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 .
Election/Restriction
Pursuant to the election without traverse on August 26, 2026, non-elected claims 27-41 are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enzmann, DE 102017122325 A1, and its corresponding US publication, US 2020/0227602 A1, in view of Iguchi, US 2021/0005583 A1. As both the German and US versions of Enzmann have the same content, the rejection is over either, but the references will be to the US publication.
Claim 24: Enzmann discloses
a semiconductor layer stack (2) comprising a first semiconductor layer (22) of a first conductivity type, an active zone (20), and a second semiconductor layer (21) of a second conductivity type (“semiconductor body 2 comprises a first semiconductor region 21 and a second semiconductor region 22, wherein the first semiconductor region and the second semiconductor region are different from one another with respect of the charge type” [0057]),
wherein the optoelectronic semiconductor device is configured to emit generated electromagnetic radiation via a first main surface (top) of the first semiconductor layer,
and wherein a lateral width z of the active zone is smaller than a smallest lateral width c of the first and the second semiconductor layers (FIG. 2);
separating elements arranged adjacent to the semiconductor layer stack, the separating elements vertically extending along the semiconductor layer stack:
PNG
media_image1.png
598
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that although Enzmann only discloses a single separating element, it is obvious to have duplication of parts. MPEP 2144.04(VI). It would have been obvious to have additional light emitting elements with additional separating elements between them.
Claim 24 also recites portions of a metal layer arranged on a side of the first semiconductor layer facing away from the active zone and arranged at positions of the separating elements. This is not disclosed by Enzmann, explicitly by Enzmann; however, see Iguchi, which discloses a metal layer 34 arranged on a side of the first semiconductor layer (top) facing away from the active zone and arranged at positions of the separating elements (FIG. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Enzmann discloses that “The segments 20A, 20B can each be externally electrically contacted independently of one another via assigned contacts 5.” Enzmann [0062]. Iguchi discloses that “A partition wall 34 is disposed around the micro lens 40 in a direction parallel to the light emitting surface 101. The partition wall 34 has a reflection surface 34S that is inclined at an inclination angle θw so as to open in the light emission direction. In the present embodiment, the partition wall 34 is made of a material having high reflectivity (such as a metal material) and forms the reflection surface 34S around the micro lens 40. That is, the micro lenses 40 are independently provided for the pixels, and adjacent micro lenses 40 are separated by the partition wall 34.” [0048]. In the case of separate control of the light emitting elements, it would have been obvious to have used such metal layers to control the direction of each beam.
Claim 25: Enzmann does not disclose the width of the active zone, although o.3 of the smallest lateral width of the first semiconductor layer is consistent with the illustrations. However, changes in dimension are not a source of patentable distinction absent unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04. It would have been within ordinary skill in the art to determine the desired width, based on desired intensity, narrowness of the beam, etc.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enzmann in view of Iguchi and Camras, US 2005/0032257 A1. Enzmann discloses a lens (42) arranged above the first main surface of the first semiconductor layer. Enzmann does not disclose the focal point of the lens. Camras discloses that “[a]ctive layer 12 of LED die 4 is positioned to reduce the amount of light that experiences total internal reflection at surface 24. For example, active layer 12 may be distributed about the focal point of optical element 2.” [0052]. It would have been obvious to have had the focal point of the lens of Enzmann arranged at a position of the active zone in order to reduce total internal reflection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights