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.
Claim 1 recites “a p-electrode formed on and in contact with the p-type layer and having a reflectance of 50% or more for ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength; and”. It is unclear what the range of “an emission wavelength” is.
For purposes of compact prosecution (see ¶ 0039 of the pending application), that portion of Claim 1 will be interpreted to instead recite “a p-electrode formed on and in contact with the p-type layer and having a reflectance of 50% or more of the [[for]] ultraviolet light emitted from the light emitting layer [[with an emission wavelength]]; and”.
Claims 2-13 include all of the limitations of Claim 1 and do not clarify the ambiguity discussed supra. Therefore, they fall under the same rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the reflective layer has a reflectance of 50% or more for ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength of the light emitting element, and”. It is unclear what the range of “an emission wavelength” is.
For purposes of compact prosecution (see ¶ 0079 and 0088 of the pending application), that portion of Claim 7 will be interpreted to instead recite “wherein the reflective layer has a reflectance of 50% or more of the [[for]] ultraviolet light emitted from [[with an emission wavelength of]] the light emitting element, and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
In addition, Claim 7 recites the limitation "the side end surface” in the last subparagraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 also recites “the reflective layer is formed in a region of at least 0 μm to 500 μm outward from the side end surface of the light emitting element, in a plan view”. If the reflective layer is formed in a region of 0 μm then it doesn’t exist.
For purposes of compact prosecution (see ¶ 0099 of the pending application), that portion of Claim 7 will be interpreted to instead recite “the reflective layer is formed in a region of [[at least 0 μm to]] 500 μm or less outward from --a-- [[the]] side end surface of the light emitting element, in a plan view”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the reflective layer is formed in an entire region of 0 μm or more outward from the side end surface of the light emitting element”. If the reflective layer is formed in a region of 0 μm then it doesn’t exist.
For purposes of compact prosecution, that portion of Claim 8 will be interpreted to instead recite “wherein the reflective layer is formed in an entirety of the region [[entire region of 0 μm or more outward from the side end surface of the light emitting element]]”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites “a reflectance of 50% or more for ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength of the light emitting element”. It is unclear what the range of “an emission wavelength” is.
For purposes of compact prosecution (see ¶ 0079 and 0088 of the pending application), that portion of Claim 10 will be interpreted to instead recite “wherein the reflective layer has a reflectance of 50% or more of the [[for]] ultraviolet light emitted from [[with an emission wavelength of]] the light emitting element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “a reflectance of 90% or more for ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength of the light emitting element”. It is unclear what the range of “an emission wavelength” is.
For purposes of compact prosecution (see ¶ 0079, 0088, and 0096 of the pending application), that portion of Claim 11 will be interpreted to instead recite “a reflectance of 90% or more of the [[for]] ultraviolet light emitted from [[with an emission wavelength of]] the light emitting element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites twice (in the second and third subparagraphs) “a reflectance of 50% or more for ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength of the light emitting element”. It is unclear what the range of “an emission wavelength” is.
For purposes of compact prosecution (see ¶ 0079, 0088, and 0096 of the pending application), that portion of Claim 12 will be interpreted to instead recite “a reflectance of 50% or more of the [[for]] ultraviolet light emitted from [[with an emission wavelength of]] the light emitting element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the side end surface” in the fourth subparagraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
In addition, Claim 14 recites “a reflectance of 50% or more for ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength of the light emitting element”. It is unclear what the range of “an emission wavelength” is.
For purposes of compact prosecution (see ¶ 0079, 0088, and 0096 of the pending application), that portion of Claim 14 will be interpreted to instead recite “a reflectance of 50% or more of the [[for]] ultraviolet light emitted from [[with an emission wavelength of]] the light emitting element”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 also recites “the reflective layer is formed in a region of at least 0 μm to 500 μm outward from the side end surface of the light emitting element, in a plan view”. If the reflective layer is formed in a region of 0 μm then it doesn’t exist.
For purposes of compact prosecution (see ¶ 0099 of the pending application), that portion of Claim 14 will be interpreted to instead recite “the reflective layer is formed in a region of [[at least 0 μm to]] 500 μm or less outward from the side end surface of the light emitting element, in a plan view”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art does not teach or render obvious a p-electrode formed on and in contact with the p-type layer and having a reflectance of 50% or more for ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength; the area of the p-electrode is 0.75 mm2 or more, and in the combination as claimed.
Claims 2-13 include all of the limitations of allowable Claim 1. Therefore, they are also allowable.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art does not teach or render obvious a part of the frontside electrode layer is formed outside the side end surface of the light emitting element, in a plan view; the reflective layer has a reflectance of 50% or more for ultraviolet light with an emission wavelength of the light emitting element, and in the combination as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saito et al., US 2022/0231189, discloses a light emitting element using a group III nitride semiconductor containing Al that has a substrate, an n-type layer, a light emitting layer, a p-type layer, a p-electrode formed in contact with the p-type layer, and an n-electrode formed on the n-type layer. Shibata, US 2019/0393381, discloses a light emitting element using a group III nitride semiconductor containing Al and having an emission wavelength of 200 nm to 280 nm that has a substrate, an n-type layer, a light emitting layer, a p-type layer, a p-electrode formed in contact with the p-type layer, and an n-electrode formed on the n-type layer. Saito, US 2017/0069793, discloses a light emitting element using a group III nitride semiconductor containing Al and having an emission wavelength of 200 nm to 280 nm that has a substrate, an n-type layer, a light emitting layer, a p-type layer, a p-electrode formed in contact with the p-type layer, and an n-electrode formed on the n-type layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rose Keagy whose telephone number is (571) 270-3455. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm (CT).
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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.
/R.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/Jami Valentine Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
