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 § 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 2020/203570) in view of Park (2015/090955) .
With respect to Claim 1, Chen et al discloses an infrared light emitting diode (LED) element (Figure 1) that can emit infrared light having a peak wavelength of 1000 nm to 2000 nm (paragraph 5), the infrared LED element comprising: a support substrate (Figure 1, 102) having conductivity; and a semiconductor laminate (paragraph 21) disposed on an upper layer of the support substrate and includes a material that can be lattice matched with indium phosphide (InP) paragraphs 20-22), wherein the semiconductor laminate includes: a first semiconductor layer (Figure 1, 116, 114) disposed on a side closest to the support substrate and indicating a first conductivity type; an active layer (Figure 1, 112) disposed on an upper layer of the first semiconductor layer; a second semiconductor layer (Figure 1, 106, 104) disposed on an upper layer of the active layer an indicating a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type; and a third semiconductor layer (Figure 1, 106, 104) disposed on an upper layer of the second semiconductor layer and including (AlGaInAs) (paragraph 40) indicating the second conductivity type, the third semiconductor layer has an uneven part (Figure 1, 104) on a surface opposite to a side on which the second semiconductor layer is positioned. See Figures 1-2 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 21-55.
Chen et al differs from the Claims at hand in that Chen et al do not disclose “the third semiconductor layer has band gap energy lower than band gap energy of the second semiconductor layer and higher than band gap energy of the active layer”.
Park et al discloses a similar LED device and discloses that charge injection to the active layer is optimized using a second semiconductor layer (Figures 1 and 3, 180) having a bandgap energy larger than that of the active layer (Figure 1 and 3, 130) and the third semiconductor layer (Figures 1 and 3, 150), , wherein the bandgap energy of the third semiconductor layer is also larger than that of the active layer (Figure 3). See Figures 1 and 3, and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 54-58.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the bandgap energies as disclosed by Park et al, in the device of Chen et al, for its known benefit of improving the charge injection to the active layer, and improving the performance of the device. The use of known bandgap energy levels, for their known benefit, would have been prima facie to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 2, Chen et al disclose wherein the second semiconductor layer includes indium phosphide (InP). See paragraph 43 of Chen et al.
With respect to Claim 3, and the limitation “wherein the third semiconductor layer has a thickness of 1 to 5 microns”, changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 327 (CCPA 1955) .
With respect to Claim 4, Chen et al disclose a first electrode (Figure 1, 122) disposed in contact with part of an upper surface of the third semiconductor layer , wherein the third semiconductor layer has a dopant concentration higher than a dopant concentration of the second semiconductor layer and is 5 x 10(17)/cm3 or more. See paragraphs 45-46 of Chen et al.
With respect to Claim 5, Chen et al discloses wherein the second semiconductor layer has a dopant concentration of 5 x 10(17)/cm3 or more, and the third semiconductor layer has a dopant concentration of is 1 x 10(18)/cm3 or more. See paragraphs 45-46 of Chen et al.
With respect to Claim 6, Chen et al discloses further comprising a second electrode (paragraph 48) disposed on a surface of the support substrate, the surface being opposite to a surface on which the semiconductor laminate is disposed (paragraph 48); and a reflection layer including a conductive material and disposed between the support substrate and the semiconductor laminate (paragraphs 50-55).
With respect to Claim 7, the combined references make obvious the limitation “wherein the second semiconductor layer has band gap energy of 1.1 times or more band energy of the active layer”, as 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. Moreover, the 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 Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 8, the combined references make obvious the limitation “ wherein the uneven part formed on a surface of the third semiconductor layer has a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.25 to 1.0”, as 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. Moreover, the 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 Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 9, and the limitation “wherein the third semiconductor layer has a thickness of 1 to 5 microns”, changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 327 (CCPA 1955) .
With respect to Claim 10, Chen et al disclose a first electrode (Figure 1, 122) disposed in contact with part of an upper surface of the third semiconductor layer , wherein the third semiconductor layer has a dopant concentration higher than a dopant concentration of the second semiconductor layer and is 5 x 10(17)/cm3 or more. See paragraphs 45-46 of Chen et al.
With respect to Claim 11, Chen et al discloses wherein the second semiconductor layer has a dopant concentration of 5 x 10(17)/cm3 or more, and the third semiconductor layer has a dopant concentration of is 1 x 10(18)/cm3 or more. See paragraphs 45-46 of Chen et al.
With respect to Claim 12, Chen et al discloses further comprising a second electrode (paragraph 48) disposed on a surface of the support substrate, the surface being opposite to a surface on which the semiconductor laminate is disposed (paragraph 48); and a reflection layer including a conductive material and disposed between the support substrate and the semiconductor laminate (paragraphs 50-55).
With respect to Claim 13, the combined references make obvious the limitation “wherein the second semiconductor layer has band gap energy of 1.1 times or more band energy of the active layer”, as 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. Moreover, the 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 Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 14, the combined references make obvious the limitation “ wherein the uneven part formed on a surface of the third semiconductor layer has a surface roughness (Ra) of 0.25 to 1.0”, as 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. Moreover, the 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 Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
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
August 15, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights