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 office action is in response to the Applicant Election filled on 07/16/2026. Currently, claims 22-42 are pending in the application. Claims 22-35 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 36-42, in the reply filed on 07/16/2026 is acknowledged, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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 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 36-37 and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bour et al (US 20170170360 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Figure 18 of Bour discloses an optoelectronic device, comprising:
a first doped carrier transport [(Al.sub.xGa.sub.1-x).sub.yIn.sub.1-y].sub.zP.sub.1-z layer with x in a range of [0;0.5] (104, n-type AlGaInP, doped with Si, [0130]);
an active region (108, [0129]) arranged on the first doped carrier transport layer, the active region configured to generate radiation and comprising a plurality of alternating [(Al.sub.aGa.sub.1-a).sub.bIn.sub.1-b].sub.cP.sub.1-c quantum well layers (107, [0130] and [0143] ) and [(Al.sub.aGa.sub.1-d).sub.eIn.sub.1-e}.sub.fP.sub.1-f barrier layers (109, [0130] and [0143]), wherein a is in a range of [0;0.5] and d is in a range of [0.45;1.0]; and
a second doped carrier transport [(Al.sub.xGa.sub.1-x).sub.yIn.sub.1-y].sub.zP.sub.1-z layer ([0130] and [0151]) arranged on the active region with x in a range of [0;0.5], wherein at least one of the plurality of quantum well layers and/or the barrier layers comprise a dopant having a concentration in a range of 1e.sup.17 atoms/cm.sup.3 to 5e.sup.18 atoms/cm.sup.3 and with the dopant selected from at least one of the group consisting of Mg, Zn, Te and Si ([0152]).
Bour does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of quantum well layers and/or the barrier layers comprise a dopant having a concentration in a range of 1e.sup.15 atoms/cm.sup.3 to 5e.sup.17 atoms/cm.sup.3 and with the dopant selected from at least one of the group consisting of Mg, Zn, Te and Si.
However, Bour teaches that the dopant concentration is 1×10.sup.17 cm.sup.−3-1×10.sup.18 cm.sup.−3 ([0152]). Thus, it is to be noted here that the claimed range and the range taught by Baur overlaps each other. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 37, Figure 18 of Bour does not explicitly teach that the optoelectronic device according to claim 36, wherein the active region comprises between 3 and 30 quantum well layers, inclusive, whereas the quantum well layers each comprise a thickness between 2 nm und 15 nm, inclusive and the quantum barrier layers each comprise a thickness between 3 nm und 25 nm, inclusive.
However, Bour teaches that the active layer 108 may include a plurality of quantum well layers 107 and a plurality of quantum barrier layer 109. The intermixed region (e.g. 1802, 1902, etc.) may have a higher bandgap than each of the plurality of quantum well layers 107 ([0142]) and a thickness of the one or more quantum well layers 107 is reduced in order to facilitate intermixing. A thinner quantum well layer 107 may undergo a larger energy shift for a given intermixing distance. A thinner quantum well layer 107 may additionally allow for a lower dopant concentration in the dopant wells 1801, doped regions 1901. In an embodiment, the quantum well layer(s) 107 are thinner than each of the quantum barrier layers 109. In an embodiment, the quantum well layer(s) 107 each have a thickness between 2-8 nm, or more specifically 2-5 nm, such as 4 nm ([0144]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges in order to form an optoelectronic device with increased efficiency ([0080]) since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 39, Figure 18 of Bour explicitly teaches that the optoelectronic device according to claim 36, wherein at least some of the plurality of barrier layers comprise different Al content with respect to each other, wherein an Al content within each barrier layer is constant, and/or wherein a minimum and a maximum Al content between the different layers within the active region is different by a factor in a range of 1.1 to 3.5 ([0130], [0134] and [0146]).
Regarding claim 40, Figure 18 of Bour explicitly teaches that the optoelectronic device according to claim 36, wherein the dopant in the active region extends over a plurality of alternating quantum well layers and barrier layers (1801 extending, [0132] and [0134]).
Regarding claim 41, Figure 18 of Bour explicitly teaches that the optoelectronic device according to claim 36, further comprising a quantum well intermixed area (1801) having a dopant concentration larger than a dopant concentration in a non-intermixed area, wherein the dopant comprises Zn ([0132] and [0134]).
Regarding claim 42, Figure 18 of Bour explicitly teaches that the optoelectronic device according to claim 41, wherein the quantum well intermixed area (1801) is adjacent to an edge interface of the optoelectronic device ([0132] and [0134]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bour et al (US 20170170360 A1) in view of Hiroyama et al (US 20070069221 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Figure 18 of Bour does not teach that the optoelectronic device according to claim 36, further comprising: a layer with a decreasing dopant concentration arranged between at least one of the first doped carrier transport layer and the active region; and/or a layer with an increasing dopant concentration arranged between the active region and the second doped carrier transport layer.
However, Hiroyama is a pertinent art which teaches a semiconductor laser diode capable of further improving temperature characteristics while sufficiently preventing a laser beam emission end surface portion from thermal destruction through a window structure is obtained. This semiconductor laser diode comprises an active layer having a window structure on a laser beam emission end surface portion and a p-type layer, formed on the surface of the active layer, containing Mg and Zn as impurities. The impurity concentration of Zn contained in the p-type layer is larger than the impurity concentration of Mg contained in the p-type layer ([0011]). Hiroyama teaches that it was possible to increase the carrier concentration in the p-type cladding layer 5 by doping the same not only with Zn but also with Mg, whereby it was conceivably possible to increase a band discontinuity value between the active layer 4 and the p-type cladding layer 5 on the side of a conduction band. Thus, it was possible to inhibit electrons supplied to the active layer 4 from thermally overflowing into the p-type cladding layer 5, thereby conceivably preventing the light output value from reduction with respect to the prescribed current value under a high temperature ([0072]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a layer with a decreasing dopant concentration arranged between at least one of the first doped carrier transport layer and the active region; and/or a layer with an increasing dopant concentration arranged between the active region and the second doped carrier transport layer in the device of Bour according to the teaching of Hiroyama in order to improve temperature characteristics ([0009] of Hiroyama).
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, 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.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights