DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to the communications received July 7, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s remarks and/or amendments to claims 4 and 10, see below for details.
The amendments made to claim 1 have overcome the prior art rejections, which are hereby withdrawn. The reasons for allowance are detailed below.
The amendments made to claim 10, “wherein the first light emitting device includes a first group V element, and the second and third light emitting devices include a second group V element different from the first group V element”, required further search and consideration. The prior art of Lee (US 12,262,454) this newly claimed aspect in col. 1, lines 29-33, “For example, aluminum gallium indium phosphide (AlGaInP) for red, aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) for green, and indium gallium nitride (InGaN) for blue are used as representative nitride-based light emitting diode materials.” The 103 rejection of claim 10, was then modified in light of the amendment.
The further argument against the Chu et al. (US 2015/0362165) reference which was used to disclose the limitation of, “wherein a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the first light emitting device is the same as a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the second light emitting device”, was not found to be convincing, due to the fact that the Lee reference was used to disclose the material specific limitation. The three LEDs in Chu are shown wired in the same manner of “common cathode” as discussed in ¶ 0059, “FIG. 2A structure could be designed to form an electrical conductive connection in each column of one array. The purpose of the electrical conductive connection is to form a row common-cathode array to simplify the backplane circuitry design”, which means each cathode of each LED receive the same polarity signal and are aligned in the same polarity to receive said signal. This Fig. 2A was identified in the previous office action, so the grounds of rejection were clear to include all information pertaining to that embodiment. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (e.g. Chu not disclosing the material type limitation details), 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).
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 § 112
The comments in the remarks dated July 7, 2026, regarding the 112b rejection against claim 4, are convincing and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
The amendment to claim 10, and the arguments in the remarks dated July 7, 2026, regarding the 112a rejection against claim 10, are convincing and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Relevant Prior Art
Lee et al. (US 12,262,454) col. 1, lines 29-33, “For example, aluminum gallium indium phosphide (AlGaInP) for red, aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) for green, and indium gallium nitride (InGaN) for blue are used as representative nitride-based light emitting diode materials.”
Gould et al. (US 10,431,568) col. 24, lines 21-28, “LEDs can include UV, blue or green LEDs, such as a group III nitride based LED chip comprising negatively doped (n-type) epitaxial layer(s) of gallium nitride or its alloys and positively doped (p-type) epitaxial layers of gallium nitride or its alloys surrounding a light emitting active region; a red LED chip, such as an AlInGaP based red LED chip; a white LED chip (e.g., blue LED chip with phosphor(s) layer(s))”.
Applicant’s Claim to Figure Comparison
It is noted that this comparison is merely for the benefit of reviewers of this office action during prosecution, to allow for an understanding of the examiner’s interpretation of the Applicant’s independent claims as compared to disclosed embodiments in Applicant’s Figures. No response or comments are necessary from Applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
632
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant discloses in Fig. 9 and 10, a light emitting module comprising;
a light emitting device including:
a substrate (10);
a first window layer (31) supplying electrons;
a second window layer (32) supplying holes;
an active layer disposed (60) between the first window layer and the second window layer (between 31 and 32);
a first ohmic electrode (81) electrically connected to the first window layer (directly connected to 31); and
a second ohmic electrode (82) electrically connected to the second window layer (in electrical communication with 32),
PNG
media_image2.png
528
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the first window layer (31) includes a first high-level doped layer, a second high-level doped layer (H3), and a lower-level doped layer (H2),
wherein the first high-level doped layer (H1, Fig. 10) and the second high-level doped layer (H3) have a doping level of the lower-level doped layer (see Fig. 10, where H1 corresponds to the “first high-level doped layer”, and H2 corresponds to the “low-level doped layer”, H3 corresponds to the “second high-level doped layer”),
wherein the lower-level doped layer is interposed between the first high-level doped layer and the second high-level doped layer (H2 between H1 and H3), and
wherein the first ohmic electrode is electrically connected to the first high-level doped layer (81 is connected to H1 of 31).
PNG
media_image3.png
490
870
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the Applicant discloses in Fig. 13, a light emitting module comprising:
a substrate (1000); and
a plurality of light emitting devices (510, 520, 530) disposed on the substrate (on 100), the plurality of light emitting devices including:
a first light emitting device (510, “red series”) including comprising an active layer configured to generate generating-light having a peak wavelength of 600 nm or more;
a second light emitting device (530, “blue series”) including comprising an active layer configured to generate generating-light having a peak wavelength of less than 500 nm; and
a third light emitting device (520, “green series”) configured to emit emitting light having a peak wavelength between the peak wavelength of the first light emitting device and the peak wavelength of the second light emitting device,
wherein includes a first group V element, and include a second group V element different from the first group V element (pg. 4, lines 7-10), and
wherein a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the first light emitting device is the same as a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the second light emitting device (conductivity types orientation of layers are same throughout the first and second light emitting devices).
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.
Claims 10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2020/0287110) in view of Dobrynin et al. (US 2024/0180084) in view of Lee et al. (US 12,262,454) in view of Chu et al. (US 2015/0362165).
PNG
media_image4.png
310
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
310
524
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of Oh discloses in Figs. 1 and 2, a light emitting module comprising:
a substrate (“circuit board 140”, ¶ 0026); and
a plurality of light emitting devices (“a plurality of light emitting devices 110 to130”, ¶ 0026) disposed on the substrate (on 140),
the plurality of light emitting devices including:
a first light emitting device (110) including comprising an active layer configured to generate generating-light having a peak wavelength of 600 nm or more (110 is colored red, which is equivalent to “the peak wavelength of 600 nm or more”. A subsequent reference will be used to disclose the wavelength corresponding to the color red.);
a second light emitting device (130) including comprising an active layer configured to generate generating-light having a peak wavelength of less than 500 nm (130 is colored blue, which is equivalent to “the peak wavelength of less than 500 nm”. A subsequent reference will be used to disclose the wavelength corresponding to the color blue.); and
a third light emitting device (120) configured to emit emitting light having a peak wavelength between the peak wavelength of the first light emitting device and the peak wavelength of the second light emitting device (120 is colored green, which is equivalent to “a peak wavelength between the peak wavelength of the first light emitting device and the peak wavelength of the second light emitting device”. A subsequent reference will be used to disclose the wavelength corresponding to the color green.).
First, Oh does disclose the colors associated with the wavelengths, but does not disclose the wavelengths themselves, so Oh does not explicitly disclose (the italicized portions),
“a first light emitting device including comprising an active layer configured to generate generating-light having a peak wavelength of 600 nm or more;
a second light emitting device including comprising an active layer configured to generate generating-light having a peak wavelength of less than 500 nm; and
a third light emitting device configured to emit emitting light having a peak wavelength between the peak wavelength of the first light emitting device and the peak wavelength of the second light emitting device”.
Dobrynin discloses, from the abstract,
Violet to blue wavelengths 400 to 500 nm,
Red and far red wavelengths of 600 to 800 nm,
Green wavelength of 500 to 600 nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation, “a first light emitting device including comprising an active layer configured to generate generating-light having a peak wavelength of 600 nm or more;
a second light emitting device including comprising an active layer configured to generate generating-light having a peak wavelength of less than 500 nm; and
a third light emitting device configured to emit emitting light having a peak wavelength between the peak wavelength of the first light emitting device and the peak wavelength of the second light emitting device”, as disclosed by Dobrynin in the system of Oh, for the purpose of providing the constituent wavelength emitters required to have a full spectrum display device. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Second, Oh does not disclose, “wherein the first light emitting device includes a first group V element, and the second and third light emitting devices include a second group V element different from the first group V element”.
Lee discloses in col. 1, lines 29-33, “For example, aluminum gallium indium phosphide (AlGaInP) for red, aluminum gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) for green, and indium gallium nitride (InGaN) for blue are used as representative nitride-based light emitting diode materials.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation, “wherein the first light emitting device includes a first group V element, and the second and third light emitting devices include a second group V element different from the first group V element”, as disclosed by Lee in the system of Oh, for the purpose of being able to achieve the three colors of red, blue and green specifically from the semiconductor emission region. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Third, Oh does not disclose, “wherein a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the first light emitting device is the same as a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the second light emitting device.”
PNG
media_image6.png
396
768
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chu discloses in Fig. 2A, wherein a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the first light emitting device is the same as a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the second light emitting device (the p-type layer and the n-type layer are oriented in the same manner across all three LEDs shown on the substrate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation, “wherein a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the first light emitting device is the same as a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the second light emitting device.”, as disclosed by Chu in the system of Oh, for the purpose of simplifying the wiring arrangement for the understanding of the display designer, decreasing the likelihood of defective display product. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of Hyun et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 10, wherein the direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the second light emitting device is the same as a direction in which electrons are supplied to the active layer in the third light emitting device (this feature shown in the rejection of claim 10, Chu discloses in Fig. 2A, the p-type layer and the n-type layer are oriented in the same manner across all three LEDs shown on the substrate).
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of Hyun et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 10, wherein a first type dopant material of the plurality of light emitting devices includes comprises at least one identical material (Chu discloses in Fig. 2A, wherein the p-type layer and the n-type layer are oriented in the same manner across all three LEDs shown on the substrate. So all the p-type or n-type impurity regions are locationally shared in the same position across all the plural LEDs).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2020/0287110) in view of Dobrynin et al. (US 2024/0180084) in view of Lee et al. (US 12,262,454) in view of Chu et al. (US 2015/0362165) in view of Nagai et al. (US 2002/0113246).
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of Hyun et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 10, however Oh does not disclose,
“further comprising:
a reflective layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the reflective layer is disposed around a periphery of at least some regions region of the plurality of light emitting devices and has a reflectivity of 80% or more with respect to the peak wavelengths of light emitted from the plurality of light emitting devices.”
Applicant’s specification states that “The light reflective layer 600 may include a metallic material or an insulating material. For example, the metallic material may be one of materials, such as Al, Au, Au, Ni, Ti, and the like, and the insulating material may be a material, such as silicone, polyimide, and the like.”, pg. 24. So in order to satisfy the claim, the reflective material must be of the variety disclosed.
PNG
media_image7.png
474
548
media_image7.png
Greyscale
¶ 0391, “The LED mounting surface of the multilayer substrate 6002, apart from the areas where the LED chips 6003 are located, is covered with an aluminum reflective layer 6005.”
It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the reflective layer of Nagai would inherently have the property of “has a reflectivity of 80% or more with respect to the peak wavelengths of light emitted from the plurality of light emitting devices”, which is the same as the reflective layer as disclosed by Applicant. See MPEP 2112.01.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation, “further comprising:
a reflective layer disposed on the substrate, wherein the reflective layer is disposed around a periphery of at least some regions region of the plurality of light emitting devices and has a reflectivity of 80% or more with respect to the peak wavelengths of light emitted from the plurality of light emitting devices.”, as disclosed by Nagai in the system of Oh, for the purpose of improving light output efficiency. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2020/0287110) in view of Dobrynin et al. (US 2024/0180084) in view of Lee et al. (US 12,262,454) in view of Chu et al. (US 2015/0362165) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2022/0059517).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of Oh et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 10, however Oh does not disclose,
“wherein each of the light emitting devices further includes comprises a support substrate supporting the corresponding light emitting device, and
wherein light of different peak wavelengths emitted from the light emitting devices is emitted through the corresponding support substrates formed of the same material.”
PNG
media_image8.png
270
358
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
382
748
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Ikeda discloses in Figs. 4 and 5,
wherein each of the light emitting devices (400) further includes comprises a support substrate (“substrate 400a”, ¶ 0064) supporting the corresponding light emitting device (each 400 has 400a), and
wherein light of different peak wavelengths emitted from the light emitting devices (as already combined in rejection of claim 10) is emitted through the corresponding support substrates formed of the same material (the light would then be emitted through 400a in Fig. 5 of Ikeda).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation,
“wherein each of the light emitting devices further includes comprises a support substrate supporting the corresponding light emitting device, and
wherein light of different peak wavelengths emitted from the light emitting devices is emitted through the corresponding support substrates formed of the same material.”, as disclosed by Ikeda in the system of Oh, for the purpose of improving light output efficiency. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2020/0287110) in view of Dobrynin et al. (US 2024/0180084) in view of Lee et al. (US 12,262,454) in view of Chu et al. (US 2015/0362165) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2022/0059517) in view of Danesh et al. (US 2018/0114878).
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of Oh et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 12, however Oh does not disclose,
“further comprising:
a molding layer covering the plurality of light emitting devices and including comprising a light exit surface, wherein distances from the plurality of support substrates to the light exit surface are different from each other.”
PNG
media_image10.png
338
652
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Danesh discloses in Fig. 22, further comprising:
a molding layer (“transparent encapsulation dielectric layer 470”, ¶ 0155, where 470 molds to the underlying surfaces) covering the plurality of light emitting devices (several shown) and including comprising a light exit surface (upper surfaces thereof), wherein distances from the plurality of support substrates (upper surfaces of plural LEDs shown, where the “support substrate” aspect has been addressed in the claim 12 rejection) to the light exit surface are different from each other (output surfaces are at different heights, thus satisfying the limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation,
“further comprising:
a molding layer covering the plurality of light emitting devices and including comprising a light exit surface, wherein distances from the plurality of support substrates to the light exit surface are different from each other.”, as disclosed by Danesh in the system of Oh, for the purpose of accommodating different sized LEDs for their color output abilities to achieve a color information display system. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of Oh et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 13, and Danesh discloses in Fig. 22, further comprising:
an IC circuit or an IC driver (“backplane 401 contains the electronics which drive current through the individual LED subpixels such that light is emitted and an image is formed on the display.”, ¶ 0164), wherein the IC circuit or the IC driver is electrically connected to the plurality of light emitting devices (addressed in ¶ 0164) and covered by the molding layer simultaneously with the plurality of light emitting devices (401 and plural LED are covered by 470).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of Oh et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 14, and Danesh discloses in Fig. 22, further comprising:
wherein a height from an upper surface of the IC circuit or the IC driver to the light exit surface of the molding layer is different from a height from upper surfaces of the plurality of light emitting devices to the light exit surface of the molding layer, and the molding layer compensates for height difference such that the light exit surface is placed at the same location (heights of plural LEDs and the upper surface of 401 are different, but the 470 covers all elements and it’s own upper surface is the shared output surface).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2020/0287110) in view of Dobrynin et al. (US 2024/0180084) in view of Lee et al. (US 12,262,454) in view of Chu et al. (US 2015/0362165) in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2022/0059517) in view of Hyun et al. (US 2017/0263808).
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of Oh et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 12, however Oh does not disclose, “wherein at least one of the light emitting devices includes comprises at least one light transmissive material disposed between the light emitting device and the support substrate to change an index of refraction.” Looking to Applicant’s disclosure, the element that is the “light transmissive material” is either of “the light transmissive material may include at least one of materials having transmissive properties with respect to at least some components of light, such as ITO, ZnO, and the like.”
Hyun discloses in Fig. 2E, wherein at least one of the light emitting devices includes comprises at least one light transmissive material (118) disposed between the light emitting device (115) and the support substrate (circuit board of Oh) to change an index of refraction (this property is inherent as rationale states below). It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the light transmissive material of Hyun would inherently have the property of “at least one light transmissive material disposed between the light emitting device and the support substrate to change an index of refraction”, which is the same as the reflective layer as disclosed by Applicant. See MPEP 2112.01.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation,
“wherein at least one of the light emitting devices includes comprises at least one light transmissive material disposed between the light emitting device and the support substrate to change an index of refraction.”, as disclosed by Hyun in the system of Oh, for the purpose of enhancing the output emission for the light emitter. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2020/0287110) in view of Dobrynin et al. (US 2024/0180084) in view of Lee et al. (US 12,262,454) in view of Chu et al. (US 2015/0362165) in view of Choi (US 2024/0047608).
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of Hyun et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 10, however Hyun does not disclose,
“wherein the first light emitting device includes:
a first electron regulation layer disposed on one side of the active layer of the first light emitting device; and
a first hole regulation layer disposed on the other side of the active layer of the first light emitting device, and
wherein group III and group V elements constituting the first electron regulation layer are the same as group III and group V elements constituting the first hole regulation layer.”
Choi discloses in Fig. 1,
wherein the first light emitting device includes:
a first electron regulation layer (“electron regulation layer 51”, ¶ 0048) disposed on one side of the active layer of the first light emitting device (“active layer 60”, ¶ 0048); and
a first hole regulation layer (“hole regulation layer 52”, ¶ 0073) disposed on the other side of the active layer of the first light emitting device (“active layer”, ¶ 073), and
wherein group III and group V elements constituting the first electron regulation layer are the same as group III and group V elements constituting the first hole regulation layer (“The hole regulation layer 52 may include the same Group III and V elements as the electron regulation layer 51 and may be an InXGaYAlZP layer”, ¶ 0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation,
“wherein the first light emitting device includes:
a first electron regulation layer disposed on one side of the active layer of the first light emitting device; and
a first hole regulation layer disposed on the other side of the active layer of the first light emitting device, and
wherein group III and group V elements constituting the first electron regulation layer are the same as group III and group V elements constituting the first hole regulation layer.”, as disclosed by Choi in the system of Oh, for the purpose of increasing recombination efficiency. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (US 2020/0287110) in view of Dobrynin et al. (US 2024/0180084) in view of Lee et al. (US 12,262,454) in view of Chu et al. (US 2015/0362165) in view of Okui et al. (US 2018/0012872).
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of Oh et al. disclose the light emitting module according to claim 10, “wherein the plurality of light emitting devices are individually controllable.”
PNG
media_image11.png
308
524
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Okui discloses in Figs. 14A, 14B, wherein each LED has separate electrodes for each of it’s two operating electrodes, therefore, each LED can be individually operated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the limitation,
“wherein the plurality of light emitting devices are individually controllable.”, as disclosed by Okui in the system of Oh, for the purpose of allowing for flexibility in the control of the display elements. (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
PNG
media_image12.png
554
632
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of Hyun et al. (US 2017/0263808) discloses in Fig. 2E, a light emitting module, but fails to disclose the specific characteristic recited in the claims of the instant invention e.g. the combination of claimed features of a light emitting device including a substrate, first window layer, second window layer, active layer, first ohmic electrode, second ohmic electrode, the first window layer includes a first high-level doped layer, second high-level doped layer and low-level doped layer, and their relative orientation to each other, in conjunction with the claim limitations of,
“wherein the first high-level doped layer and the second high-level doped layer have a doping level of the lower-level doped layer,
wherein the lower-level doped layer is interposed between the first high-level doped layer and the second high-level doped layer, and
wherein the first ohmic electrode is electrically connected to the first high-level doped layer.”
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eduardo A Rodela whose telephone number is (571)272-8797. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5:00pm 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, Yara B Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/EDUARDO A RODELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights