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
The amendment filed on Aug. 3rd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 14-15, 17-23 and 28 remain pending in the application.
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 (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 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 14-15, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour et al. (US 20160197232 from IDS) in view of Takizawa et al. (US 20110211607).
Regarding claim 14, Bour teaches a radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (LEDs 1150; para. 0102) comprising:
a first doped region (fig. 11E, n-AlInGaP:Se cladding layer 106; para. 0101);
an active region (InGaP active layer 108; para. 0101) adjacent to the first doped region (106), the active region (108) configured to generate electromagnetic radiation (emission light; para. 0101); and
a second doped region (p-AlInGaP:Mg cladding layer 1110C; para. 0101) arranged on a side (downward side) of the active region (108) facing away from the first doped region (106),
wherein the first doped region (106) is structured in a step-like manner (106 has a step-like surfaces) and comprises several planes (several planes of the step-like shape of 106) in a direction (vertical direction) perpendicular to a main extension plane (horizontal plane) of the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (1150), and
wherein the active region (108) covers the first doped region (106) on a side surface (left and right side) and a top surface (bottom surface).
Bour fails to explicitly teach wherein the first doped region is arranged on a substrate,
wherein the substrate comprises a flat top surface on the side facing the first doped region, and
a lateral extension of the substrate is larger than a lateral extension of the first doped region.
However, Takizawa teaches wherein the first doped region (Takizawa: fig. 11A, n-type GaN layer 804; para. 0101, similar to 106 of Bour) is arranged on a substrate (Takizawa: AlN layer 803; para. 0101),
wherein the substrate (Takizawa: 803) comprises a flat top surface (bottom surface) on the side (bottom side) facing the first doped region (Takizawa: 804), and
a lateral extension of the substrate (Takizawa: width of 803) is larger than a lateral extension of the first doped region (Takizawa: width of 804).
Takizawa and Bour are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a substrate as taught by Takizawa.
Doing so would realize a wider substrate to remove of influences such as oxygen in ambient air (Takizawa: para. 0123).
Regarding claim 15, Bour in view of Takizawa further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the active region (Bour: fig. 11E, 108) completely covers the side surface of the first doped region (Bour: left and right sides of 106).
Regarding claim 18, Bour in view of Takizawa further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (Bour: fig. 11E, 1150) comprises the main extension plane (horizontal plane), wherein the active region (Bour: 108) extends obliquely to the main extension plane (Bour: 108 side surfaces extend obliquely to horizontal plane) in places.
Regarding claim 20, Bour in view of Takizawa further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the first doped region (Bour: fig. 11E, 106) tapers along the direction (Bour: 106 sidewall taper along vertical direction downward) perpendicular to the main extension plane (horizontal plane) of the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (Bour: 1150).
Regarding claim 21, Bour in view of Takizawa further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, further comprising a first contact (Bour: fig. 11E, n-doped current spreading layer 104, top conductive contact layer 142; para. 0077) electrically conductively connected to the first doped region (Bour: 106), wherein the first contact (Bour: 104 part) extends into the first doped region (Bour: 106).
Regarding claim 22, Bour in view of Takizawa further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (Bour: fig. 11E, 1150) comprises an edge length (Bour: length or width 1 μm to 20 μm; para. 0053) less than or equal to 20 μm. Furthermore, it has been held that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 23, Bour in view of Takizawa further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, further comprising a non-planar radiation outcoupling surface (Bour: fig. 11E, surface of conductive contacts 116 is stepped not in a single plane; para. 0074), wherein the active region (Bour: 108) is non-planar (Bour: 108 is stepped not in a single plane).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour in view of Takizawa as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of DANESH et al. (US 20190088820).
Regarding claim 17, Bour in view of Takizawa teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the first doped region (Bour: fig. 11E, 106) comprises a three-dimensional shape (step-like shape and thickness into the paper),
Bour in view of Takizawa fails to explicitly teach the shape of the first doped region is approximated to a shape of a step pyramid.
However, DANESH teaches the shape of the first doped region (DANESH: fig. 5B, epitaxial semiconductor structures 32; para. 0096, similar to 106 of A) is approximated to a shape of a step pyramid (DANESH: fig. 4A and 5B, square pyramidal shape; para. 0096 and step-like shape of 106 of Bour).
DANESH, Takizawa and Bour are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the shape of the first doped region is approximated to a shape of a step pyramid as taught by DANESH.
Doing so would realize a pyramid LED chip shape structure to increase light extraction (DANESH: para. 0183). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour in view of Takizawa as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kususe et al. (US 20060231852).
Regarding claim 19, Bour in view of Takizawa teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14 including the active region (Bour: fig. 11E, 108).
Bour in view of Takizawa fails to explicitly teach the active region is curved.
However, Kususe teaches the active region (Kususe: fig. 53, active layer (luminescent layer 4); para. 0299, similar to 108 of Bour) is curved (curved around corners).
Kususe, Takizawa and Bour are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a curved shape of the active region as taught by Kususe.
Doing so would realize a curved surface that light can be diffused in various directions to be reflected or extracted and the concentration of light is reduced (Kususe: para. 0011). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour in view of DANESH.
Regarding claim 28, Bour teaches a radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (LEDs 1150; para. 0102) comprising:
a first doped region (fig. 11E, n-AlInGaP:Se cladding layer 106; para. 0101);
an active region (InGaP active layer 108; para. 0101) adjacent to the first doped region (106), the active region (108) configured to generate electromagnetic radiation (emission light; para. 0101); and
a second doped region (p-AlInGaP:Mg cladding layer 1110C; para. 0101) arranged on a side (downward side) of the active region (108) facing away from the first doped region (106),
wherein the first doped region (106) is structured in a step-like manner (106 has a step-like) and comprises several planes (several planes of the step-like shape of 106) in a direction (verticle direction) perpendicular to a main extension plane (horizontal plane) of the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (1150),
wherein the active region (108) covers the first doped region (106) on a side surface (left and right side) and a top surface (bottom surface), and
wherein the first doped region (fig. 11E, 106) comprises a three-dimensional shape (step-like shape and thickness into the paper).
Bour fails to explicitly teach the shape of the first doped region is approximated to a shape of a step pyramid.
However, DANESH teaches the shape of the first doped region (DANESH: fig. 5B, epitaxial semiconductor structures 32; para. 0096, similar to 106 of A) is approximated to a shape of a step pyramid (DANESH: fig. 4A and 5B, square pyramidal shape; para. 0096 and step-like shape of 106 of Bour).
DANESH and Bour are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of light emitting devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the shape of the first doped region is approximated to a shape of a step pyramid as taught by DANESH.
Doing so would realize a pyramid LED chip shape structure to increase light extraction (DANESH: para. 0183). Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14-15 and 17-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed Aug. 3rd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to pages 7-10 of applicant’s response of claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103.
Applicant submits "Danesh does not show a step pyramid and a person skilled in the art would not combine the teachings of Bour with the teachings of Danesh."
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, as shown in fig. 4 and 5B of Danesh, the shape of the first doped region 32 is clearly a pyramid shape and it is approximated to a shape of a step pyramid because the steps of flat top surface and pyramid shape as cited in para. 0096. Second, as shown in fig. 11E of Bour, the shape of the first doped region 106 shows a step trapezoid shape cross section in 2D, just no detail of thickness into the paper. Danesh further just teaches the top view is square and combines with Bour's step trapezoid shape cross section. The shape of the first doped region 106 shows a step pyramid in 3D. The combination is just for shape and does not change material or structure. In addition, the claim just requires "approximated", wherein the shape of Bour in view of Danesh are very approximated. Furthermore, in response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As result, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Bour in view of Danesh teaches all limitations of claims 28. Details of rejections are discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
