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 .
Detailed Action
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election of species I, without traverse, in the reply filed on 3/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0296528), in view of Hayashi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0328095), in view of Saunders (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0074907).
Regarding Claim 1
FIG. 2 of Fujiwara discloses a light emitting element made of a face-up type group III nitride semiconductor, comprising: a substrate (Sapphire); an n-layer (n-GaN) provided on the substrate and made of an n-type group III nitride semiconductor; a first active layer (GaN:Eu) provided on the n-layer [0076], using an EU-doped group III nitride semiconductor as a light emitting material, and emitting red light [0014]; a first intermediate layer provided on the first active layer and formed by stacking a first undoped layer (AlGaN barrier) made of a group III nitride semiconductor and a first n-type layer (n-GaN) made of a group III nitride semiconductor containing an n-type in order; and a second active layer (InGaN/GaN MQW) provided on the first intermediate layer, using a group III nitride semiconductor containing In as a light emitting material, and emitting light with a wavelength shorter than that of the first active layer [0010].
Fujiwara is silent with respect to the first intermediate layer containing In and “in the first intermediate layer, an In composition is set so that a band gap does not absorb the light emitted from the first active layer”.
FIG. 13 of Hayashi discloses a similar light emitting element, comprising a first intermediate layer provided on the first active layer (22) and formed by stacking a first undoped layer (24) made of a group III nitride semiconductor containing an undoped In [0023] and a first n-type layer (27) made of a group III nitride semiconductor containing an n-type In in order [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujiwara, as taught by Hayashi. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fujiwara in the above manner for purpose of improving crystallinity ([0059] of Hayashi).
With respect to “in the first intermediate layer, an In composition is set so that a band gap does not absorb the light emitted from the first active layer”, Saunders discloses 10-20% indium InGaN would not absorb red light [0083].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujiwara, as taught by Saunders such that an In composition is set so that a band gap does not absorb the red light emitted from the first active layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fujiwara in the above manner for purpose of maximizing the light output.
Regarding Claim 2
Hayashi discloses a thickness of the first intermediate layer is 150 nm or less [0056], and a thickness of the first undoped layer and a thickness of the first n-type layer are 10 nm or more (Claim 14).
Claims 3, 8 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara, Hayashi and Saunders, in view of Xu (CN 107146832, machine-translation provided), in view of Choi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0313517) for documentary evidence.
Regarding Claim 3
Fujiwara as modified by Hayashi and Saunders discloses Claim 1, comprising a second intermediate layer provided on the second active layer (InGaN/GaN MQW) and formed by stacking a second undoped layer made of the group III nitride semiconductor containing the undoped In and a second n-type layer made of the group III nitride semiconductor containing the n-type In in order; and a third active layer (InGaN/GaN MQW) provided on the second intermediate layer, using a group III nitride semiconductor containing In as a light emitting material, and emitting with a wavelength shorter than that of the first active layer and different from that of the second active layer, wherein one active layer of the second active layer and the third active layer is of blue light emission, and the other active layer is of green light emission [0018], wherein, in the first intermediate layer and the second intermediate layer, the In composition is set so that the band gap does not absorb the light emitted from the first active layer and the second active layer, wherein the green light emission of the second active layer and the third active layer.
Fujiwara as modified by Hayashi and Saunders is silent with respect to an active layer “corresponds to a structure in which a distortion relaxation layer which is a quantum well structure and a thickness of a well layer is adjusted so as not to emit light and a light emission layer which is a quantum well structure and emits light are stacked in order, and wherein a wavelength corresponding to band edge energy of the well layer of the distortion relaxation layer is set to be shorter than a light emission wavelength of the light emission layer”.
FIG. 3 of Xu discloses a similar light emitting element, comprising an active layer (8) that corresponds to a structure in which a distortion relaxation layer which is a quantum well structure [0071] and a thickness of a well layer is adjusted so as not to emit light and a light emission layer which is a quantum well structure and emits light are stacked in order [0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujiwara, as taught by Xu. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fujiwara in the above manner for purpose of improving light emitting efficiency (Abstract of Xu).
With respect to “a wavelength corresponding to band edge energy of the well layer of the distortion relaxation layer is set to be shorter than a light emission wavelength of the light emission layer”, it is known in the art that nano-structuring of InGaN/GaN quantum wells (QW) contribute to partial relaxation of strain, resulting in a spectral blue shift ([0026] of Choi provides documentary evidence).
Regarding Claim 8
Modified Fujiwara discloses the wavelength corresponding to the band edge energy of the well layer of the distortion relaxation layer is set to be equal to the light emission wavelength of the blue light emission of the second active layer and the third active layer. It is known in the art that as the thickness of the quantum well increases the band gap or energy of the absorption peak decreases ([0065] of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0018732 by Bond provides documentary evidence).
Regarding Claim 10
With respect to “a difference between the light emission wavelength of the light emission layer and the wavelength corresponding to the band edge energy of the well layer of the distortion relaxation layer is set to be in the range of 40 nm and more or 100 nm or less”, said difference is related to the composition and thickness of the quantum well structure. Therefore, said difference is considered to be a result effective variable. The claim to a specific difference therefore constitutes an optimization of ranges. In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the parameters as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Pertinent Art
US 20060268953 discloses relaxation of strain within the MQW improves the controllability of peak wavelength in emitting light by the MQW. US 20130270514 discloses the wavelength of light generated by an active region is a function of the band gap and quantum well thickness of that active region, and the band gap of an active region is determined by its composition [0087]. KR 20080010134 discloses the band structure of the quantum well layer may be improved by the stress relaxation layer, thereby greatly improving the internal quantum efficiency. Pertinent art also includes US 20140084241, WO 2006047039, WO 2021106928, CN 103972334, 102194671 and 102822995.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897