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 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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Independent Claims 1 and 11 cite a ratio of thickness to current density, but do not cite the measurement units used to calculate the ratio. Differing ratios would result using different measurement units. As the metes and bounds of the claims are not set forth, the claims are properly rejected as being indefinite. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected as being dependent on rejected independent Claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al (CN 115548187A).
With respect to Claim 1, Gao et al discloses a light emitting device comprising an epitaxial unit having a first surface and a second surface that are opposite to each other, and including a first semiconductor layer, an active layer and a second semiconductor layer (Abstract, Figure 2 and corresponding text) that are disposed sequentially in such order in a direction from said first surface to said second surface, said active layer including a quantum well structure that has n periodic units, each of which includes a well layer and a barrier layer that are sequentially disposed (page 3, lines 1-20), said second semiconductor layer including a cladding layer (Figure 2, 105) and a current spreading layer (Figure 2, 106). Moreover, Gao et al disclose overlapping thicknesses of the current spreading layer (page 9, lines 1-10), current densities (page 6, last 20 lines) and optimization of the ratio to improve efficiency of the light emitting device (page 2, last 20 lines).
Gao et al do not explicitly disclose “wherein a ratio of a thickness of said current spreading layer to a current density of said light-emitting device ranges from 0.6 to 4”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed ratio as where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Moreover, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Furthermore, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
With respect to Claims 2-10, Gao et al discloses overlapping ranges of ratios, thicknesses and current densities as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, Gao et al discloses overlapping ranges of units, and doping concentrations. See page 3, lines 1-10 and page 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed ratio as where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Moreover, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Furthermore, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
With respect to Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, Gao et al discloses the use of a driving unit. See last 20 lines of page 3.
With respect to Claims 12-20, Claims 12-20 are rejected for the reasons as discussed above with respect to Claims 2-10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
June 25, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights