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 3 & 6-8 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the refractive index” three times. There are insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the thickness. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the thickness. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the thickness. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the 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 (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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KRAMES (US Pub. 2024/0222416) in view of HODOTA (US Pub. 2014/0175489).
Regarding claim 1, KRAMES teaches a face-up type ultraviolet light emitting device (Para [0251]) comprising:
an n-type layer (2105a-c) made of n-type group III nitride semiconductor (Fig. 21);
an active layer (2106a-c) formed on the n-type layer and made of group III nitride semiconductor (Fig. 21);
a p-type layer (2107a-c) formed on the active layer and made of p-type group III nitride semiconductor (Fig. 21); and
a p-side electrode 2108 formed on one part on the p-type layer 2107a (Fig. 21).
KRAMES is silent on an insulating anti-reflective layer formed on other part on the p-type layer, made of a material having insulating properties, and preventing reflection of ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength. However, HODOTA teaches an insulating anti-reflective layer 132 formed on other part on a p-type layer (124 and/or 125), made of a material having insulating properties, and preventing reflection of ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength (Fig. 2 and respective text, particularly Para [0041 & 0048], wherein HODOTA teaches silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide and magnesium fluoride as the insulating anti-reflective material). This has the advantages of reducing optical losses, preventing unwanted electrical conduction between the p-side electrode and other parts of the device, avoiding short circuits/parasitic current paths and allows for wavelength-specific optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of KRAMES with the insulating anti-reflective layer, as taught by HODOTA, so as to obtain an improved light emitting device.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of KRAMES and HODOTA teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising: a p-side transparent electrode 131 formed on and in contact with the p-type layer 125, and transmitting ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength, wherein the p-side electrode is formed on one part on the p-side transparent electrode, and the insulating anti-reflective layer is formed on other part on the p-side transparent electrode (KRAMES’s Fig. 21 and HODOTA’s Fig. 2 and associated texts).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of KRAMES and HODOTA teaches the light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the refractive index of the insulating anti-reflective layer 132 is set between the refractive index of the p-side transparent electrode 131 and the refractive index of air (KRAMES’s Fig. 21 and HODOTA’s Fig. 2 and associated texts (e.g. Para [0041 & 0048]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of KRAMES and HODOTA teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the insulating anti-reflective layer has a multilayer structure formed by depositing materials having different refractive indices (HODOTA’s Para [0013 & 0045-0046]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of KRAMES and HODOTA teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the insulating anti-reflective layer 132 contains at least one selected from a group consisting of Hf oxide, Zr oxide, Si oxide, Al oxide, and Mg fluoride (HODOTA’s Para [0041 & 0048]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of KRAMES and HODOTA teaches the light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the p-side transparent electrode is formed thinner than the thickness of the insulating anti-reflective layer (HODOTA’s Para [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of KRAMES and HODOTA teaches the light emitting device according to claim 2, wherein the thickness of the p-side transparent electrode is 20 nm or less (HODOTA’s Para [0039-0040]). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of KRAMES and HODOTA teaches the light emitting device according to claim 7, wherein the thickness of the insulating anti-reflective layer is 1 nm to 300 nm (HODOTA’s Para [0044]). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of KRAMES and HODOTA teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, wherein the p-type layer is made of GaN or AlGaN (KRAMES’ Fig. 21 & Para [0058], and HODOTA’s Para [0078 & 0085]).
Regarding claim 10, KRAMES teaches a face-up type ultraviolet light emitting device (Para [0251]), formed on a p-type layer (2107a-c, see Fig. 21). KRAMES is silent on an insulating anti-reflective layer, containing at least one selected from a group consisting of Hf oxide, Zr oxide, Si oxide, Al oxide, and Mg fluoride, and preventing reflectance of ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength. However, HODOTA teaches an insulating anti-reflective layer 132, containing at least one selected from a group consisting of Hf oxide, Zr oxide, Si oxide, Al oxide, and Mg fluoride , and preventing reflectance of ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength (Fig. 21 and Para [0041 & 0048]). This has the advantages of reducing optical losses, preventing unwanted electrical conduction between the p-side electrode and other parts of the device, avoiding short circuits/parasitic current paths and allows for wavelength-specific optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of KRAMES with the insulating anti-reflective layer, as taught by HODOTA, so as to obtain an improved light emitting device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights