DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed July 17, 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 3 of claim 6, a typo of “conduction” instead of “conductive” should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hon (US 20080157109 A1) in view of Chen (US 20030164503 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hon discloses a light emitting diode (Fig. 8), comprising: a plurality of point-like conductive electrodes (composite electrodes of 126 and 128 on left and right side excluding middle composite electrode of 126 and 128), because the phrase “a plurality of” does not necessarily suggest “an entirety of” elements “of the same kind,” and the phrase “a plurality of” would be satisfied with two or more of the claimed elements; a dielectric layer (130) ([0021]) disposed around each of the point-like conductive electrodes (126 and 128), because Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “around” as “near”, and therefore, the preposition “around” does not necessarily suggest any specific spatial or positional relationship between the dielectric layer and the point-like conductive electrodes; in addition, a “dielectric layer” does not necessarily suggest an insulating layer, and a semiconductor layer having a dielectric constant is also a dielectric layer since an electrical dipole moment is generated to a certain degree inside the semiconductor layer in an electric field; an epitaxial composite layer (110) [0007] disposed both on the plurality of point-like conductive electrodes (126 and 128 on left and right side) and the dielectric layer (130), wherein each of the plurality of point-like conductive electrodes (126 and 128 on left and right side) includes an ohmic-contact metal layer (126) and a gallium arsenide epitaxial layer (128) [0018] and the gallium arsenide epitaxial layer (128) is disposed on the ohmic-contact metal layer (126) and electrically connected to the epitaxial composite layer (110); and an upper electrode (120) disposed on the epitaxial composite layer (110) without vertically overlapping with the plurality of point-like conductive electrodes (126 and 128 on left and right side).
Hon does not disclose a carbon-doped gallium arsenide epitaxial layer, and the ratio of the total distribution area of the point-like conductive electrodes to the area of the epitaxial composite layer is about 2.8% to 5.2%.
Chen discloses a carbon-doped gallium arsenide epitaxial layer (Fig. 6C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to carbon-dope the gallium arsenide epitaxial layer (126) taught by Hon in order to convert the n-type ohmic contact layer into a p-type ohmic contact layer because Hon discloses that the first conductivity type is n-type to a produce a "P-side up light-emitting diode structure", but an N-side up light-emitting diode structure has also been commonly manufactured in semiconductor industry, as shown in Fig. 6C of Chen, and carbon has been a commonly employed dopant to create a p-type GaAs layer.
Further regarding claim 1, Hon in view of Chen differs from the claimed invention by not showing that the ratio of the total distribution area of the point-like conductive electrodes to the area of the epitaxial composite layer is about 2.8% to 5.2%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve device performance by optimizing device parameters such as conductivity.
Regarding claim 2, Hon in view of Chen discloses the light emitting diode of claim 1, wherein the epitaxial composite layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 110) includes a first semiconductor layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 102), a light-emitting layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 104), a second semiconductor layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 106) and a third semiconductor layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 108), the third semiconductor layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 108) is electrically connected to the carbon-doped (Chen, Fig. 6C) gallium arsenide epitaxial layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 126), the second semiconductor layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 106) is disposed on the third semiconductor (Hon, Fig. 8, 108), the light-emitting layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 104) is disposed on the second semiconductor layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 106), and the first semiconductor layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 102) is disposed on the light-emitting layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 104).
Regarding claim 3, Hon in view of Chen discloses the light emitting diode (Hon, Fig. 8) of claim 2, wherein the first semiconductor layer (Hon, 102) is an N-type aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) epitaxial layer (Hon, [0018]), and the second semiconductor layer (Hon, 106) is a P-type aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) epitaxial layer (Hon, [0018]), and the third semiconductor layer (Hon, 108) is a P-type aluminum indium phosphide (AlInP) epitaxial layer (Hon, [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Hon in view of Chen discloses the light emitting diode (Hon, Fig. 8) of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the carbon-doped (Chen, Fig. 6C) gallium arsenide epitaxial layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 126) in each of the plurality of point-like conductive electrodes (Hon, 126 and 128) is about 100~1000 angstroms (Å).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve device performance by optimizing the claimed range of gallium arsenide layer thickness to improve properties such as contact resistance.
Regarding claim 6, Hon in view of Chen discloses the light emitting diode (Hon, Fig. 8) of claim 1, wherein a carbon-doping concentration of the carbon-doped (Chen, Fig. 6C) gallium arsenide epitaxial layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 126) in each of the plurality of point-like conduction electrodes (Hon, 126 and 128) is 4.0*El9~l.5*E20 cm-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve device performance by optimizing the carbon-doping concentration of the gallium arsenide layer to improve properties such as conductivity and contact resistance.
Regarding claim 7, Hon in view of Chen discloses the light emitting diode (Hon, Fig. 8) of claim 1, further comprising a reflective layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 132), wherein the dielectric layer (Hon, 130) and the plurality of point-like conductive electrodes (Hon, 126 and 128) are disposed on the reflective layer (Hon, 132).
Regarding claim 8, Hon in view of Chen discloses the light emitting diode of claim 7, wherein the reflective layer (Hon, 132) includes a transparent conductive layer (Hon, Fig. 8, 130) and a reflective metal layer (Hon, 132), and the transparent conductive layer (Hon, 130) is disposed on the reflective metal layer (Hon, 132).
Regarding claim 9, Hon in view of Chen discloses the light emitting diode of claim 8, wherein the transparent conductive layer (Hon, 130) is made of indium tin oxide, zinc aluminum oxide, zinc tin oxide, nickel oxide, cadmium tin oxide, antimony tin oxide or the combination thereof (Hon, [0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Hon in view of Chen discloses the light emitting diode of claim 7, further comprising a substrate (Hon, Fig. 8, 134), wherein the reflective layer (Hon, 132) is disposed on the substrate (Hon, 134).
Regarding claim 11, Hon in view of Chen discloses the light emitting diode (Hon, Fig. 8) of claim 1, wherein the ohmic-contact metal layer (Hon, 128) is made of gold (Au), silver (Ag), aluminum (Al), beryllium gold (BeAu), germanium gold (GeAu), zinc gold (AuZn) or the combination thereof (Hon, [0021]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of their claim amendment.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 112(b) claim rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of their claim amendment.
Applicants appear to argue that the claimed distribution area ratio range was not obvious because it yields a highly unpredictable, synergetic effect. However, this argument is not persuasive as Applicant has not provided evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges but has merely provided arguments (see MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Applicants appear to argue that the Examiner’s use of Hon in view of Chen to teach “a carbon-doped gallium arsenide epitaxial layer” was incorrect because both Hon and Chen establish a strong technical prejudice against the use of a carbon-doped GaAs layer due to its severe light-absorbing nature; neither Hon nor Chen suggests utilizing a carbon-doped gallium arsenide layer to address and solve the issues that the Applicants have stated for their invention; and Hon teaches away from the Examiner’s proposed combination of the references.
In response to applicant's argument that both Hon and Chen establish a strong technical prejudice against the use of a carbon-doped GaAs layer due to its severe light-absorbing nature, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Please note that the Examiner used the secondary reference of Chen to show that carbon has been a well-known n-type dopant in GaAs-based semiconductor materials rather than incorporating any structural features or physical characteristics of Chen into the teachings of Hon.
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).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the use of carbon as a dopant to convert a GaAs layer from an n-type layer to a p-type layer is commonly employed in the semiconductor industry.
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA ROSE E. GALVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm ET.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/ANGELICA ROSE GALVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights