DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to “Amendment/Request for Reconsideration-After Non-Final Rejection - 05/05/2026”. As no claims have been amended, and no new claims submitted, this office action considers claims 18-34 resubmitted on Claims-“05/05/2026”pending for prosecution, of which claims 30-34 were withdrawn, and claims18-29 are examined on their merits, Applicant previously cancelled claims 1-17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments “Remarks - 05/05/2026 - Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following:
Firstly, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies i.e. “a process condition, control mechanism, or design objective aimed at maintaining an unchanged point defect density in layers above and below an active layer during intermixing or modification of the quantum well structure”.(remarks on page 1); these limitations are not recited in any one of the rejected claim 18, and cannot be considered as limitations unless those are recited in the claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification or dictionaries are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Secondly, Examiners would like to note that MPEP § 2141.02. VI “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Beernink with sufficient specificity disclose “wherein a density of point defects in the first layer and the second layer is not changed in B)” in (C 4 L66 to C6 L3) “FIGS. 19a and 19b and FIGS. 20a and 20b show various techniques for controlling surface conditions during the IILD step to promote impurity diffusion outside the active strip region and inhibit impurity diffusion into the latter”.
Finally, it is to be noted that the prior art description i.e., ipsis verbis, such as “at maintaining an unchanged point defect density in layers above and below an active layer during intermixing or modification of the quantum well structure” is not required to understand “wherein a density of point defects in the first layer and the second layer is not changed in B)” (See Vas-Cath, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116; Martin v. Johnson, 454 F.2d 746, 751, 172 USPQ 391, 395 (CCPA 1972).. Therefore, “wherein a density of point defects in the first layer and the second layer is not changed in B)” is understood from Beernink’s (C 2 L11-28) “the use of impurity-induced layer disordering (IILD) to form index-guided laser diodes in the AlGaAs material system”.
As claims 18-29, have not been amended, and Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, this Office Action maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (see infra section I and II) for reasons of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (10; Fig 3; [0050] or C 18, L 18-37)= (element 60; Figure No. 8; Paragraph No. [0050]) or Column No 18, Line Nos. 18-17. For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” or “Column No, Line Nos" shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 18, 20-24 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Beernink; Kevin J. et al. US 5708674 A, of record) hereinafter Beernink.
Regarding Claim 18. Beernink teaches a method for producing an optoelectronic semiconductor component (10; Fig 3; final semiconductor body in Fig 10), the method comprising (see the entire document, Figs 3-10, column 6, line 46 to column 11 line 59, along with subject matter referenced in other figures, specifically, as cited below):
PNG
media_image1.png
346
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Beernink Figure 10
A) providing a semiconductor body (Fig 10) comprising, sequentially in a vertical direction , a first layer (n-AlInP; Column 10 Line 16-17) of a first conductivity type (n-type), an active layer (QW1,QW2; Fig 10; Column 11, Line 14-34) formed as a quantum well structure provided for emission of electromagnetic radiation (laser), and a second layer (p-AlInP; Column 10 Line 16-17) of a second conductivity type (p-type); and
B) irradiating the semiconductor body (60; Fig 10) with a focused electromagnetic radiation (“by scanning a focused and modulated laser beam so that its radiation is absorbed primarily in the lateral regions where intermixing is desired”; Column 11, lines 34-37) such that a focus region (INTERMIXED region in Fig 10) of the electromagnetic radiation lies within the active layer and overlaps with the quantum well structure (QW1), wherein the electromagnetic radiation has an intensity which is sufficiently large in the focus region to cause point defects in the quantum well structure so that a defect region (INTERMIXED in Fig 10) is formed and so that a generation of the point defects is limited to the focus region (focused .. laser beam … absorbed where intermixing is desired”; Column 11, lines 34-37), and wherein a density of point defects in the first layer (n-AlInP fig 10) and the second layer (p-AlInP; Fig 10) is not changed in B.
Regarding Claim 20. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, (the method) further comprising, in C), performing an annealing (Column 8, line 64 to column 9, line 5 ) such that a conversion region (INTERMIXED region fig 10) is generated from the defect region, and wherein a band gap in the conversion region is changed with respect to a laterally adjacent original region (“band gap raised by intermixing”).
Regarding Claim 21. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 20, further teaches, wherein (column 8, lines 27-33) the annealing is carried out at a temperature of at least 800°C and at most 950°C.
Regarding Claim 22. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 20, further teaches, wherein (column 8, lines 27-33) the annealing is carried out over a period of time of at least 30 seconds and at most 20 minutes.
Regarding Claim 23. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 20, further teaches, wherein (column 8, lines 27-33) the annealing is carried out at a temperature between 890°C and 910°C for a period of 1 to 10 minutes.
Regarding Claim 24. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, wherein irradiating the semiconductor body with the electromagnetic radiation (60 in Fig 10; column 11, lines 34-37) in B) is performed parallel to the vertical direction.
Regarding Claim 27. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, wherein the electromagnetic radiation has a main wavelength corresponding to a photon energy smaller than a bandgap of a semiconductor material in the first layer and/or in the second layer (implicitly known; ".. laser light be significantly absorbed in some layer of the structure, i.e., it must be of photon energy higher than the band gap of some layer in the structure."; column11, lines 29-37).
Regarding Claim 28. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, wherein (implicitly known; ".. laser light be significantly absorbed in some layer of the structure, i.e., it must be of photon energy higher than the band gap of some layer in the structure."; column11, lines 29-37) the electromagnetic radiation has a main wavelength corresponding to a photon energy larger than a bandgap of a semiconductor material in the active layer.
Regarding Claim 29. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, further teaches, wherein the electromagnetic radiation is a coherent radiation (laser radiation; Fig 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beernink; Kevin J. et al. US 5708674 A, of record) hereinafter Beernink .
Regarding Claim 19. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, does not expressly disclose, wherein, in B), the density of point defects in the defect region of at least 1*1013 cm-3 and of at most 1*1019 cm-3 is generated.
However, the specific density of point defects i.e of at least 1*1013 cm-3 and of at most 1*1019 cm-3 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the density of point defects in the defect region claimed 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 claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claims 25-26. Beernink as applied to the method for producing the optoelectronic semiconductor component according to claim 18, does not expressly disclose, wherein a diameter of the focus region is set to a diameter
For claim 25: between 50 nm and 10 μm, inclusive.
For claim 26: between 100 nm to 200 nm, inclusive.
However, the specific density of diameter of the focus region as claimed would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because absent evidence or disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d454, 105 USQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1995). Furthermore the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the dimensions claimed 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 claimed dimensions or variable are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 Moazzam Hossain whose telephone number is (571)270-7960. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Friday 8.30 A.M -5.00 P.M.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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 to register user only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. 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.
/MOAZZAM HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights