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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner notes claim 14 refers to “higher concentration” and “lower in impurity concentration”. Normally terms such as “higher” and “lower” are indefinite without further definition. Here a concentration is understood to be “higher” and/or “lower” relative to the other layer.
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.
Claim 1, 2 (and 2-20 via dependency) and 20 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.
Claim 1 at lines 12 and 13 refers to forming the first/second electrodes “in” the first/second bank portions. The specification clearly teaches the electrodes to be formed “on” rather than “in” the bank portions. This inconsistency between the specification and claims renders the scope of the claim unclear (see MPEP 2173.03; A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).).
For purposes of examination the limitations will be read as “on”.
The term “roughly” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “roughly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For purposes of examination, “roughly vertical” is understood to be any angle other than 90 degrees.
Claim 20 depends from claim 2. Claim 2 provides an option of a roughly vertical side surface or a terraced side surface. Claim 20 then makes a comparison to the presence of a terraced side surface for the third side without that surface being positively cited/required, making the scope of the claim confusing.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “wherein the third bank portion side-surface has a terrace, and wherein the terrace portion of the first bank portion-side…”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 20 depends from claim 2. Claim 2 provides an option of a roughly vertical side surface or a terraced side surface. Claim 20 then makes a comparison to the presence of a terraced side surface without that surface being positively cited/required, making it unclear that claim 20 is properly inheriting the limitations of claim 2 which can have a roughly vertical surface instead of a terraced side.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 10, 11, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 2022/0416511) in view of Konishi et al. (US 2023/0060877).
With respect to claim 1, Kitagawa teaches an optical semiconductor device (fig.10), comprising: a semiconductor layer of a first conductivity type (fig.10 #14, [0031] n-type); an optical function layer (fig.10 #16, [0032]) placed above the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type; a semiconductor layer of a second conductivity type (fig.10 #18, [0032] p-type) placed above the optical function layer; a first electrode (fig.10 #46) electrically connected to the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type (fig.10 near #32); a second electrode (fig.10 #48) electrically connected to the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type (fig.10 near #44); a first bank portion in which a part of the first electrode is placed (fig.10 rightmost ridge); a first groove portion (fig.10 #32) adjacent to the first bank portion; a second bank portion (fig.10 leftmost ridge) in which a part of the second electrode is placed (fig.10 #48); a third bank portion (fig.10 second ridge from right); a third groove portion (fig.10 middle groove) adjacent to the third bank portion; and an optical function portion (fig.10 second ridge from left) including the optical function layer, wherein, in a second direction that is, in plan view, perpendicular to a first direction along which the optical function portion stretches, the first bank portion, the first groove portion, the third bank portion, the third groove portion, the optical function portion, and the second bank portion are placed in the stated order (fig.10 as outlined above), wherein the second electrode is in contact with the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type in the optical function portion (fig.10 #48 near #44), a first bank portion-side side surface, which is a side surface of the first groove portion on the first bank portion side (fig.10 left side of rightmost ridge), and wherein the first electrode is in contact with the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type in a bottom portion of the first groove portion (fig.10 near #36), and stretches along the first bank portion-side side surface to a top surface of the first bank portion (fig.10 #46). Kitagawa teaches an insulating layer #30/42 to form a stepped type structure to reduce electrode peeling ([0069]), but does not teach wherein a first bank portion-side side surface, which is a side surface of the first groove portion on the first bank portion side, has a stepped shape including a terrace portion. Konishi teaches a related optical semiconductor device (fig.1b) which includes a first bank portion-side side surface, which is a side surface of the first groove portion on the first bank portion side, has a stepped shape including a terrace portion (fig.1b left side of recess #50 formed of two sloped step-like portions with flat, terrace portion, in-between; [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Kitagawa by replacing the sloped insulating material with sloping of the existing semiconductor material as demonstrated by Konishi in order to reduce the need to add additional material to the existing semiconductor material, and to utilize a terrace at/near the change in slope as demonstrated by Konishi in order to form a hard to break electrical connection and expand surface area for heat dissipation (Konishi, [0087]).
Note that after combining the following is met “wherein a distance between an upper end (Kitagawa, fig.10 top) and a lower end (bottom most part of bank near #36) of the first bank portion-side side surface in the second direction is longer than a distance between an upper end (fig.10 top) and a lower end (portion near end of #38) of a third bank portion-side side surface (fig.10 right side of second bank from right), which is a side surface of the first groove portion on the third bank portion side, in the second direction”.
Note that #14 can represent the first conductivity type layer in at least three different manners (substrate, highly doped contact, contact) as denoted below.
PNG
media_image1.png
425
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Kitagawa teaches the third bank portion-side side surface is a roughly vertical surface (fig.10 right side of second bank from right is vertical) or has a stepped shape including a terrace portion.
With respect to claim 3, Kitagawa teaches a second groove portion (fig.10 left groove) between the second bank portion and the optical function portion.
