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 § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Singh (US 2019/0035976).
Regarding claim 7, Singh discloses a light emitting device comprising: a mount substrate (Fig. 2A, numeral 110); and at least one light emitting diode (140); (130); (120) mounted to the mount substrate (110), wherein the at least one light emitting diode includes: a first conductivity type layer (140); a second conductivity type layer (120); an active layer (130) configured to generate light disposed between the first conductivity type layer and the second conductivity type layer ([0006]); a light guide layer (Fig.2C; numeral 240) disposed adjacent to the first conductivity type layer (120) and having a different composition than the first conductivity type layer ([0022]; [0023])) on an optical path of light generated from the active layer (130), wherein at least one surface of the light guide layer comprises a textured structure (225); and a first electrode (150) and a second electrode (150) configured to provide an electrical path through the active layer (130).
Regarding claim 8, Singh discloses wherein the light guide layer has a same conductivity type as the first conductivity type layer ([0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Singh discloses wherein the second electrode comprises a reflective electrode (150) disposed adjacent to the second conductivity type layer (140) (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 12, Singh discloses a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 2C, lower part of (120); [0006]; note: multiple layers) interposed between the light generation portion (130) and the light guide layer 240).
Regarding claim 17, Singh discloses a light emitting device comprising: a first conductivity type group III-V layer (Fig. 2A numeral 120); a second conductivity type group III-V layer (140); an active layer (130) configured to generate light disposed between the first conductivity type group III-V layer and the second conductivity type group III-V layer; at least one light guide layer (Fig.2C, numeral 240) having a same conductivity type as the first conductivity type group III-V layer ([0022]) and having a different composition than the first conductivity type layer ([0022]; [0023])), wherein the at least one light guide layer is located on an optical path of light generated from the active layer (130), and wherein at least one surface of the at least one light guide layer comprises a textured structure (Fig.2C, numeral 240); and a first electrode (150) and a second electrode (150) configured to provide an electrical path through the active layer (130).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 13, 14, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Heremans (US 2003/0075723).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Singh does not disclose a side reflector disposed on a side surface of the light guide layer.
Heremans discloses a side reflector (Fig.2, numeral 22) disposed on a side surface of the light guide layer ([0065]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Heremans to have a side reflector disposed on a side surface of the light guide layer for the purpose of fabrication a LED device.
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Singh discloses wherein the light guide layer is included in an optical trap.
Heremans discloses wherein the at least one light guide layer is included in an optical trap ([0071]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Heremans to have at least one light guide layer is included in an optical trap for the purpose of fabrication a LED device.
Regarding claim 14, Heremans discloses a second electrode (14) electrically connected to the optical trap (41) (Fig.4).
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hwang (US 2019/0386180).
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses a light emitting device comprising: a first conductivity type layer (Figs.2C; numeral 120) and a second conductivity type layer (140) a light generation portion (130) disposed between the first conductivity type layer (120) and the second conductivity type layer (140) , the light generation portion comprising an active layer (130) configured to generate light ([0007]); a light guide layer (240) disposed on an optical path of light generated from the active layer (130); and a first electrode (150) and a second electrode (150) configured to provide an electrical path through the active layer (30);, wherein the light guide layer includes a textured structure (225) on the optical path, and wherein the light guide layer (240) has a same conductivity type as the first conductivity type layer (120) ([0222]) and having a different composition than the first conductivity type layer ([0022]; [0023])),
Singh does not disclose wherein the active layer includes InGaP-based semiconductor material.
Hwang however discloses wherein the active layer includes InGaP-based semiconductor material ([0093]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Hwang to have the active layer includes InGaP-based semiconductor material for the purpose of manufacturing light emitting devices for use in various wavelength ranges (Hwang, [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Singh discloses a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 2C lower part of (120)) interposed between the light generation portion (130) and the light guide layer (240).
Claims 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hwang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heremans.
Regarding claim 2, Singh does not disclose discloses wherein the light guide layer is included in an optical trap ([0071]).
Heremans discloses wherein the light guide layer is included in an optical trap ([0071]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Heremans to have at least one light guide layer is included in an optical trap for the purpose of fabrication a LED device.
Regarding claim 4, Singh does not disclose a side reflector disposed on a side surface of the light guide layer.
Heremans discloses a side reflector (Fig.5, numeral 22) disposed on a side surface of the light guide layer (51).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Heremans to have a side reflector disposed on a side surface of the light guide layer for the purpose of fabrication a LED device.
Regarding claim 6, Singh does not disclose wherein the second electrode comprises a reflective electrode disposed adjacent to the second conductivity type layer
Heremans discloses wherein the second electrode comprises a reflective electrode (14); (19) disposed adjacent to the second conductivity type layer (12) ([0066]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Heremans to have the second electrode comprises a reflective electrode disposed adjacent to the second conductivity type layer for the purpose of fabrication a LED device
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Hwang and Heremans as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2018/9129492).
Regarding claim 3, Singh in view of Heremans does not disclose wherein the optical trap further includes a light absorption layer.
Lee however discloses wherein the optical trap further includes a light absorption layer (Fig.2, numeral 215) ([0052]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Lee to have a light absorption layer for the purpose of improving characteristics of a light transmission (Lee, [0052]; [0055]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hwang.
Regarding claim 9, Singh does not disclose wherein the active layer includes InGaP-based semiconductor material.
Singh however discloses wherein the active layer includes InGaP-based semiconductor material ([0093]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Hwang to have the active layer includes InGaP-based semiconductor material for the purpose of manufacturing light emitting devices for use in various wavelength ranges (Hwang, [0004]).
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Heremans as applied to claims 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claims 15, Singh does not disclose wherein the optical trap further includes a light absorption layer.
Lee however discloses wherein the optical trap further includes a light absorption layer (Fig.2, numeral 215) ([0052]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Lee to have a light absorption layer for the purpose of improving characteristics of a light transmission (Lee, [0052]; [0055]).
Regarding claims 19, Singh does not disclose wherein the optical trap further includes a light absorption layer interposed between two guide layers (214), (216).
Lee however discloses wherein the optical trap further includes a light absorption layer (Fig.2, numeral 215) interposed between two guide layers ([0052]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Singh with Lee to have a light absorption layer interposed between two guide layers for the purpose of improving characteristics of a light transmission (Lee, [0052]; [0055]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view Heremans in view of Lee as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2016/0227194).
Regarding claim 16, Singh does not disclose wherein the light absorption layer has a multi- quantum well structure comprising multiple barrier layers and multiple well layer.
Kim however discloses wherein the light absorption layer (14) has a multi- quantum well structure comprising multiple barrier layers and multiple well layer ([0115]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Singh with Kim to have the light absorption layer with a multi- quantum well structure comprising multiple barrier layers and multiple well layer for the purpose of optimization properties of an absorption layer (Kim, [0115]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
