DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed on 11/16/2023.
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.
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)(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, 3, 12, 13, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sugawara (US 20210057605).
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 and a second surface opposite to said first surface (see, e.g., annotated figure 1a),
and that includes a first-type semiconductor layered unit 14 (see, e.g., para.0050),
an active layer 40 (see, e.g., para.0019),
and a second-type semiconductor layered unit 16 (see, e.g., para.0050) 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,
and each of said quantum barrier layers includes a material that is represented by GaAs1-yPy,
where 0.2≤x≤0.3, and 0≤y≤0.05 (see, e.g., para.0022).
Regarding the limitations, “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) Compare ClearValue Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp, 441 F.3d 991, 999, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1b, para.0021) shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein each of said quantum well layers and a corresponding one of said quantum barrier layers 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 (three or more, see, e.g., para.0021).
Regarding Claim 12, Sugawara (see, e.g., para.0023) 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 and anticipates the claimed range of Claim 12. See paragraph 6 for MPEP citation.
Regarding Claim 13, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0020) shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein said second-type semiconductor layered unit includes a second cladding layer 16 (see, e.g., para.0020).
Regarding Claim 17, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0020) 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,
and a second electrode 60 that is electrically connected to said second-type semiconductor layered unit.
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 2, 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 2, Sugawara shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
Sugawara, however, fails to show.
wherein 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.
Applicant addresses the range of thicknesses in the specification but did not provide empirical testing data inside and outside of the range to show criticality of the claimed ranges. See MPEP 716.02(d)(II) to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, ranges of thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 1d, para.0026-0027), in a similar device to Sugawara, shows
wherein 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.
Since the applicant has not properly established the criticality of the claimed ranges, and similar ranges have been used in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the thickness ranges of each of said quantum well and barrier layers of Jiang in the device of Sugawara as a suitable and obvious range.
Criticality
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed temperature and pressure ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 18, Sugawara shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 17,
Sugawara, however, fails to show
wherein said first-type semiconductor layered unit includes a first ohmic contact layer that forms an ohmic contact with said first electrode.
Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0032), in a similar device to Sugawara, teaches that an ohmic contact layer forming an ohmic contact with an electrode would reduce resistance between the electrode and doped cladding layer.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ohmic contact layer of Jiang in the device of Sugawara to reduce resistance between the electrode and doped cladding layer.
Regarding Claim 19, Sugawara shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 17,
Sugawara, however, fails to show
wherein said second-type semiconductor layered unit includes a second ohmic contact layer that forms an ohmic contact with said second electrode.
Jiang (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0032), in a similar device to Sugawara, teaches that an ohmic contact layer forming an ohmic contact with an electrode would reduce resistance between the electrode and doped cladding layer.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the ohmic contact layer of Jiang in the device of Sugawara to reduce resistance between the electrode and doped cladding layer.
Since Claim 19 does not depend on Claim 18, the second ohmic contact layer of Claim 19 does not require a first ohmic contact layer to be present in the prior art.
Claims 4, 5, & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugawara (US 20210057605) in view of Yen (US 20230058195).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugawara (see, e.g., fig. 1a, para.0020) shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
wherein said first-type semiconductor layered unit includes a first cladding layer 14 (see, e.g., para.0020),
Sugawara, however, fails to show,
and said first cladding layer includes a material that is represented by AlaGa1-aAs,
where 0.3≤a≤0.45.
Although Sugawara does not explicitly state the material composition of the cladding layer, Yen (see, e.g., fig. 2a, para.0017, para.0031, para.0039) teaches a cladding layer 118 or 120 including a material that is represented by AlaGa1-aAs, where 0≤a≤1.0, is a suitable and obvious composition for the cladding layer of Sugawara.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the material composition of the cladding layer of Yen as the cladding layer of Sugawara.
Regarding Claim 5, Sugawara, 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 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 Hsiao (US 20220285583) & Chen (US 20230238482).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugawara shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
Sugawara, 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, teaches a current spreading layer would enhance uniform current spreading of the light-emitting device.
Hsiao (see, e.g., fig. 6, para.0030), in a similar device to Sugawara, teaches a current spreading layer 104 represented by AlbGa1-bAs, where 0.1≤ b≤ 0.4 would be a suitable and obvious configuration for the current spreading layer.
Therefore, 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 Hsiao, as motivated by Chen, in the device of Sugawara to enhance uniform current spreading of the light-emitting device.
Regarding Claim 8, Sugawara, in view of Hsiao (see, e.g., para.0031) & Chen, 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 Hsiao (see, e.g., para.0031) & Chen, 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 shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1,
Sugawara, 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, para.0042), in a similar device to Sugawara, teaches a current spreading layer would enhance uniform current spreading of the light-emitting device.
Hsiao (see, e.g., fig. 6, para.0030), in a similar device to Sugawara, teaches a current spreading layer 104 represented by AlbGa1-bAs, where 0.1≤ b≤ 0.4 would be a suitable and obvious configuration for the current spreading layer.
Therefore, 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 Hsiao, as motivated by Chen, in the device of Sugawara to enhance uniform current spreading of the light-emitting device.
Regarding Claim 15, Sugawara, in view of Hsiao (see, e.g., para.0031) & Chen, 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 Hsiao (see, e.g., para.0031) & Chen, 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 Chen (US 20230238482).
Regarding Claim 10, Sugawara shows the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising
Sugawara, 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, 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 to provide mechanical strength to support the semiconductor epitaxial structure of the light-emitting device.
Regarding Claim 11, Sugawara, 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 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, shows a light-emitting apparatus 300 comprising a light-emitting device such as in fig. 4. Since Sugawara shows a light-emitting device and Chen shows a light-emitting apparatus comprising light-emitting devices, it would have been obvious 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).
Conclusion
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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 2814
Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814