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 Analysis for Independent Claims (Dependent Claim Analysis will follow)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu, CN 103681996).
In regards to independent claim 1, Wu teaches a semiconductor light emitting element, comprising:
a substrate (Wu, Fig. 1, 101),
an n-type semiconductor layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 103, n-type AlXGa layer),
a quantum well layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 104, multiple quantum well layer 104), and
a p-type semiconductor layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 106, multiple quantum well layer 104)
which are arranged sequentially from bottom to top (Wu, Fig. 1, 101-106), wherein
the semiconductor light emitting element further comprises a surface plasmon excited layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 105, the p-type AlxGa1 xN electronic barrier layer 105, amending the claim to further define what a surface plasmon excited layer is such as “a superlattice structure composed of two different materials [0009]” would help overcome this rejection) and a surface plasmon excitation layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 107, “metal nano-particle structure 107” reads up the “the metal material of the surface plasmon excitation layer includes…nanoparticle”), wherein the surface plasmon excitation layer is arranged on the p-type semiconductor layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 107 on 106), the surface plasmon excited layer is arranged between the quantum well layer and the p-type semiconductor layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 105 between 104 and 106, or the surface plasmon excited layer is arranged between the p-type semiconductor layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer, or the surface plasmon excited layers are arranged respectively between the quantum well layer and the p-type semiconductor layer and between the p-type semiconductor layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer.
In regards to independent claim 17, Wu teaches a manufacture method of a semiconductor light emitting element, comprising:
providing a substrate (Wu, Fig. 1, 101);
forming an n-type semiconductor layer on the substrate (Wu, Fig. 1, 103, n-type AlXGa layer);
forming a quantum well layer on the n-type semiconductor layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 104, multiple quantum well layer 104);
forming a p-type semiconductor layer on the quantum well layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 106, multiple quantum well layer 104);
wherein the manufacture method further comprises forming a surface plasmon excitation layer on the p-type semiconductor layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 107, “metal nano-particle structure 107” reads up the “the metal material of the surface plasmon excitation layer includes…nanoparticle”); and
forming a surface plasmon excited layer between the quantum well layer and the p-type semiconductor layer (Wu, Fig. 1, 105, the p-type AlxGa1 xN electronic barrier layer 105, amending the claim to further define what a surface plasmon excited layer is such as “a superlattice structure composed of two different materials [0009]” would help overcome this rejection), or forming the surface plasmon excited layer between the p-type semiconductor layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer, or forming the surface plasmon excited layers between the quantum well layer and the p-type semiconductor layer and between the p-type semiconductor layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer respectively.
Claim Analysis for Dependent Claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 6 and 22 recites the limitation "the carrier concentration of the two dimensional hole gas". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes of claim 6, claim 3 will be dependent on claim 2 instead of claim 1 (Note: This interpretation is not being used when examining claim 3). Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 9-11, and 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu.
In regards to dependent claim 9 and 25, Wu teaches wherein the surface plasmon excitation layer comprises a metal material (Wu, Fig. 1, 107, “metal nano-particle structure 107” reads up the “the metal material of the surface plasmon excitation layer includes…nanoparticle”).
In regards to dependent claim 10 and 26, Wu teaches wherein the metal material comprises any one or more of a metal thin film, metal nanoparticles, and metal quantum dots (Wu, Fig. 1, 107, “metal nano-particle structure 107” reads up the “the metal material of the surface plasmon excitation layer includes…nanoparticle”).
In regards to dependent claim 11 and 27, Wu teaches wherein the metal material of the surface plasmon excitation layer comprises any one or more of an Ag mirror, an Al mirror, Ag nanoparticles, Al nanoparticles, Au nanoparticles, Ag quantum dots, and Al quantum dots (Wu, Fig. 1, 107, “metal nano-particle structure 107,” [0051] reads up the “the metal material of the surface plasmon excitation layer includes…nanoparticle”);.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 16, 24, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
In regards to dependent claim 8 and 24, Wu fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the surface plasmon excitation layer ranges from 10 nm to 50 nm. However, Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Criticality Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the thicknesses and similar thicknesses are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Wu. The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses 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 chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
In regards to dependent claim 16 and 32, Wu fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the p-type semiconductor layer is 40 nm to 100 nm. However, Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the size of the device which will allow more devices on a chip thereby would enable the design need of increased computing power of the device. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Criticality Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the thicknesses and similar thicknesses are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Wu. The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses 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 chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
Claim Objections – Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 12-15, 18-21, 23, 28-31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to disclose or teach an obvious combination of the following limitations when taken with the claim as a whole:
Claim 2: wherein a two-dimensional hole gas is form in the surface plasmon excited layer, and a carrier concentration of the two-dimensional hole gas is 1E16cm⁻³ to 1E19cm⁻³.
Claim 3,4,5,7: wherein the surface plasmon excited layer comprises a superlattice structure (A/B)n, wherein n is a period number of the superlattice structure, structure A and structure B are at least one of GaN, InGaN, AlGaN, AllnGaN, AIN and AlInN respectively, and the structure A and the structure B are different. Claim 12, 13: wherein in a case that the surface plasmon excited layer is arranged between the p-type semiconductor layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer, an isolation layer is further interposed between the surface plasmon excited layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer.
Claim 14, 15: wherein in a case that the surface plasmon excited layer is arranged between the quantum well layer and the p-type semiconductor layer, a metal layer is further interposed between the p-type semiconductor layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer.
Claim 18: wherein a two-dimensional hole gas is form in the surface plasmon excited layer, and a carrier concentration of the two-dimensional hole gas is 1E16cm⁻³ to 1E19cm⁻³.
Claim 19, 20, 21, 23: wherein the surface plasmon excited layer comprises a superlattice structure (A/B)ₙ, wherein n is a period number of the superlattice structure, structure A and structure B are at least one of GaN, InGaN, AlGaN, AllnGaN, AIN and AlInN respectively, and the structure A and the structure B are different.
Claim 28, 29: wherein in a case that the surface plasmon excited layer is arranged between the p-type semiconductor layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer, an isolation layer is further formed between the surface plasmon excited layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer.
Claim 30, 31: wherein in a case that the surface plasmon excited layer is arranged between the quantum well layer and the p-type semiconductor layer, a metal layer is further formed between the p-type semiconductor layer and the surface plasmon excitation layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C TRAPANESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-12pm & 8pm-10pm EST.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/WILLIAM C TRAPANESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812