With respect to claim 7, Kitagawa teaches a distance in the second direction from an intersection point between the third bank portion-side side surface and a top surface of the third bank portion to an intersection point between the third bank portion-side side surface and a bottom surface of the first groove portion is 1/10 or less of a width of the terrace portion of the first bank portion-side side surface (fig.10 third bank portion side surface is vertical, making the distance 0, which is less than a width of the terrace added to the first band portion side).
With respect to claim 9, Kitagawa teaches the second electrode stretches from above the optical function portion along an inside of the second groove portion to a top surface of the second bank portion (fig.10 #48 is over the 2nd bank, 2nd groove, and optical function portion, and is “along” an inside of the second groove as it passes over the second groove).
With respect to claim 10, Kitagawa teaches a contact layer of the first conductivity type (fig.10, [0031], highly doped portion, or lower doped portion under #16 within banks) between the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type and the optical function layer (electrically between), wherein the terrace portion of the first bank portion-side side surface is formed in the contact layer of the first conductivity type (when modified by Konishi).
With respect to claim 11, Kitagawa teaches the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type is a semiconductor substrate of the first conductivity type (fig.10 #14 functions as a substrate for the layers above it).
With respect to claim 18, Kitagawa teaches the optical function layer included in the optical function portion is sandwiched by a block layer of a semiconductor (fig.10 #20, [0033]), and wherein the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type is placed on the optical function layer and the block layer (fig.10 #18 atop #20 and #16).
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa and Konishi in view of Taguchi (US 9419411).
With respect to claim 4, Kitagawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a height from a bottom surface of the first groove portion to a top surface of the terrace portion is equal to or less than half a height from the bottom surface of the first groove portion to the top surface of the first bank portion OR a height from a bottom surface of the first groove portion to a top surface of the terrace portion is 20% or more and 40% or less of a height from the bottom surface of the first groove portion to the top surface of the first bank portion. Taguchi teaches a related device (fig.2) with forming a sloping, step-like structure (fig.2 right side of left portion of #22 in groove) to support an electrode (fig.2 #6) which sits atop the structure and connects within the groove (fig.2), and that the sloping, step-like portion is the height of the lower layer (fig.2 #22, 0.5um, col.2 line 39) which is 25% of the total groove thickness (fig.2 #22+#23, 0.5um + 1.5um, col.2 line 42, 0.5/2 = 25%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to optimize the lower ramping, step-like portion size of Kitagawa to be 25% of the total groove height (thereby denoting the height of the terrace) as taught by Taguchi in order to make use of a ramping, step-like portion size within a groove which has been demonstrated to properly support an electrode as is desired by Kitagawa (see MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
Claim(s) 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa and Konishi in view of Kitamura et al. (US 2014/0021160).
With respect to claim 6, Kitagawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does no teach a width of the terrace portion of the first bank portion-side side surface in the second direction is equal to or more than half a height from a bottom surface of the first groove portion to a top surface of the terrace portion, and equal to or less than twice the height. Kitamura teaches a related optical device (fig.2) including a groove (fig.2 above #13t) with ramping, step-like structure including a terrace portion (fig.2 middle 2 steps of the ramp) along a first bank (fig.2 bank near #19 in #6a) wherein a width of the terrace portion of the first bank portion-side side surface in the second direction is equal to or more than half a height from a bottom surface of the first groove portion to a top surface of the terrace portion, and equal to or less than twice the height (see annotated figure below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to optimize the width of the terrace of Kitagawa to be equal to or more than half a height of the terrace but less than twice the height as demonstrated by Kitamura in order to utilize a structure shown to improve electrode connection strength ([0045, 47, 75, 104], see also MPEP 2144.05 II A/B).
PNG
media_image2.png
392
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, Kitagawa teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the terrace portion of the first bank portion-side side surface includes a first terrace portion and a second terrace portion different from the first terrace portion in height. Kitamura further teaches a terrace portion (fig.2 #21 right side) of a first bank portion-side side surface (fig.2 bank is rightmost #18) includes a first terrace portion and a second terrace portion different from the first terrace portion in height (fig.2 2 terraces of different heights). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the terrace portion of the first bank portion-side side surface to include a first terrace portion and a second terrace portion different from the first terrace portion in height of Kitagawa as demonstrated by Kitamura in order to utilize a structure shown to improve electrode connection strength ([0047, 104]).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa and Konishi in view of Ledentsov et al. (US 2025/0392104).
The Examiner notes “on” can mean “in close proximity with” and does not limit to a direct physical connection thereto.
With respect to claim 12, Kitagawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including a substrate of the first conductivity type (fig.10 bottom portion of #14); a contact layer of the first conductivity type (fig.10, [0031]), wherein the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type is the substrate of the first conductivity type (as noted above). Kitagawa teaches etching ([0011]), but does not teach an etch stop layer of the first conductivity type placed on the substrate and is formed from a material different from a material of the contact layer. Ledentsov teaches a related device (fig.19g) which includes a first conductivity type etch stop layer (fig.19g #1971, [0162]) of different material (InGaAs) than that of a doped/contacting layer (fig.19g 1972/312) which functions as part of the contacting structure (note #1991 thereon). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of an etching stop layer of the first conductivity type, and of a different material than the surrounding material, on the contact layer of Kitagawa as demonstrated by Ledentsov in order to control the etching depth and shape of the grooves.
With respect to claim 13, Kitagawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including a substrate of the first conductivity type (fig.10 lower part of #14) and a contact layer (fig.10 [0031]). Kitagawa teaches etching ([0011]), but does not teach an etch stop layer of the first conductivity type placed on the substrate; and the contact layer of the first conductivity type placed on the etch stop layer, and is formed from a material different from a material of the etch stop layer, wherein the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type is the etch stop layer. Kitagawa teaches etching ([0011]), but does not teach an etch stop layer of the first conductivity type placed on the substrate and is formed from a material different from a material of the contact layer. Ledentsov teaches a related device (fig.19g) which includes a first conductivity type etch stop layer (fig.19g #1971, [0162]) of different material (InGaAs) than that of a doped/contacting layer (fig.19g 1972/312) which functions as part of the contacting structure (note #1991 thereon). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of an etching stop layer of the first conductivity type, and of a different material than the surrounding material, on the contact layer of Kitagawa as demonstrated by Ledentsov in order to control the etching depth and shape of the grooves.
With respect to claim 14, Kitagawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including a substrate (fig.10 bottom of #14); a high concentration contact layer of the first conductivity type placed on the substrate (fig.10 highly doped portion, [0031]); a contact layer of the first conductivity type (fig.10 portion of #14 under #16), and is lower in impurity concentration than the high concentration contact layer ([0031]), wherein the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type is the high concentration contact layer. Kitagawa further teaches etching ([0011]), but does not teach an etch stop layer of the first conductivity type placed on the high concentration contact layer; and the contact layer of the first conductivity type placed on the etch stop layer. Ledentsov teaches a related device (fig.19g) which includes a first conductivity type etch stop layer (fig.19g #1971, [0162]) of different material (InGaAs) than that of a doped/contacting layer (fig.19g 1972/312) which functions as part of the contacting structure (note #1991 thereon). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to make use of an etching stop layer of the first conductivity type, and of a different material than the surrounding material, on the highly doped contact layer of Kitagawa as demonstrated by Ledentsov in order to control the etching depth and shape of the grooves.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa and Konishi in view of Yu (US 2021/0066537).
With respect to claim 16, Kitagawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the first electrode includes a first contact electrode and a first lead-out electrode in contact with the first contact electrode, wherein the first contact electrode is in contact with the semiconductor layer of the first conductivity type in a bottom portion of the first groove portion, and wherein the first lead-out electrode stretches from above the first contact electrode along the terrace portion of the first bank portion-side side surface to the top surface of the first bank portion. Yu teaches a related optical device (fig.3 xxiii/xxvA) which includes first contact electrode (fig.3xxiii #316) along with first lead out electrode (fig.xxvA #320) as well as a second contact electrode (fig.xxiii #305) along with a second lead out electrode (fig.xxvA #319). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Kitagawa to make use of separate first/second contact electrodes and first/second lead out electrodes as demonstrated by Yu in order to provide the ability to use different materials and different process of applying the separate electrode parts (see also MPEP 2144.04 V C).
With respect to claim 17, Kitagawa as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the second electrode includes a second contact electrode and a second lead-out electrode in contact with the second contact electrode, wherein the second contact electrode is in contact with the semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type in an upper portion of the optical function portion, and wherein the second lead-out electrode stretches from above the second contact electrode along an inside of the second groove portion to a top surface of the second bank portion. Yu teaches a related optical device (fig.3 xxiii/xxvA) which includes first contact electrode (fig.3xxiii #316) along with first lead out electrode (fig.xxvA #320) as well as a second contact electrode (fig.xxiii #305) along with a second lead out electrode (fig.xxvA #319). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Kitagawa to make use of separate first/second contact electrodes and first/second lead out electrodes as demonstrated by Yu in order to provide the ability to use different materials and different process of applying the separate electrode parts (see also MPEP 2144.04 V C).
With respect to claim 19, Kitagawa, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach the optical function layer is placed in the optical function portion, the first bank portion, the second bank portion, and the third bank portion. Yu further teaches the optical function layer (fig.3xxii MQW) to extend through multiple bank structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the structure of Kitagawa such that the optical function layer extends through the banks as demonstrated by Yu in order to simplify the processing steps by reducing the area needed to be regrown.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8, 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/(d) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art was not found to teach or suggest the details of the terrace portion relative to the second groove depth outlined in claim 8.
The prior art was not found to teach or suggest the details of the width of a first bank terrace relative to a third bank terrace.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
US 2021/0066537, 2025/0343391 being noted as teaching similar multiple bank and groove structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights