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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18644418 filed on 04/24/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11, 14 in the reply filed on 6/5/206 is acknowledged.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mishima et al. (US 2023/0395745).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Mishima et al. teach a semiconductor optical element comprising, in a following order:
a first indirect transition type semiconductor portion including a first conductivity type impurity at a first concentration (Fig. 2, element 52, paragraph 0051, n type, concentration 3.0×10.sup.18/cm.sup.3);
a second indirect transition type semiconductor portion including the first conductivity type impurity at a second concentration (Fig. 2, element 53, paragraph 0053, n type, concentration 3.0×10.sup.17/cm.sup.3);
a third indirect transition type semiconductor portion including a second conductivity type impurity at a third concentration (Fig. 2, element 57, paragraph 0058, p type, concentration 1.0×10.sup.19/cm.sup.3.);
a fourth indirect transition type semiconductor portion including the second conductivity type impurity at a fourth concentration (Fig. 2, element 64, paragraph 0064, p type, concentration 3.0×10.sup.18/cm.sup.3); and
a fifth indirect transition type semiconductor portion including the second conductivity type impurity at a fifth concentration (Fig. 2, element 66, paragraph 0065, p type, concentration 5.0×10.sup.18/cm.sup.3),
wherein: the third indirect transition type semiconductor portion and the fourth indirect transition type semiconductor portion are in contact with each other (Fig. 2 discloses electrical contact),
the first concentration is higher than the second concentration (paragraph 0051, 0053),
the third concentration is higher than the fourth concentration (paragraph 0058, 0064), and
the fifth concentration is higher than the fourth concentration (paragraph 0064, 0065).
Regarding claim 2, Mishima et al. teach wherein a thickness of the third indirect transition type semiconductor portion is in a range from 10 nm to 1500 nm (paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 3, Mishima et al. teach wherein the third concentration is in a range from 10 times to 1000 times the fourth concentration (paragraph 0058, 0064).
Regarding claim 4, Mishima et al. teach wherein the third concentration is in a range from 10 times to 1000 times the fourth concentration (paragraph 0058, 0064).
Regarding claim 6, Mishima et al. teach wherein the semiconductor optical element is configured to emit light with a peak wavelength in a range from 1100 nm to 4000 nm (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 7, Mishima et al. teach wherein the semiconductor optical element is configured to emit light with a peak wavelength in a range from 1100 nm to 4000 nm (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 8, Mishima et al. teach wherein the semiconductor optical element is configured to emit light with a peak wavelength in a range from 1100 nm to 4000 nm (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 14, Mishima et al. teach wherein: the third indirect transition type semiconductor portion comprises a first region and a second region, the fourth indirect transition type semiconductor portion comprises a third region and a fourth region, the third indirect transition type semiconductor portion and the fourth indirect transition type semiconductor portion are in contact with each other at the first region and the third region (Fig. 2 discloses electrical contact), an atomic arrangement is more irregular in the first region than in the second region, and an atomic arrangement is more irregular in the third region than in the fourth region (per specification of the instant application (paragraph 0066-0067) the irregularity in the atomic arrangement is due to the direct bonding process. Accordingly, this is product by process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695,698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted), MPEP §2113).
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 of this title, 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 5, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishima et al. (US 2023/0395745).
Regarding claim 5, Mishima et al. teach wherein: the first conductivity type is n-type, the second conductivity type is p-type (paragraph 0051, 0058), and the first concentration is higher than the fifth concentration (paragraph 0078 discloses the capability of varying the current concentration with the motivation to make it easier to diffuse current or suppress factors such as carrier overflow and Auger recombination that lower the light emission output. Accordingly, the concentration is an art recognized variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the concentration and arrive at the claimed limitation. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed concentration is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention).
Regarding claim 9, Mishima et al. teach a ridge in which at least a part of the fourth indirect transition type semiconductor portion and the fifth indirect transition type semiconductor portion are layered (Fig. 2), wherein: the third indirect transition type semiconductor portion is located below the ridge (Fig. 2, The exact positioning of the third indirect transition type semiconductor portion is a design choice that a person skilled in the art could set as appropriate taking into consideration efficiency of light trapping and the like. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 10, Mishima et al. teach a ridge in which at least a part of the fourth indirect transition type semiconductor portion and the fifth indirect transition type semiconductor portion are layered (Fig. 2), wherein: the third indirect transition type semiconductor portion is located below the ridge (Fig. 2, The exact positioning of the third indirect transition type semiconductor portion is a design choice that a person skilled in the art could set as appropriate taking into consideration efficiency of light trapping and the like. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Regarding claim 11, Mishima et al. teach wherein a width of the ridge increases from a side where the fifth indirect transition type semiconductor portion is located toward the first indirect transition type semiconductor portion (Fig. 2).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHED AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-3477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/SHAHED AHMED/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights