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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lan et al., WO 2019/024501.
Lan et al. shows the invention as claimed including a semiconductor light emitting element, comprising:
A substrate 100;
An n-type semiconductor layer 200;
A doped quantum well layer 300;
A control layer (310,410) for suppressing light attenuation with age and a p-type semiconductor layer 600 which are sequentially arranged from bottom to top, wherein the control layer for suppressing light attenuation with age comprises an undoped quantum well layer 310 having at least one undoped barrier layer, and a first control layer 410 for suppressing light attenuation and/or a second control layer 420 for suppressing light attenuation arranged from bottom to top sequentially (see machine translation, paragraphs 0004-0036).
With respect to dependent claim 2, note that in Lan et al. the first control layer for suppressing light attenuation with age is not doped with Mg or Si since it is undoped (see, for example, paragraph 0033 of machine translation).
Concerning dependent 7, note that a material of the first control layer for suppressing light attenuation comprises AlN (see, for example, paragraph 0025 of machine translation).
With respect to dependent claim 10, note that a material of the second control layer for suppressing light attenuation can comprise AlN which equates to the claimed compound where x is 1.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 8-9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al., WO 2019/024501.
As to dependent claim 3, Lan et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the sum thicknesses of all barrier layers in the undoped quantum well layer being 4 nm to 12 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum thickness of the barrier layers based upon a variety of factors including the desired optimization of device performance and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results.
As to dependent claim 8, Lan et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the particular thickness of the first control layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum thickness of the first control layer based upon a variety of factors including the desired device dimension features and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Lan et al. is applied as above and additionally comprises a thickness of the second control layer being less than twenty angstroms (2nm) or more preferably two-ten angstroms or .1-1nm. However, Lan et al. does not expressly disclose the thickness being 0.5-5nm. However, the range in Lan et al. overlaps with the claimed invention establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the particular thickness of the second control layer in order to maximize hole efficiency and reduce electron spillover.
Concerning dependent claim 15, note that Lan et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the particular parameters of the n-type semiconductor layer. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the invention was filed that the use of aluminum gallium nitride/gallium nitride layer is notoriously well known in the art since that is a known direct bandgap material commonly used in LEDs. Moreover, the particular thickness, dopants, and dopant concentrations are also well known in the art.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al., WO 2019/024501 in view of Kimura et al., US 2005/0175053.
Lan et al. discloses wherein the p-type semiconductor layer comprises a p-type electron barrier layer and a p-type contact layer on the p-type electron barrier layer. However, Lan et al. does not disclose the particular materials of these layers. Kimura et al. discloses a p-type AlGaN layer and a GaN p-contact layer (see paragraph 0140). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Lan et al. so as to include the claimed materials of Kimura et al. because these materials are shown to be suitable for use in light emitting devices.
Concerning dependent claim 12 and the particular concentration of aluminum in the various layers, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to dependent claim 13, note that Lan et al. and Kimura et al. fail to expressly disclose the thickness, dopant, and doping concentration of the electron barrier layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum thickness of the electron barrier layer based upon a variety of factors including the particular scaling factor of the device and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant application absent a showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, official notice is taken that the use of a magnesium dopant and the particular claimed concentration are well known and commonly used dopants and concentrations typically used in electron barrier layers and would not lend patentability to the instant invention.
Concerning dependent claim 14, Lan et al. and Kimura et al. do not expressly disclose the particular claimed thickness of the p-type contact layer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to determine through routine experimentation the optimum thickness of the p-type contact layer depending upon a variety of factors including the overall dimensions of other components of the device and such limitation would not lend patentability to the instant invention absent a showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al., WO 2019/024501 in view of Ono et al., U.S. Patent 5,334,854.
Lan et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose wherein the undoped quantum well layer further comprises an undoped well layer, and the undoped well layer and the undoped barrier layer are alternately stacked to form the undoped quantum well layer. Ono et al. discloses an undoped quantum well layer including an undoped well layer and an undoped barrier layer being alternately stacked (see, for example, col. 18-line 1 to col. 22-line 35). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Lan et al. so as to include the claimed undoped quantum well configuration as suggested by Ono et al. because this is shown to be a suitable configuration for a light emitting device structure.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al., WO 2019/024501 in view of Yamaguchi et al., US 2001/0032975.
Lan et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose wherein the doped quantum well is composed of a plurality of pairs of undoped well layers and doped barrier layers and the barrier layers have a Si doping at the claimed concentration.
Yamaguchi et al. discloses wherein a doped quantum well is composed of a plurality of pairs of undoped well layers and doped barrier layers and the barrier layers have a Si doping at an overlapping concentration of less than 1 x 1018 atoms/cm3 (see, for example, paragraph 0075). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Lan et al. so as to comprise the doped quantum well configuration as disclosed by Yamaguchi et al. because such as configuration is shown to be suitable for a light emitting diode device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al., WO 2019/024501 in view of Yamaguchi et al., US 2001/0032975 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al., U.S. Patent 5,959,307.
Lan et al. and Yamaguchi et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose that the barrier layer and the doped quantum well layer comprise the claimed materials. Nakamura et al. discloses where a barrier layer and doped quantum well layer of a light emitting device comprise gallium nitride and indium gallium nitride, respectively (see col. 6-lines 13-65). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the light emitting device of Lan et al. modified by Yamaguchi et al. so as to comprise the claimed materials for the well and barrier layers because Nakamura et al. shows these specific materials to be suitable for use in a light emitting display device. As to the particular concentration of the indium gallium nitride layer, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 7,473,934, US 2011/0198650, and US 2016/0372643 show the state of the art in light emitting devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
April 3, 2026