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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A (Fig. 1) in the reply filed on 7/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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(s) 1-8 is/are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “two adjacent extended parts” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited plurality of extended parts.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the peripheral portion of the substrate” is unclear because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the extended parts” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited plurality of extended parts and the previously recited “two adjacent extended parts.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the exposed portion includes a first exposed portion positioned between two adjacent extended parts and a second exposed portion disposed in the peripheral portion of the substrate and connected to the first exposed portion in a top view,” is unclear as to if the first exposed portion is positioned between “two adjacent extended parts and a second exposed portion” or is merely positioned between positioned between “two adjacent extended parts.” It is further unclear as to which of the preceding limitations is required to be “in a top view.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the p-electrode is positioned between the extended parts and the first exposed portion in a top view,” is unclear because it appears to require the p-electrode to be between at least three other elements, however “between” is understood to be an indication of a position relative to only two other elements.
Regarding claim 1, the second recitation of “a top view” is unclear as to how it is related to the first recitation.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “three or more extended parts” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited plurality of extended parts, “two adjacent extended parts,” and “the extended parts.”
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the first exposed portions are individually provided between two adjacent extended parts,” is unclear as to how it is related to previous singular recitation of “first exposed portion.”
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “two adjacent extended parts” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited plurality of extended parts, “two adjacent extended parts,” and “the extended parts.”
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “a top view” is unclear as to how it is related to previous recitations of “a top view.”
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the semiconductor structure is singular,” is unclear as to what is required. Specifically, “singular” is defined as “being only one,” however it is unclear what is meant by a recitation of “structure” (singular) is modified to be “only one.” It is further noted that applicant defines “single” in the specification, and it is unclear as to how “singular” is related to “single” as defined by the specification.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the lateral faces of the n-side semiconductor layer and the lateral faces of the active layer that are adjacent to the exposed portion in a top view,” is unclear because “the lateral faces” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. “[A] top view” is further unclear as to how it is related to previous recitations of “a top view.”
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the main component” is unclear because it lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 10090440; herein “Liu”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses in Fig. 2A/B (including similar features shown in association with Fig. 1A-D) and related text a light emitting element comprising:
a substrate (101);
a semiconductor structure (102 of 111 or 112, see col. 7 para. 2) disposed on the substrate and including successively from the substrate side an n-side semiconductor layer (102a), an active layer (102b), and a p-side semiconductor layer (102c) (see col. 3 para. 2);
a p-electrode (105, see col. 4 para. 2) disposed on and electrically connected to the p-side semiconductor layer; and
an n-electrode (104, see col. 4 para. 2) disposed on and electrically connected to the n-side semiconductor layer, wherein:
the n-electrode includes a base and a plurality of extended parts extending from the base (see Fig. 2A/B);
the substrate includes an exposed portion (101 at 103, see col. 7 para. 3 through col. 8 para. 1) exposed from the semiconductor structure;
the exposed portion includes a first exposed portion (e.g. at least a portion of 101 at 103 between first 104b and second 104b, see Fig. 2A/B) and positioned between two adjacent extended parts and a second exposed portion (e.g. portion outside of P1/P2/P3/P4, see Fig. 2A/B) disposed in the peripheral portion of the substrate and connected to the first exposed portion in a top view; and
the p-electrode is positioned between the extended parts and the first exposed portion in a top view (e.g. at least a portion of 105 is between 104b and a portion of 101 at 103 between first and second 104b).
Regarding claim 2, Liu further discloses
the n-electrode includes three or more extended parts (note that one can arbitrarily choose parts which extend from, e.g. 104a, to read on “extended parts”); and
the first exposed portions are individually provided between two adjacent extended parts (see Fig. 2A/B).
Regarding claim 3, Liu further discloses the second exposed portion (portion outside of P1/P2/P3/P4, see Fig. 2A/B) surrounds the semiconductor structure in a top view.
Regarding claim 4, Liu further discloses wherein the semiconductor structure (102 of 111 or 112) is singular.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. (a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu.
Regarding claims 5-6, Liu further discloses
the active layer and the n-side semiconductor layer include a semiconductor layer made of AlGaN having an Al composition ratio of 30% or higher (see col. 3 para. 2 through col. 4 para. 1 and col. 2 para. 4);
wherein the peak emission wavelength of the light from the active layer is 250 nm to 330 nm (see col. 3 para. 2 through col. 4 para. 1 and col. 2 para. 4 and note that the wavelength is a function of the material).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the Al composition and the resulting emission wavelength to be a result effective variable affecting the electrical characteristics of the device, the color of light emitted, and the power consumption of the device. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Liu to have the Al composition and the corresponding emission wavelength within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired color and electrical properties, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Iwakura (US 20220026043; herein “Iwakura”).
Regarding claims 7-8, Liu discloses a light emitting device comprising a light emitting element according to claim 1 (see rejection above) but does not explicitly disclose
a cover member covering at least the lateral faces of the n-side semiconductor layer and the lateral faces of the active layer that are adjacent to the exposed portion in a top view;
wherein the main component of the cover member is an inorganic material.
In the same field of endeavor, Iwakura teaches in Fig. 4B and related text a light emitting device comprising
a cover member (24, see [0052]) covering at least the lateral faces of the n-side semiconductor layer and the lateral faces of the active layer that are adjacent to the exposed portion in a top view (see [0048]);
wherein the main component of the cover member is an inorganic material (see [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu by having a cover member covering at least the lateral faces of the n-side semiconductor layer and the lateral faces of the active layer that are adjacent to the exposed portion in a top view; wherein the main component of the cover member is an inorganic material, as taught by Iwakura, in order to provide protection to the device and to improve light extraction by providing light extraction materials therein (see (0053]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights