DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/531,037 filed on December 06, 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Group I invention in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-11 and newly added claims 23-31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon (US 2014/0264412).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoon (see, e.g., Figs. 5, 6, 8, 15, 16), teaches a device, comprising:
a light emitting diode (LED) 50 configured to emit light characterized by a peak wavelength (i.e., ≈ 590 nm, see, e.g., Fig. 8), a lower wavelength band (i.e., wavelengths lower than 590 nm) extending across lower wavelengths than the peak wavelength, and a higher wavelength band (i.e., wavelengths higher than 590 nm) extending across higher wavelengths than the peak wavelength (see, e.g., Fig. 8, pars. 0105, 0121);
a reflector 57 positioned in a first direction (i.e., downward direction) from the LED 50 (see, e.g., Fig. 5, par. 0105); and
a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) 28 (see, e.g., Fig. 8, pars. 0013, 0106):
having a lower reflectance than the reflector 57 (i.e., converted light is reflected by ohmic electrode 57 and transmitted upwardly through Bragg reflector 28);
positioned in a second direction (i.e., upward direction) from the LED 50 opposite the first direction (i.e., downward direction); and
configured to block light within a stopband (DBRs are specifically designed to create a stopband) overlapping a portion of the lower wavelength band (i.e., overlapping a portion of cutoff wavelengths around 500-550 nm) or a portion of the higher wavelength band but not overlapping the peak wavelength (i.e., ≈ 590 nm), such that the DBR 28 propagates filtered light in the second direction (i.e., upward direction), (see, e.g., pars. 0145-0147).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoon teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yoon (see, e.g., Figs. 5, 6, 8, 15, 16), teaches that:
the LED 50 is a red LED configured to emit light with a peak wavelength between 550 nanometers (nm) and 750 nm (see, e.g., par. 0121); and
the stopband overlaps a portion of the lower wavelength band (i.e., cutoff wavelengths around 500-550 nm) of the LED 50 (see, e.g., par. 0147).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the 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.
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 of this title, 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 2014/0264412).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoon teaches all aspects of claim 2. Yoon (see, e.g., Fig. 1-2), teaches that optical properties of the wavelength conversion unit can be controlled by a mixture ratio between the glass material and the wavelength conversion material (phosphor), and the wavelength conversion unit 17 obtained by sintering a mixture of the glass material G and the phosphor P convert a wavelength of excitation light source into a wavelength of a desired color, while securing a high degree of transmittance. By appropriately adjusting the refractive indices, thicknesses, and the repeated amounts of laminations of the first and second dielectric layers 18a and 18b, the wavelength selective optical filter 18 may have desired transmittance and reflectivity together with desired wavelength selectivity (see, e.g., pars. 0079, 0080, 0083).
Yoon is silent with respect to the claim limitations that:
the peak wavelength of the light of the red LED is between 600 nm and 620 nm; and
the stopband is centered on a wavelength between 550 nm and 580 nm.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the composition between the glass material and the wavelength conversion material and a change in the refractive indices, thicknesses, and the repeated amounts of laminations of the first and second dielectric layers in Yoon’s device. The specific claimed peak wavelength and stopband wavelength, absent any criticality, can be achieved by an obvious modification of the composition and refractive indices of the wavelength conversion material and repeated amounts of laminations in Yoon’s device, as the courts have held that changes in composition, quantities, etc., without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular composition, quantity, is nothing more than one among numerous compositions, quantities, that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed peak wavelength and stopband wavelength, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed peak wavelength and stopband wavelength in Yoon’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed peak wavelength and stopband wavelength, or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen peak wavelength and stopband wavelength or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen peak wavelength and stopband wavelength are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (US 2014/0264412) in view of Bai (“Ultrasmall, Ultracompact and Ultrahigh Efficient InGaN Micro Light Emitting Diodes (μLEDs) with Narrow Spectral Line Width”, ACS Nano 2020, 14, 6906−6911).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoon teaches all aspects of claim 1. Yoon does not teach that: the DBR comprises a plurality of pairs of alternating adjacent layers, each pair of alternating adjacent layers comprising: a silicon doped layer comprising gallium nitride (GaN) and silicon (Si); and an un-doped layer comprising gallium nitride (GaN) and having a lower silicon content than the silicon doped layer.
Bai, in similar devices to Yoon, on the other hand, teaches that:
the DBR comprises a plurality of pairs (11 pairs) of alternating adjacent layers, each pair of alternating adjacent layers comprising:
a silicon doped layer comprising gallium nitride (GaN) and silicon (Si) (heavily silicon-doped n++-type GaN); and
an un-doped layer comprising gallium nitride (GaN) (undoped GaN or n-type GaN) and having a lower silicon content than the silicon doped layer (see, e.g., pg. 6910, left column, METHODS).
As a result, μLEDs (i.e., with DBRs) with a diameter down to 3.6 μm and an interpitch down to 2 μm exhibit an ultrahigh maximum external quantum efficiency (EQE) of around 9%, which is 50% higher than those of the μLEDs without DBRs. More importantly, the spectral line width for the III-nitride green μLEDs has been significantly reduced down to 25 nm (see, e.g., pg. 6906, 6910, left column, CONCLUSIONS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in Yoon’s device, the DBR comprising a plurality of pairs of alternating adjacent layers, each pair of alternating adjacent layers comprising: a silicon doped layer comprising gallium nitride (GaN) and silicon (Si); and an un-doped layer comprising gallium nitride (GaN) and having a lower silicon content than the silicon doped layer, as taught by Bai, to obtain μLEDs with a diameter down to 3.6 μm and an interpitch down to 2 μm exhibiting an ultrahigh maximum EQE of around 9% and more importantly, to reduce the spectral line width for the III-nitride green μLED in order to achieve microdisplays with high resolution especially for augmented reality and visual reality.
Regarding Claim 5, Yoon and Bai teach all aspects of claim 4. Bai (see, e.g., Fig. 2(a)), teaches that:
at least one pair of alternating adjacent layers of the DBR is characterized by:
the silicon doped layer (n++-type GaN) having a first refractive index and a first thickness; and
the un-doped layer (n-type GaN or undoped GaN) having a second refractive index and a second thickness (see, e.g., pg. 6910, left column, METHODS).
Bai does not teach that a ratio of the first thickness to the second thickness is configured based on a desired center wavelength of the stopband of the DBR.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the thickness of the silicon doped layer and/or the undoped layer in Yoon’s/Bai’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 3 regarding criticality of thicknesses which are considered repeated here.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 6-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 23-31 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571) 272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights