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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1,3,4,6-8,13,14 and 19. No new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 10 of the Remarks filed 07/02/2026 that Tosi clearly does not disclose or suggest that the thicknesses and distinctive features of the material of the sub-layers are selected so as to reduce absorption of photons by free carrier by modifying the electro-optical properties of the conduction band and/or the valence band. Examiner notes that paragraph [0076] of Tosi discloses that the sublayers are designed to have low absorption and also disclosed a low percentage of absorption of light emitting by the LED in the graded layer.
Applicant also states that Tosi does not disclose or suggest several stacks which are identical to the preceding stack or which differ from the preceding stack at most by a bounded variation in composition of corresponding sub-layers. Examiner notes the optional limitation of “each stack of the at least one modulated layer being identical to the precent superimposed stack or differing at most from the preceding superimposed stack by a bounded variation in the composition of at least one material of two corresponding sub-layers of the two stacks” which Applicant argues is not disclosed because the Variation in Tosi is based on different sub-layers thicknesses, resulting in a graded composition that does not achieve the results of Applicant’s claimed invention.
With the interpretation taken for the purposes of examination of the instant application of the optional limitation reading “each stack of the at least one modulated layer differing at most from the preceding superimposed stack by a bounded variation in the composition of at least one material of two corresponding sub-layers of the two stacks” the claim language is not limiting that the thicknesses of the layers can not be different from one another. The claim language as disclosed above is limiting the composition to differ at most by a bounded variation which is disclosed in paragraph [0077] of Tosi with the graded composition of the layer [520] shown in Fig. 5A of Tosi with the previously noted interpretation of “bounded variation” to be understood as “the compositions of the materials of the two sublayers of the two stacks considered differ form each other by a percentage within a predetermined range of values.”
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 04/02/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/02/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to the specification filed 07/02/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of the amendments made to claims 1,4,6,7,8,13,14 and 19.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the term “bounded variation” as recited in claim 1, the term is understood to mean “the compositions of the materials of the two sublayers of the two stacks considered differ from each other by a percentage within a predetermined range of values”
Regarding the term “substantially two-dimensional” as recited in claim 14. Examiner notes the term is understood to mean “two-dimensional” as shown in the prior art rejection of claim 14 below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(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 1,2,9-12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tosi et al (hereinafter Tosi) (WO 2020012392 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tosi discloses in Fig. 5A
A semiconductor optoelectronic device [500] (Para. [0077]) comprising a junction apt to emit or absorb light (Paras. [0052,0068]), the junction being formed of a stack of layers along a direction of stacking defining an N-doped region [540], an intermediate region [530] and a P-doped region [520] (Para. [0079]),
at least one modulated layer [520] of the N-doped region and/or the P-doped region [520] (Para. [0077]) and/or the intermediate region being formed of a plurality of stacks of sub-layers [522,524] (Para. [0077]) superimposed one on top of the other along the direction of stacking [vertically Fig. 5A] (Para. [0077]),
each stack of sub-layers comprising at least two sub-layers [522,524] (Para. [0077]), each sub-layer having a thickness along the direction of stacking and being made of at least one material (Para. [0077]), each sub- layer [522,524] differing from the other sub-layers [522,524] of the same stack by at least one feature of the at least one material of the sub-layer (Para. [0077]), called the distinctive feature,
each stack of the at least one modulated layer [520] being identical to the preceding superimposed stack or differing at most from the preceding superimposed stack by a bounded variation in the composition of at least one material of two corresponding sub-layers of the two stacks [522,524] (Para. [0077]), the thicknesses and distinctive features of the sub-layers [522,524] selected so as to reduce absorption of photons by free carriers (Paras, [0076,0078]) in a corresponding region by modifying the electro- optical properties of the conduction band and/or the valence band (Para. [0076]), compared to a so-called reference semiconductor optoelectronic device (Paras. [0076,0078-0080,0082]) the only difference being that each modulated layer is replaced by an unmodulated layer, the unmodulated layer having the same thickness as the modulated layer and having identical features except for the at least one distinctive feature which is uniform or varies gradually over the thickness of the unmodulated layer (Tosi discloses absorption is lower due to properties of the sublayers Paras. [0078-0080]).
Examiner notes for the purposes of examination in the instant application, the optional limitation of “at least one so-called modulated layer of the N-doped region and/or the P-doped region and/or the intermediate region being formed of a plurality of stacks of sub-layers superimposed one on top of the other along the direction of stacking” is understood to be “at least one so-called modulated layer of the P-doped region being formed of a plurality of stacks of sub-layers superimposed one on top of the other along the direction of stacking” as shown in the prior art rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 5A
wherein the modulated layer [520] is a layer of the N-doped region or of the P-doped region [520] (Para. [0079]), the junction being a PIN junction (Para. [0077]) and the intermediate region [530] being an intrinsic region (Para. [0077]).
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 2 is understood to be “wherein the modulated layer is a layer of the P-doped region”
Regarding claim 9, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 5A,
wherein the at least one distinctive feature is the composition of the at least one material of the sub-layer [522,524] (Paras. [0055,0077]).
Regarding claim 10, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 5A,
wherein the at least one material of each sub-layer [522,524] comprises chemical elements belonging to columns III and V or II and VI or IV of the periodic table. (Paras. [0055,0077])
Regarding claim 11, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 5A,
wherein the thickness of each stack of sub-layers [522,524] is between 1 nanometer and 100 nanometers (para. [0077]).
Regarding claim 12, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 5A,
wherein the thickness of each stack of sub-layers [522,524] (Para. [0077]) is selected so as to decrease the absorption of photons by free carriers in the corresponding region (Paras. [0077,0078]), compared to the reference electronic device.
Regarding claim 17, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 5A,
wherein the thickness of each stack of sub-layers [522,524] (Para. [0077]) is greater than or equal to 5 nanometers (Para. [0077]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosi in view of Sverdlov (US 6266355 B1)
Regarding claim 3, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses in Fig. 5A
wherein the at least one modulated layer [520] is a layer of the N-doped region or the P-doped region [520] (Para. [0077]),
Examiner notes the interpretation of claim 3 is understood to be “wherein the modulated layer is a layer of the P-doped region”
Tosi fails to disclose,
each of the N-doped region and the P-doped region comprising a core and a cladding, the optical index of the core being greater than the optical index of the cladding, the modulated layer being a layer of the core or of the cladding of the corresponding doped region.
Sverdlov discloses in Fig. 7,
an N-doped region [16A,18] (Col. 7, line 58- Col. 8, line 6) and a P-doped region comprising [24A, 22] (Col. 8, lines 6-19) a core [18,22] (Col. 7, lines 62,63 and Col. 8, lines 6,7) and a cladding [16A,22A] (Col. 8, lines 25-28), the optical index of the core [18,22] being greater than the optical index of the cladding [16A,24A] (Col. 4, lines 42-48), and a modulated layer (Col. 8, lines 25-28) being a layer of the claddings [16A,24A] (Col. 8, line 13) of the corresponding doped regions [N-doped and P-doped regions) (Col. 8, lines 25-28)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the monolayers as each cladding of the N-doped and P-doped regions and including the core layers in the N-doped and P-doped region as shown in Sverdlov with the device of Tosi for the purpose of improved optical confinement and suppressing the development for cracking in the device. (Col. 4, lines 53-55, Col. 8, lines 26-31)
Regarding claim 15, Tosi in view of Sverdlov as applied to claim 3 above further discloses in Sverdlov Fig. 7,
wherein each sub-layer of each stack [16A,24A] does not contain any gallium nitride (Col. 8. Lines 25-27).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tso in view of Sverdlov as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tezen et al. (hereinafter Tezen) (US 6631149 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Tosi in view of Sverdlov discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 3 above and further discloses in Sverdlov,
wherein each of the cladding [16A,24A] of the considered doped region comprises a modulated layer (Col. 8, lines 25-31).
Tosi in view of Sverdlov fails to disclose,
wherein each of the core of the considered doped region comprises a modulated layer.
Tezen discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein each of a core layer [105,107] (Col.2, line 66- Col. 3, line 2, Col.3 ,lines 13-14) of a considered doped region comprises a modulated layer [105 Fig. 2,107 Fig. 4] (Col. 3, lines 1-7 and 15-21)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the multilayered core layer structure of Tezen into the core layers of the modified device of Tosi for the purpose of preventing a transmission of stress (Tezen Col. 2, lines 17-23)
Claims 4-7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosi in view of Tachibana et al. (hereinafter Tachibana) (US 20080113497 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the at least one distinctive feature is a level of doping of the at least one material of the sub-layer.
Tachibana discloses in Fig. 1,
a superlattice layer [19] (Para. [0047]) with a distinctive feature including a level of doping of a material of sub-layers (Para. [0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the periodic cladding structure of Tachibana into the device of Tosi for the purpose of allowing detection of satellite peaks corresponding to a period of the superlattice. (Tachibana Para. [0053])
Regarding claim 5, Tosi in view of Tachibana as applied to claim 4 above further discloses in Tachibana,
wherein the level of doping of each sub-layer differs from the level of doping of the other sub-layers of the same stack by at least one percent (Para. [0047]).
Tachibana discloses the AlGaN layer to be undoped and the GaN layer to be doped with approximately 1x 1019 cm-3. Therefore, implying that the level of doping of the GaN layer differs from the undoped AlGaN layer by at least one percent
Regarding claim 6, Tosi in view of Tachibana as applied to claim 4 above further discloses in Tachibana Fig. 1,
an average level of doping of the at least one modulated layer [19] is less than or equal to the level of doping of a corresponding unmodulated layer [20 (Para. [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Tosi in view of Tachibana as applied to claim 4 above further discloses in Tachibana Fig. 1,
wherein the level of doping of one of the sub-layers of each stack is a residual level of doping of the at least one material the sub-layer is made of (Para. [0047]).
The AlGaN layer is disclosed to be undoped from the p-type impurity atoms and therefor only has the residual level of doping of the material of AlGaN.
Regarding claim 18, Tosi in view of Tachibana as applied to claim 4 above further discloses in Tachibana Fig. 1,
wherein the thickness of each stack of sub-layers [19] is greater than or equal to 10 nanometers (Para. [0047]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosi in view of Tachibana as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang) (US 20200287079 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tosi in view of Tachibana discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 4 above but fails to disclose,
wherein each sub-layer of a stack having a level of doping greater than the level of doping of another sub-layer of the stack has a thickness less than a thickness of said other sub-layer.
Zhang discloses in Fig. 8,
a sub-layer [402] (Para. [0166]) of a stack [40] (Para. [0166]) having a level of doping (Para. 0168]) greater than a level of doping of another sub-layer [401] (para. [0166,1068]) of the stack has a thickness less than a thickness of the other sub-layer [401] (Para. [0168])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the doping level and thickness relationships of the sub-layers of Zhang in the modified device of Tosi for the purpose of allowing sufficient carrier diffusion. (Zhang Para. [0167])
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosi in view of Shur et al. (hereinafter Shur) (US 20150207029 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the modification of the electro-optical properties of the conduction band and/or the valence band is suitable for redistributing oscillator strength of a spurious intra-band transition, at the origin of the absorption of photons by the free carriers, differently between the different polarizations of the photons circulating in the optoelectronic device.
Shur discloses,
a periodic structure [12 Fig. 2B] (Para. [0041]) suitable for controlling the sign and magnitude of a polarization in a semiconductor material (Para. [0068])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the modulated structure of Tosi in the manner as shown in Shur for the purpose of allowing a thorough control of the sign and magnitude of polarization in the device. (Shur Para. [0068])
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosi in view of Burnham et al. (hereinafter Burnham) (EP 0081956 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Tosi discloses the device outlined in the rejection of claim 1 above and further discloses,
wherein the modification of the electro-optical properties of the conduction band and the valence band [Fig. 7] (Para. [0082]) occurs through formation of a modulated layer [740] (Para. [0082]) which generates discrete sub-bands in the conduction band and the valence band (See Fig. 7) (Para. [0082]).
Tosi fails to disclose,
a substantially two-dimensional modulated layer
Burnham discloses,
a two-dimensional layer [36] (Page 7, paragraph 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a two-dimensional layer structure as shown in Burnham with the modulated layer of Tosi for the purpose of extending the layer for the full width of the laser device. (Burnham Page 7, Paragraph 2)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tosi in view of Shur as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Okamoto et al. (hereinafter Okamoto) (US 20100096615 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Tosi in view of Shur discloses the device outlined in the rejection of 13 above but fails to disclose,
wherein the modification of the electro-optical properties of the conduction band and/or the valence band is suitable for redistributing the oscillator strength of the spurious intra-band transition, to transfer at least part of the oscillator strength of the intra-band transition to the polarization orthogonal to the polarization of the laser emission.
Okamoto discloses,
a ratio of a polarization orthogonal to a polarization direction of a laser emission at a ratio of not less than 5 to 1. (Para. [0091])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the polarization control of Tosi in view of Shur to control the intensity of a polarization value as shown in Okamoto for the purpose of controlling the intensity of polarization of the respective polarization directions. (Okamoto Para. [0091])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes (US 20110168979 A1) which discloses a superlattice structure with graded compositions. See PTO-892 form.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER J NELSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5:00 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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/H.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights