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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on Apr. 16th 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 14-23 and 28 are examined in this office action. Claims 24-27 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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.
Claims 14-16, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bour et al. (US 20160197232 from IDS), hereinafter Bour.
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).
Regarding claim 15, Bour further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the active region (fig. 11E, 108) completely covers the side surface of the first doped region (left and right sides of 106).
Regarding claim 16, Bour further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the first doped region (fig. 11E, 106) is arranged on a substrate (growth substrate 102; para. 0103), and wherein the substrate (102) comprises a flat top surface (bottom surface) on the side (downward side of 102) facing the first doped region (106).
Regarding claim 18, Bour further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (fig. 11E, 1150) comprises the main extension plane (horizontal plane), wherein the active region (108) extends obliquely to the main extension plane (108 side surfaces extend obliquely to horizontal plane) in places.
Regarding claim 20, Bour further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the first doped region (fig. 11E, 106) tapers along the direction (106 sidewall taper along vertical direction downward) perpendicular to the main extension plane (horizontal plane) of the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (1150).
Regarding claim 21, Bour further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, further comprising a first contact (fig. 11E, n-doped current spreading layer 104, top conductive contact layer 142; para. 0077) electrically conductively connected to the first doped region (106), wherein the first contact (104 part) extends into the first doped region (106).
Regarding claim 22, Bour further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, wherein the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip (fig. 11E, 1150) comprises an edge length (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 further teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, further comprising a non-planar radiation outcoupling surface (fig. 11E, surface of conductive contacts 116 is stepped not in a single plane; para. 0074), wherein the active region (108) is non-planar (108 is stepped not in a single plane).
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 17 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour in view of DANESH et al. (US 20190088820).
Regarding claim 17, Bour teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14, 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).
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).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour in view of Kususe et al. (US 20060231852).
Regarding claim 19, Bour teaches the radiation-emitting semiconductor chip according to claim 14 including the active region (fig. 11E, 108).
Bour 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 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).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights