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
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 07/22/2026, in which: claims 1, 7, 9, and 13 are amended; and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1-20 are currently pending an Office action on the merits as follows.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi et al. (US Publication 20090140273) in view of Kim et al. (US Publication 20210111306).
Regarding independent claim 1, Takeuchi teaches a red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device (fig. 1), comprising:
a substrate (1);
a buffer layer (2 and 3) disposed on the substrate;
a first conductive contact layer (4) disposed on the buffer layer;
a first conductive confinement layer (5) disposed on the first conductive contact layer;
an active layer (6) disposed on the first conductive confinement layer;
a second conductive confinement layer (7) disposed on the active layer;
a second conductive contact layer (8) disposed on the second conductive confinement layer.
Takeuchi does not teach a current concentration structure disposed at least one side between the first conductive contact layer and the first conductive confinement layer or between the second conductive contact layer and the second conductive confinement layer, wherein the current concentration structure includes: a strain induced layer; and high-resistance layers that contact the strain induced layer and are distributed separately from each other to form a current barrier, and wherein portions of the high-resistance layers are distributed within at least one of the first conductive confinement layer and the second conductive contact layer while being separated from one another.
Kim teaches a current concentration structure (fig. 4, 500) disposed at least one side between the first conductive contact layer and the first conductive confinement layer or between the second conductive contact layer and the second conductive confinement layer (disposed between 430 and 630, see also paragraph 0041), wherein the current concentration structure includes:
a strain induced layer (510); and
high-resistance layers (520) that contact the strain induced layer and are distributed separately from each other to form a current barrier (paragraph 0083), and
wherein portions of the high-resistance layers are distributed within at least one of the first conductive confinement layer and the second conductive contact layer while being separated from one another (fig. 4, 520 distributed within 630 and are separated from each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi and the current concentration structure of Kim in order to block current flows between semiconductor layers (Kim paragraph 0041).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Takeuchi in view of Kim teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of claim 1.
Takeuchi in view of Kim does not explicitly teach wherein the strain induced layer includes a material of (AlxGa1-x)1-yInyP, however, Takeuchi discloses an n-type cladding layer 4 made of AlGaInP.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AlGaInP material in the strain induced layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Kim further teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the high-resistance layers include a segregation structure (fig. 4, 520 forms a segregation structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi and the segregation structure of Kim per the reason(s) stated above in claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Kim further teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device ofclaim 6, wherein the segregation structure includes any one of aluminum (Al), gallium (Ga), and indium (In) (paragraph 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi and the segregation structure of Kim per the reason(s) stated above in claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Kim further teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device ofclaim 6, wherein the segregation structure is disposed inside a layer adjacent to the active layer (fig. 4, segregation structure formed by 520 disposed in 630 which is adjacent to 740 occupying space for active layer of Takeuchi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi and the segregation structure of Kim per the reason(s) stated above in claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Kim further teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of claim 1, wherein the current concentration structure is disposed adjacent to the active layer (fig. 4, 500 disposed adjacent to 740 occupying space for active layer of Takeuchi).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi and the current concentration structure of Kim per the reason(s) stated above in claim 1.
Claims 2, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Obata et al. (JP Publication 2010098070/machine Translation Document 04/15/2026).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Takeuchi in view of Kim teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of claim 1.
Takeuchi in view of Kim does not teach wherein the strain induced layer includes a semiconductor layer subjected to tensile strain.
Obata teaches wherein the strain induced layer includes a semiconductor layer subjected to tensile strain (machine translation, page 11 paragraph 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi in view of Kim and the strain induced layer of Obata in order to suppress interference with the laser beam emitted from the end face (Obata, machine translation, page 11 paragraph 11).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Takeuchi in view of Kim teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of claim 1.
Takeuchi in view of Kim does not teach wherein the high-resistance layers are formed by segregating at least one of indium (In), aluminum (Al), or gallium (Ga) in contact with the strain induced layer.
Obata teaches wherein the high-resistance layers are formed by segregating at least one of indium (In), aluminum (Al), or gallium (Ga) in contact with the strain induced layer (machine translation, page 11 paragraph 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi in view of Kim and the high-resistance layers of Obata per the reason(s) stated above in claim 2.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Takeuchi in view of Kim teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of claim 1.
Takeuchi in view of Kim does not teach wherein the high-resistance layers are formed by artificial strain relaxation.
Obata teaches wherein the high-resistance layers are formed by artificial strain relaxation (machine translation, page 12 paragraph 2, use of electron beam can cause artificial strain relaxation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi in view of Kim and the high-resistance layers of Obata per the reason(s) stated above in claim 2.
Claims 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (US Publication 8482027).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Takeuchi in view of Kim teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of claim 3.
Takeuchi in view of Kim does not teach wherein y is less than 0.48.
Seo teaches wherein y is less than 0.48 (column 6, ln. 48-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi in view of Kim and the y value of Seo in order to adjust the emission wavelength (column 4, ln. 11-13).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Takeuchi in view of Kim teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of claim 1.
Takeuchi in view of Kim does not teach wherein the strain induced layer has a thickness of 10 nm or more.
Seo teaches wherein the strain induced layer has a thickness of 10 nm or more (column 7, ln. 13-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi in view of Kim and the strain induced layer thickness of Seo in order to reduce the likelihood of crystal defects (column 7, ln. 23-25).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Takeuchi in view of Kim teaches the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of claim 1.
Takeuchi in view of Kim does not teach wherein the high-resistance layers are further included in the active layer.
Seo teaches wherein the high-resistance layers (fig. 2, 8) are further included in the active layer (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi in view of Kim and the high-resistance layers of Seo to reduce the likelihood of crystal defects (column 7, ln. 23-25).
Claims 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Kim and Obata.
Regarding independent claim 13, Takeuchi teaches a method of manufacturing a red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device (fig. 1, paragraph 0031), comprising:
forming a buffer layer (2 and 3) on a substrate (1);
forming a first conductive contact layer (4) on the buffer layer;
forming an active layer (6) on the first conductive confinement layer;
forming a second conductive confinement layer (7) on the active layer; and
forming a second conductive contact layer (8) on the second conductive confinement layer.
Takeuchi does not teach forming a first strain induced layer on the first conductive contact layer, a lattice constant of the first strain induced layer being different from a lattice constant of the first conductive contact layer; forming a first high-resistance layer in contact with the first strain induced layer by forming a first conductive confinement layer on the first strain induced layer, the first conductive confinement layer having a lattice constant that applies strain to the first strain induced layer, wherein portions of the first high-resistance layer are distributed within the first conductive confinement layer while being separated from one another.
Obata teaches forming a first strain induced layer (fig. 1, 112B) on the first conductive contact layer (24, 112 can be rearranged to be disposed on 24 per MPEP 2144.04), a lattice constant of the first strain induced layer being different from a lattice constant of the first conductive contact layer (machine translation, page 11 paragraph 10);
forming a first high-resistance layer (112A) in contact with the first strain induced layer by forming a first conductive confinement layer (21A) on the first strain induced layer (112 can be rearranged to be formed between 24 and 21A per MPEP 2144.04), the first conductive confinement layer having a lattice constant that applies strain to the first strain induced layer (machine translation, page 12 paragraph 3).
Kim teaches wherein portions of the first high-resistance layer (fig. 4, 520) are distributed within the first conductive confinement layer (630) while being separated from one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi, the first strain induced layer and first high-resistance layer of Obata, and the positioning of the first high-resistance layer of Kim in order to suppress interference with the laser beam emitted from the end face (Obata, machine translation, page 11 paragraph 11) and block current flows between semiconductor layers (Kim paragraph 0041).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Takeuchi further teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising forming a second strain induced layer (fig. 1, 9) on the second conductive confinement layer.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Takeuchi further teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the second strain induced layer is formed to have a strain critical thickness or more (fig. 2) to form a second high-resistance layer (fig. 1, 10) in contact with the second strain induced layer.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Takeuchi further teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the second conductive contact layer has a smaller lattice constant than the second strain induced layer (fig. 2, y value of In in 8 is greater than the y value of In in 9, therefore 8 has a smaller lattice constant than 9).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Obata further teaches the method of claim 14, wherein at least one of the first strain induced layer or the second strain induced layer includes a semiconductor layer subjected to tensile strain (machine translation, page 11 paragraph 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of Takeuchi and the strain induced layer of Obata per the reason(s) stated above in claim 13.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Takeuchi in view of Obata and Kim teaches the method of claim 14.
Takeuchi in view of Obata and Kim does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the first strain induced layer or the second strain induced layer includes a material of (AlxGa1-x)1-yInyP, however, Takeuchi discloses an n-type cladding layer 4 made of AlGaInP.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the AlGaInP material in the strain induced layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design variation and choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Kim further teaches the method of claim 15, wherein at least one of the first high-resistance layer or the second high-resistance layer includes a segregation structure (fig. 4, 520 forms a segregation structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the red light-emitting semiconductor light-emitting device of Takeuchi and the segregation structure of Kim per the reason(s) stated above in claim 13.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeuchi in view of Kim and Obata as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Seo.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Takeuchi in view of Obata and Kim teaches the method of claim 14.
Takeuchi in view of Obata and Kim does not teach further comprising forming a current diffusion layer between the second conductive confinement layer and the second strain induced layer.
Seo teaches further comprising forming a current diffusion layer between the second conductive confinement layer and the second strain induced layer (column 5, ln. 31-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the method of Takeuchi in view of Obata and Kim and the current diffusion layer of Seo to achieve planar diffusion of the device (column 5, ln. 31-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 07/22/2026, with respect to claims 7 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of 04/22/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (Amendments).
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the instant Remarks: “More specifically, the high-resistance layer 112A of Obata is provided to scatter light incident on the underlying layer 112, thereby preventing a reduction in light extraction efficiency caused by total internal reflection. Accordingly, the purpose and function of the high-resistance layer in Obata are fundamentally different from those of the claimed high-resistance layers, which are configured to function as a current barrier between the n-type semiconductor layer and the p-type semiconductor layer. Because of this different purpose and function, the high-resistance layer of Obata is necessarily positioned between the buffer layer and the first conductive contact layer to achieve the intended optical effect. In this regard, Obata neither teaches nor suggests distributing portions of the high-resistance layers within the first conductive confinement layer and/or the second conductive contact layer for controlling current flow. Thus Obata is deficient.”
However, as stated above, Kim teaches wherein portions of the high-resistance layer (fig. 4, 520) are distributed within at least one of the first conductive confinement layer (630) and the second conductive contact layer while being separated from one another (paragraph 0041).
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 GRACE Y CHA whose telephone number is (703)756-5393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm and every other Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/GRACE CHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights