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 .
Specification
The corrections made the specification by the applicant in the response filed on May 6, 2026 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 5-7 are withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 5 in the response filed on May 6, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 7 in the response filed on May 6, 2026.
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 1-3, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2020065041 A) in view of Meng et al. (US 2018/0351045). The examiner notes the that citations to paragraphs of Ito refer to the previously attached English language translation of Ito.
Regarding Claim 1:
Ito discloses a light emitting diode, comprising:
an epitaxial composite layer (compound semiconductor layer formed by epitaxial growth, See figs. 9, 10A, ref. no. 7 and paragraphs 62-63);
a dielectric layer (insulating layer, See figs. 9, 10A, ref. no. 42 and paragraph 63), the epitaxial composite layer being disposed on the dielectric layer (the compound semiconductor layer is formed on the insulating layer, See fig. 9, ref. nos. 7, 42);
a transparent conductive layer (light transmitting conductive layer, See fig. 9, 10B, ref. no. 6, paragraphs 26 and 64), the dielectric layer being disposed on the transparent conductive layer (the insulating layer is formed on the light transmitting conductive layer, See fig. 9, ref. nos. 6, 42); and
a metal layer (metal layer, See figs. 9, 10E, ref. no. 5 and paragraphs 65-66), wherein the transparent conductive layer is disposed on the metal layer (the light transmitting conductive layer is formed on the metal layer, See fig. 9, ref. nos. 5, 6).
Ito does not disclose an outer edge of the transparent conductive layer and an outer edge of the dielectric layer are covered by the metal layer.
Meng discloses an outer edge of the transparent conductive layer and an outer edge of the dielectric layer are covered by the metal layer (side surfaces of multiple layers are covered by a protective layer, See fig. 15, ref. nos. 425, 426, 440, and paragraph 121).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting diode of Ito to include an outer edge of the transparent conductive layer and an outer edge of the dielectric layer are covered by the metal layer as taught by Meng in order to protect the light transmitting conductive layer and the insulating layer from damage. (The examiner notes that the purpose of protective layer, protecting covered layers, is implicit through the naming convention Meng chose for this layer.)
Regarding Claim 2:
Ito discloses wherein the transparent conductive layer further comprises a plurality of dotted transparent electrodes (contact portions of the light-transmitting layer surround by the insulating layer, See fig. 9, ref. nos. 42, 44 and paragraphs 60-61,) each of the dotted transparent electrodes is surrounded by the dielectric layer.
Regarding Claim 3:
Ito discloses wherein a material of the transparent conductive layer is one of indium tin oxide (indium tin oxide, See paragraph 26), aluminum zinc oxide, tin zinc oxide, zinc oxide (zinc oxide, See paragraph 26), nickel oxide, cadmium tin oxide, antimony tin oxide and a combination thereof. (The examiner also notes that the applicant has created a genus of equivalency among the recited materials with each material being obvious over the others.)
Regarding Claim 5:
Ito discloses the epitaxial composite layer further comprises a first semiconductor layer (n-type semiconductor layer, See fig. 9, ref. no. 14 and paragraph 27), a light emitting layer (emission layer, See fig. 9, 10A, ref. no. 12 and paragraph 63), a second semiconductor layer (p-type cladding layer, See fig. 9, ref. no. 17 and paragraph 63), and a third semiconductor layer (p-type contact layer and p-type window layer, See fig 9, 10A, ref. nos. 13, 15, 16, paragraph 63), wherein the third semiconductor layer is disposed on the dielectric layer and electrically connected to the transparent conductive layer (the p-type contact layer is formed directly on the insulating layer and is in electrical contact with the contact portions of light-transmitting layer, See fig. 9, ref. nos. 15, 42, 44), the second semiconductor layer is disposed on the third semiconductor layer (the p-type cladding layer is formed on the p-type window layer, See fig. 9, ref. nos. 16, 17), and wherein the light emitting layer is disposed on the second semiconductor layer (the emission layer is formed on the p-type cladding layer, See fig. 9, ref. nos. 12, 17), and the first semiconductor layer is disposed on the light emitting layer (the n-type semiconductor layer is formed on the emission layer, See fig. 9, ref. nos. 12, 14).
Regarding Claim 8:
Ito discloses an upper electrode (cathode electrode layer formed on the compound semiconductor layer does not overlap the contact portions of the light-transmitting layer, See fig. 9 ref. nos. 7, 11, 44, paragraphs 61 and 68-69) disposed on the epitaxial composite layer without overlapping the dotted transparent electrodes.
Regarding Claim 9:
Ito discloses wherein a material of the metal layer is one of gold (Au) (Au, See paragraphs 64-65), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), beryllium gold (BeAu) (an alloy containing Au, See paragraphs 64-65), germanium gold (GeAu) (an alloy containing Au, See paragraphs 64-65), and a combination thereof. (The examiner also notes that the applicant has created a genus of equivalency among the recited materials with each material being obvious over the others.)
Regarding Claim 10:
Ito discloses a substrate (Substrate, See fig. 9, 10D, ref. no. 2 and paragraphs 65-66) bonding with the metal layer.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2020065041 A) in view of Meng et al. (US 2018/0351045) further in view of Fuchida (WO 2023/144960 A1). The examiner notes that the citations to paragraphs of Fuchida refer to paragraphs in the previously attached English language translation of Fuchida.
Regarding Claim 6:
The above stated combination of Ito and Meng discloses the above stated light emitting diode. The examiner notes that Meng discloses epitaxially growing the compound semiconductor layer in paragraph 63.
The above stated combination of Ito and Meng does not disclose herein the first semiconductor layer is an N-type indium phosphide (InP) layer, the second semiconductor layer is a P-type indium phosphide layer, and the third semiconductor layer is a P-type indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) layer.
Fuchida discloses herein the first semiconductor layer is an N-type indium phosphide (InP) layer (n-type InP substrate, See fig. 3, ref. no. 1, paragraphs 13 and 19), the second semiconductor layer is a P-type indium phosphide layer (p-type InP cladding layer, See fig. 3, ref. no. 5, paragraphs 13 and 19), and the third semiconductor layer is a P-type indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) layer (p-type InGaAs contact layer, See fig. 3, ref. no. 6, paragraphs 13 and 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting diode of Ito and Meng to include the first semiconductor layer is an N-type indium phosphide (InP) layer, the second semiconductor layer is a P-type indium phosphide layer, and the third semiconductor layer is a P-type indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) layer as taught by Fuchida since it has been held that the selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for its intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (JP 2020065041 A) in view of Meng et al. (US 2018/0351045) further in view of Raring (US 2021/0194206).
Regarding Claim 7:
The above stated combination of Ito and Meng discloses the above stated light emitting diode.
The above stated combination of Ito and Meng does not disclose wherein the light emitting layer is configured to emit light having a wavelength in a range from 1000 nanometers (nm) to 2000 nm.
Raring discloses the light emitting layer is configured to emit light having a wavelength in a range from 1000 nanometers (nm) to 2000 nm (a laser diode operates with wavelength in the 1100nm to 2500nm range, See paragraph 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light emitting diode of Ito and Meng to include operating with wavelength in 1100nm to 2500nm range as taught by Raring in order to provide eye-safe infrared illumination. (See Raring paragraph 54.)
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
10. The applicant’s argument that neither Ito or Meng discloses an outer edge of the transparent conductive layer and an outer edge of the dielectric layer are covered by the metal layer is not persuasive because the combination of Ito and Meng discloses this feature. The examiner first notes that “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” See MPEP 2123 Section I. The examiner notes that Meng would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art a metal layer covering the edges of two consecutive layers located above the metal layer because Meng discloses a protective layer made of metal covering the edges of two consecutive layers located above the protective layer. See Meng fig. 15, ref. nos. 425, 426, 440 and paragraph 121. The examiner next notes that Ito discloses a metal layer with two consecutive layers, the light transmitting conductive layer and the dielectric layer, located above the metal layer. See Ito fig. 9, ref. nos. 5, 6, 42. Thus, the combination of Ito and Meng disclose an outer edge of the transparent conductive layer and an outer edge of the dielectric layer are covered by the metal layer. Therefore, applicant’s argument that neither Ito or Meng discloses an outer edge of the transparent conductive layer and an outer edge of the dielectric layer are covered by the metal layer is not persuasive because the combination of Ito and Meng discloses this feature.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to modify the light emitting diode of Ito to include an outer edge of the transparent conductive layer and an outer edge of the dielectric layer are covered by the metal layer as taught by Meng is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Ito with the teachings of Meng in order to protect the covered layers from damage. The examiner again notes that Meng discloses the protective layer covers the edges of two consecutive layers located above the protective layer. See Meng fig. 15, ref. nos. 425, 426, 440. The examiner next notes that the purpose of the protective layer, protecting covered layers, is implicit through the naming convention Meng chose for this layer. The examiner further notes that paragraph 124 does not state the sole purpose of the protective layer is to prevent Ag migration. The examiner notes that “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” See MPEP 2123 Section I. The examiner now notes a protective layer would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art that the purpose of a protective layer is to provide protection. The examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that metals and insulator have different material properties and that protecting an insulator from the conditions the insulator is more susceptible to than the metal by covering an insulator with a metal protective layer provides protection for the insulator. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to modify the light emitting diode of Ito to include an outer edge of the transparent conductive layer and an outer edge of the dielectric layer are covered by the metal layer as taught by Meng is not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument that Ito discloses the opposite of the structural relationship between the transparent conductive layer and the dielectric layer as claimed in independent claim 1 is not persuasive because the applicant’s argument is not supported by the claim language. The examiner first notes that independent claim 1 recites “the dielectric layer being disposed on the transparent conductive layer,” and that limitation is met by the structure shown in figure 9 which shows the insulating layer disposed on the light transmitting conductive layer. See fig. 9, ref. nos. 6, 42. Additionally, the applicant’s arguments regarding modifying Ito to replace the insulating layer with a metal layer are not persuasive because Ito is not being modified in this manner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRETT SQUIRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights