]) and protruding from the one surface of the substrate (in view of Lex 15; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]), and a second protrusion disposed (in view of Lex {5}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]) on the first protrusion (in view of Lex {13}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]).
6. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (US 20110187294 A1; hereinafter Bergmann), in view of Lex et al. (US 20250185417 A1; hereinafter Lex), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 16, modified Bergmann (by Lex) teaches all of the features of claim 15.
Modified Bergmann (by Lex) further teaches wherein the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]) (see below for “has a thickness ranging from 7% to 15% of a height of”) the second protrusion (in view of Lex {5}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]).
In regards to wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 7% to 15% of a height of the second protrusion (emphasis added), it has been held that “wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 7% to 15% of a height of the second protrusion” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 7% to 15% of a height of the second protrusion is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 7% to 15% of a height of the second protrusion is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 7% to 15% of a height of the second protrusion as claimed in device because having the wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 7% to 15% of a height of the second protrusion can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired.
Regarding claim 17, modified Bergmann (by Lex) teaches all of the features of claim 15.
Modified Bergmann (by Lex) further teaches wherein the active layer (18; Fig. 1; [0050, 0062]) (see below for “has a thickness ranging from 2% to 10% of a maximum width of”) the second protrusion (in view of Lex {5}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]).
In regards to wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 2% to 10% of a maximum width of the second protrusion (emphasis added), it has been held that “wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 2% to 10% of a maximum width of the second protrusion” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 2% to 10% of a maximum width of the second protrusion is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 2% to 10% of a maximum width of the second protrusion is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 2% to 10% of a maximum width of the second protrusion as claimed in device because having the wherein the active layer has a thickness ranging from 2% to 10% of a maximum width of the second protrusion can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired.
Regarding claim 18, modified Bergmann (by Lex) teaches all of the features of claim 15.
Modified Bergmann (by Lex) further teaches wherein the second protrusion (in view of Lex {5}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]) (see below for “has a different index of refraction than”) the first protrusion (in view of Lex {13}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]).
In regards to wherein the second protrusion has a different index of refraction than the first protrusion (emphasis added), it has been held that “wherein the second protrusion has a different index of refraction than the first protrusion” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such wherein the second protrusion has a different index of refraction than the first protrusion is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing wherein the second protrusion has a different index of refraction than the first protrusion is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have wherein the second protrusion has a different index of refraction than the first protrusion as claimed in device because having the wherein the second protrusion has a different index of refraction than the first protrusion can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired.
7. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bergmann et al. (US 20110187294 A1; hereinafter Bergmann), in view of Lex et al. (US 20250185417 A1; hereinafter Lex), in view of Park et al. (US 20210399528 A1; hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 18, modified Bergmann (by Lex) teaches all of the features of claim 15.
Modified Bergmann (by Lex) further teaches wherein the light emitting device (40; Fig. 1; [0050, 0056]) further comprises (see below for “a distributed Bragg reflector in which first material layers and second material layers having a higher index of refraction than the first material layers are alternately stacked one above another, the distributed Bragg reflector having a thickness ranging from 50% to 250% of a height of”) the second protrusion (in view of Lex {5}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125]).
As noted above, Bergmann does not expressly disclose “wherein the light emitting device further comprises a distributed Bragg reflector in which first material layers and second material layers having a higher index of refraction than the first material layers are alternately stacked one above another, the distributed Bragg reflector having a thickness ranging from 50% to 250% of a height of the second protrusion”.
However, in the analogous art, Park teaches a light emitting device ([0001]), wherein a first reflective layer (220; Figs. 5-6; [0095]) may be a Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR). For example, the first reflective layer (220; Figs. 5-6; [0095-0099]) may have a structure in which a first layer and a second layer made of materials having different refractive indices are alternately stacked at least once or more.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Park’s distributed Bragg reflector into Bergmann’s device, and thereby, modified Bergmann’s (by Lex and Park) device will have wherein the light emitting device (Bergmann 40; Fig. 1; [0050, 0056]) further comprises a distributed Bragg reflector (in view of Park 220; Figs. 5-6; [0095-0099]) in which first material layers and second material layers having a higher index of refraction than the first material layers are alternately stacked one above another (in view of Park 220; Figs. 5-6; [0095-0099]), the distributed Bragg reflector (in view of Park 220; Figs. 5-6; [0095-0099]) (see below for “having a thickness ranging from 50% to 250% of a height of”) the second protrusion (in view of Lex {5}; Fig. 19; [0098, 0120, 0122, 0125])
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Bergmann in the manner set forth above, at least, because this inclusion provides a Distributed Bragg Reflector (DBR) has a structure in which a first layer and a second layer made of materials having different refractive indices are alternately stacked at least once or more (Park [0095-0099]), which allows for efficiency for reflecting and transmitting light in the device.
In regards to the distributed Bragg reflector having a thickness ranging from 50% to 250% of a height of the second protrusion (emphasis added), it has been held that “the distributed Bragg reflector having a thickness ranging from 50% to 250% of a height of the second protrusion” will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such the distributed Bragg reflector having a thickness ranging from 50% to 250% of a height of the second protrusion is critical, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, there is nothing in the present application to indicate that the claimed containing the distributed Bragg reflector having a thickness ranging from 50% to 250% of a height of the second protrusion is critical and will achieve unexpected results over the range outside of the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have the distributed Bragg reflector having a thickness ranging from 50% to 250% of a height of the second protrusion as claimed in device because having the the distributed Bragg reflector having a thickness ranging from 50% to 250% of a height of the second protrusion can be optimized during routine experimentation depending upon a particular application which is desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898