DETAILED ACTION/EXAMINER’S COMMENT
This Office action responds to the amendments filed on 06/11/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
Applicant’s response filed on 06/11/2026 in reply to the non-final rejection mailed on 03/12/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Claim 2 is canceled. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claim(s) 1 & 3-20.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 & 19 are 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a second current spreading layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because Claim 1, on which Claim 14 depends, does not establish “a first current spreading layer.”
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a second ohmic contact layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because Claim 1, on which Claim 19 depends, does not establish “a first ohmic contact layer.”
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, 12, 13, 17, 18, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 20210057605) in view of Jiang (US 20120161099).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugawara (see, e.g., figs. 1a-b) shows a light-emitting device, comprising:
a semiconductor epitaxial structure 14, 40, & 16 that has a first surface (topmost surface of 16) and a second surface (bottommost surface of 14) opposite to said first surface (see, e.g., annotated figure 1),
and that includes a first-type semiconductor layered unit 16 (see, e.g., para.0050),
an active layer 40 (see, e.g., para.0019),
and a second-type semiconductor layered unit 14 (see, e.g., para.0019) sequentially disposed in such order in a direction from said first surface to said second surface,
wherein said active layer includes quantum well layers 401-410 (see, e.g., para.0021-0022) and quantum barrier layers 411-419 (see, e.g., para.0021-0022) stacked alternately (see, e.g., fig. 1b),
and each of said quantum well layers includes a material that is represented by InxGa1-xAs (see, e.g., para.0021),
and each of said quantum barrier layers includes a material that is represented by GaAs1-yPy (see, e.g., para.0021),
where 0.2≤x≤0.3, and 0≤y≤0.05 (see, e.g., para.0022).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
720
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation, “where 0.2≤x≤0.3, and 0≤y≤0.05,” Sugawara (see, e.g., para.0022) teaches ranges where 0≤x≤0.2 and 0.05≤y≤0.058. The ranges of Sugawara touch the claimed ranges of Claim 1. Therefore, the ranges of Sugawara anticipate the limitations. See MPEP 2131.03 (II).
Sugawara, however, fails to show
and each of said quantum well layers has a thickness ranging from 95 Å to 115 Å,
and each of the said quantum barrier layers has a thickness ranging from 400 Å to 520 Å
Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 1d, para.0026-0027), in a similar device to Sugawara, shows
and each of said quantum well layers 104b has a thickness ranging from 10 Å to 200 Å,
and each of said quantum barrier layers 104a has a thickness ranging from 5 Å to 500 Å.
The claimed ranges of thickness for each of said quantum well layers has a thickness ranging from 95 Å to 115 Å and each of said quantum barrier layers has a thickness ranging from 400 Å to 520 Å is held obvious over prior art of Jiang that teaches each of said quantum well layers 104b that has a thickness ranging from 10 Å to 200 Å and each of said quantum barrier layers 104a that has a thickness ranging from 5 Å to 500 Å overlapping the claimed ranges of Claim 1. See MPEP 2144.05(I) Overlap of Ranges.
Regarding Claim 3, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1b, para.0021), in view of Jiang, shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each of said quantum well layers 401-410 and a corresponding one of said quantum barrier layers 411-419 that is adjacent to said each of said quantum well layers constitute a layer unit,
a number of said layer unit ranging from 3 to 15 (10 units, see, e.g., fig. 1b).
Regarding Claim 12, Sugawara (see, e.g., para.0023), in view of Jiang, shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
which radiates an invisible light having a wavelength ranging from 1000 nm and 1100 nm.
Sugawara (see, e.g., para.0022) teaches the light-emitting device radiates infrared light at a wavelength of 1000 nm or less. Therefore, the wavelength range of Sugawara touches the claimed range of Claim 12. See MPEP 2131.03 (II) Anticipation of Ranges.
Regarding Claim 13, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0020), in view of Jiang, shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein said second-type semiconductor layered unit 14 includes a second cladding layer (AlGaAs cladding layer, see, e.g., para.0020).
Regarding Claim 17, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0020), in view of Jiang, shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising
a first electrode 50 that is electrically connected to said first-type semiconductor layered unit 16,
and a second electrode 60 that is electrically connected to said second-type semiconductor layered unit 14.
Regarding Claim 18, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1a), in view of Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0032) shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 17,
wherein said first-type semiconductor layered unit 16 includes a first ohmic contact layer 107 (see, e.g., para.0032) that forms an ohmic contact (between 107 & 108) with said first electrode 50 (50 of Sugawara corresponding to 108 of Jiang, see, e.g., annotated figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
465
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1a), in view of Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0032) shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 17,
wherein said second-type semiconductor layered unit 14 includes a second ohmic contact layer 107 that forms an ohmic contact with said second electrode 60 (60 of Sugawara corresponding to 108 of Jiang, see, e.g., annotated figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
484
840
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 4, 5, & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 20210057605) in view of Jiang (US 20120161099) and further in view of Yen (US 20230058195).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0020), in view of Jiang, shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein said first-type semiconductor layered unit 16 includes a first cladding layer (AlGaAs cladding layer, see, e.g., para.0020),
Sugawara, in view of Jiang, however, fails to show,
and said first cladding layer includes a material that is represented by AlaGa1-aAs,
where 0.3≤a≤0.45.
Yen (see, e.g., fig. 2a, para.0017, para.0031, para.0039), in a device similar to Sugawara, in view of Jiang, shows
a cladding layer 118 or 120 including a material that is represented by AlaGa1-aAs, where 0≤a≤1.0
The claimed range for the material that is represented by AlaGa1-aAs, where 0.3≤a≤0.45, is held obvious over prior art of Yen that teaches a range overlapping the claimed range of Claim 4. See MPEP 2144.05(I) Overlap of Ranges.
Regarding Claim 5, Sugawara, in view of Jiang and further in view of Yen (see, e.g., para.0031), shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 4,
wherein said first cladding layer has a thickness ranging from 0.3 µm to 1 µm (see, e.g., para.0031).
Regarding Claim 6, Sugawara, in view Jiang and further in view of Yen (see, e.g., para.0038-0039), shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 4,
wherein said first cladding layer has a doping concentration ranging from 3E+17/cm3 to 2E+18/cm3 (see, e.g., para.0038-0039).
Claims 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 20210057605) in view of Jiang (US 20120161099) & Chen (US 20230238482) and further in view of Hsiao (US 20220285583).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugawara, in view of Jiang, shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
Sugawara, in view of Jiang, however, fails to show
wherein said first-type semiconductor layered unit includes a first current spreading layer,
and said first current spreading layer includes a material that is represented by AlbGa1-bAs,
where 0≤b≤0.3.
Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1, para.0024), in a similar device to Sugawara, in view of Jiang, teaches a current spreading layer would enhance uniform current spreading of the light-emitting device.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use current spreading layer of Chen, in the device of Sugawara, in view of Jiang, to enhance uniform current spreading of the light-emitting device.
Sugawara, in view of Jiang & Chen, however, fails to show
and said first current spreading layer includes a material that is represented by AlbGa1-bAs,
where 0≤b≤0.3.
Hsiao (see, e.g., fig. 6, para.0030), in a similar device to Sugawara, in view of Jiang, shows
a current spreading layer 104 represented by AlbGa1-bAs,
where 0.1≤ b≤ 0.4
The claimed range for the material that is represented by AlbGa1-bAs, where 0≤a≤0.3, is held obvious over prior art of Hsiao that teaches a range overlapping the claimed range of Claim 7. See MPEP 2144.05(I) Overlap of Ranges.
Regarding Claim 8, Sugawara, in view of Jiang & Chen and further in view of Hsiao (see, e.g., para.0031), shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 7,
wherein said first current spreading layer has a thickness ranging from 0 μm to 10 μm (see, e.g., para.0031).
Regarding Claim 9, Sugawara, in view of Jiang & Chen and further in view of Hsiao (see, e.g., para.0031), shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 7,
wherein said first current spreading layer has a doping concentration ranging from 3E+17/cm3 to 2E+18/cm3 (see, e.g., para.0031).
Regarding Claim 14, Sugawara, in view of Jiang, shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
Sugawara, in view of Jiang, however, fails to show
wherein said second-type semiconductor layered unit includes a second current spreading layer,
and said second current spreading layer includes a material that is represented by AlyGa1-yAs, where 0≤y≤0.25.
Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1, para.0024), in a similar device to Sugawara, in view of Jiang, teaches a current spreading layer would enhance uniform current spreading of the light-emitting device.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use current spreading layer of Chen, in the device of Sugawara, in view of Jiang, to enhance uniform current spreading of the light-emitting device.
Sugawara, in view of Jiang & Chen, however, fails to show
and said second current spreading layer includes a material that is represented by AlbGa1-bAs,
where 0 ≤ y ≤ 0.25.
Hsiao (see, e.g., fig. 6, para.0030), in a similar device to Sugawara, in view of Jiang, shows
a current spreading layer 104 represented by AlyGa1-yAs,
where 0.1 ≤ y ≤ 0.4
The claimed range for the material that is represented by AlbGa1-bAs, where 0 ≤ y ≤0.25, is held obvious over prior art of Hsiao that teaches a range overlapping the claimed range of Claim 14. See MPEP 2144.05(I) Overlap of Ranges.
Regarding Claim 15, Sugawara, in view of Jiang & Chen and further in view of Hsiao (see, e.g., para.0031), shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 14,
wherein said second current spreading layer has a thickness ranging from 0 nm to 3000 nm (see, e.g., para.0031).
Regarding Claim 16, Sugawara, in view of Jiang & Chen and further in view of Hsiao (see, e.g., para.0031), shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 14,
wherein said second current spreading layer has a doping concentration ranging from 1E+17/cm3 to 4E+18/cm3 (see, e.g., para.0031).
Claims 10, 11, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 20210057605) in view of Jiang (US 20120161099) and further in view of Chen (US 20230238482).
Regarding Claim 10, Sugawara, in view of Jiang, shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising
Sugawara, in view of Jiang, however, fails to show
a supporting substrate
and a bonding layer,
said semiconductor epitaxial structure being bonded to said supporting substrate through said bonding layer.
Chen (see, e.g., fig. 4, para.0035, para.0052), in a similar device to Sugawara, in view of Jiang, shows
a supporting substrate 200
and a bonding layer 201,
said semiconductor epitaxial structure being bonded to said supporting substrate through said bonding layer (see, e.g., fig. 4).
Chen states the supporting substrate and bonding layer would provide mechanical strength to support the semiconductor epitaxial structure of the light-emitting device.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the supporting substrate and bonding layer of Chen in the device of Sugawara, in view of Jiang, to provide mechanical strength to support the semiconductor epitaxial structure of the light-emitting device.
Regarding Claim 11, Sugawara, in view of Jiang and further in view of Chen (see, e.g., para.0040), shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 10, further comprising
a reflection layer 202 (see, e.g., para.0040) that is disposed between said semiconductor epitaxial structure and said supporting substrate.
Regarding Claim 20, Sugawara, in view of Jiang, fails to show
a light-emitting apparatus comprising said light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1.
Chen (see, e.g., fig. 4, fig. 15, para.0077), in a similar device to Sugawara, in view of Jiang, shows a light-emitting apparatus 300 comprising a light-emitting device such as in fig. 4.
Since Sugawara, in view of Jiang, shows a light-emitting device and Chen shows a light-emitting apparatus comprising light-emitting devices, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the light-emitting device of Sugawara, as claimed in claim 1, in the light-emitting apparatus of Chen resulting in the predictable result of forming a light-emitting apparatus. See MPEP 2143 (I)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The criticality rejection of Claim 2 has been withdrawn in view of the cancelled claim. The prior art of record (Sugawara, in view of Jiang) still teaches ranges overlapping the claimed ranges in the amended limitation of Claim 1, see paragraphs 10-14 above.
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 FERNANDO JOSE RAMOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-5855. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on 571-272-1657. 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.
/F.R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
