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 § 102
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 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) 1-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taki et al. (US 2006/0169990).
With regard to claim 1, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, a light emitting device (10), comprising: a first window layer (3) doped with a first conductivity type dopant, a second window layer (5) doped with a second conductivity type dopant, and an active layer (4) disposed between the first window layer and the second window layer to generate light, wherein the active layer includes at least two quantum barrier layers (4111), at least one quantum well layer (43), and an aid layer (42) disposed between the quantum well layer and the quantum barrier layer ([0044]-[0045]).
With regard to claim 2, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that an energy band gap of the aid layer is smaller than that of the quantum barrier layer and larger than that of the quantum well layer (see Fig 1 and [0044]).
With regard to claim 3, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that the quantum barrier layer and the aid layer include Al and Ga, and wherein an Al composition of the aid layer is smaller than that of the quantum barrier layer (see Fig 3 and [0044]).
With regard to claim 4, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that a gradient of an Al composition profile in the aid layer is different from that of a Ga composition profile (see Fig 3 and [0044]).
With regard to claim 5, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that a difference between the Al composition of the aid layer and the Al composition of the quantum barrier layer is 10% or more (see Fig 3 and [0044]).
With regard to claim 6, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that the aid layer has variable compositions of Al and Ga from an adjacent quantum well layer to an adjacent quantum barrier layer (see Fig 3 and [0044]).
With regard to claim 7, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that a difference between the Al composition and the Ga composition in the aid layer increases toward the adjacent quantum well layer (see Fig 3 and [0044]).
With regard to claim 9, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that a difference between an Al composition of the quantum well layer and the Al composition of the aid layer is greater than the difference between the Al composition of the quantum barrier layer and the Al composition of the aid layer (see Fig 3 and [0044]).
With regard to claim 10, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that the quantum well layer includes Ga, and a difference between a Ga composition of the quantum well layer and the Ga composition of the aid layer is smaller than a difference between a Ga composition of the quantum barrier layer and the Ga composition of the aid layer (see Fig 3 and [0044]).
With regard to claim 11, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that the active layer includes a plurality of stacked quantum structures, and the quantum structure is a structure where the quantum well layer, the aid layer, and the quantum barrier layer are sequentially stacked (see Fig 2).
With regard to claim 12, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that the aid layers are disposed between adjacent each quantum well layer and each quantum barrier layer (see Fig 2).
With regard to claim 13, Taki teaches, in Figs 1-3, that the active layer includes a plurality of stacked quantum structures, and the quantum structure is a structure where the aid layer, the quantum well layer, the aid layer, and the quantum barrier layer are sequentially stacked (see Fig 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taki et al. (US 2006/0169990) in view of Konno et al. (US 2010/0252849).
With regard to claim 8, Taki teaches most of the limitations of this claim as set forth above with regard to claim 7.
Taki does not explicitly teach that the active layer emits red light.
Konno teaches that the active layer emits red light ([0079]), “to form the light-emitting element 1 emitting the light in a predetermined wavelength range by controlling a structure of the active layer,” ([0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Taki with the emission color of Konno to achieve a predetermined wavelength range.
With regard to claim 14, Taki teaches most of the limitations of this claim as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Taki does not explicitly teach a first layer disposed between the first window layer and the active layer to prevent holes or electrons from diffusing from the active layer to the first window layer, and a second layer disposed between the second window layer and the active layer to prevent holes or electrons from diffusing from the active layer to the second window layer.
Konno teaches, in Fig 3, a first layer (270) disposed between the first window layer (250) and the active layer (220) to prevent holes or electrons from diffusing from the active layer to the first window layer, and a second layer (272) disposed between the second window layer (10) and the active layer to prevent holes or electrons from diffusing from the active layer to the second window layer to, “suppresses diffusion,” ([0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Taki with the additional layers of Konno to suppress diffusion.
With regard to claim 15, Konno teaches, in Fig 3, a first clad layer (230) disposed between the first window layer and the active layer, and a second clad layer (210) disposed between the second window layer and the active layer.
With regard to claim 16, Konno teaches, in Fig 3, that the first clad layer is disposed between the first window layer and the first layer, and the second clad layer is disposed between the second window layer and the second layer (see figure).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taki et al. (US 2006/0169990) in view of Eum et al. (US 2015/0332918).
With regard to claim 17, Taki teaches most of the limitations of this claim as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Taki does not explicitly teach that one surface of the first window layer is a light exiting surface through which light is emitted, and irregularities are formed on the light exiting surface.
Eum teaches, in Fig 11, that one surface (top surface) of the first window layer (17) is a light exiting surface through which light is emitted ([0162]), and irregularities (33) are formed on the light exiting surface, “thus enhancing light extraction efficiency and ultimately enhancing light efficiency,” ([0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the effective time of filing to combine the device of Taki with the light extraction structure of Eum to enhance light extraction efficiency and light efficiency.
With regard to claim 18, Taki teaches most of the limitations of this claim as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Taki does not explicitly teach that the active layer includes a plurality of intersection points CPs where an Al composition profile and a Ga composition profile intersect.
Eum teaches, in Figs 1-2D, that the active layer (13) includes a plurality of intersection points CPs (not labeled, but shown in Figs 2A-2D) where an Al composition profile and a Ga composition profile intersect, “to prevent a crack from occurring,” ([0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Taki with the composition profiling of Eum to prevent cracking.
With regard to claim 19, Eum teaches, in Figs 1-2D, that with respect to a virtual line L connecting the plurality of intersection points CPs, a vertical distance between the Al composition profile and the virtual line L in the quantum barrier layer (7, 11) is greater than a vertical distance between the Ga composition profile and the virtual line L (see figures).
With regard to claim 20, Eum teaches, in Figs 1-2D, that with respect to the virtual line L connecting the plurality of intersection points CPs, a vertical distance between the Al composition profile and the virtual line L in the quantum well layer (9) is smaller than a vertical distance between the Ga composition profile and the virtual line L (see figures).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
