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 Objections
Claims 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 3, line 1, the phrase “The method of claim 2” should be changed to
-- The method of claim 1--.
In Claim 10, line 1, the phrase “The method of claim 8” should be changed
to -- The method of claim 1--.
In Claim 11, line 1, the phrase “The method of claim 8” should be changed
to -- The method of claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation " the p doped barrier layers are doped with Mg " in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 9-11, 13 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,146 (Pezeshki et al) in view of David et al (US Patent No. 9,677,723).
Instant Application No. 18/925,548 (Claim 1)
US Patent No. 12,132,146 (Claims 1, 6 and 10)
A method of operating a GaN based LED, comprising:
applying a current with a data rate of 1.5 Gb/s or greater to the LED, the LED having cross-sectional width no greater than 20 micrometers, the current having a magnitude
greater than a current that provides a current density of 1000 Amperes/centimeter²
to the LED, the LED having an optical bandwidth of at least 3 dB for the applied current.
A method of operating a GaN based LED, comprising:
applying a current with a data rate of 1.5 Gb/s or greater to the LED, the LED having cross-sectional width no greater than 20 micrometers,
the LED having an optical bandwidth of at least 3 dB for the applied current (i.e., see Claims 1, 6 and 10 of US Patent No. 12,132,146).
Pezeshki et al differs from claim 1 in that he fails to specifically teach the current having a magnitude greater than a current that provides a current density of 1000 Amperes/centimeter² to the LED. However, David et al in US Patent No. 9,677,723 teaches the current having a magnitude greater than a current that provides a current density of 1000 Amperes/centimeter² to the LED (i.e., Figure 43, col. 29, lines 44-67). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the current having a magnitude greater than a current that provides a current density of 1000 Amperes/centimeter² to the LED as taught by David et al in the system of Pezeshki et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing improving the quality of light and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pezeshki et al and David et al teaches
wherein the data rate is 2.0 Gb/s or greater (i.e., see Claim 6 of US Patent No. 12,132,146).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pezeshki et al and David et al teaches
wherein the p doped barrier layers are doped with Mg (i.e., see Claims 1 and 8 of US Patent No. 12,132,146).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Pezeshki et al and David et al teaches wherein the LED has 5 quantum well layers and 5 barrier layers, and a first two of the barrier layers closest to the p-type GaN layer are not p doped (i.e., see Claims 1 and 9 of US Patent No. 12,132,146).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pezeshki et al and David et al teaches wherein the LED has 5 quantum well layers and 5 barrier layers, and a first three of the barrier layers closest to the n type GaN layer are not p doped (i.e., see Claims 1 and 20 of US Patent No. 12,132,146).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pezeshki et al and David et al teaches wherein the LED has a cross-sectional area between 16 and 400 micrometers², inclusive (i.e., see Claim 10 of US Patent No. 12,132,146).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pezeshki et al and David et al teaches wherein the LED has a cross-sectional area between 64 and 256 micrometers², inclusive (i.e., see Claim 11 of US Patent No. 12,132,146).
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Khatibzadeh et al (Pub. No.: US 2020/0303588) in view of Wang et al (Pub. No.: US 2014/0008607) and further in view of David et al (US Patent No. 9,677,723).
Regarding claim 1, referring to Figure 1, Khatibzadeh et al teaches a method of operating a GaN based LED, comprising:
applying a current with a data rate of 1 Gb/s or greater to the LED
(i.e., LED array, Fig. 1), the LED having cross- sectional width no greater than 100 micrometers (i.e., Figure 1, page 2, paragraph [0012], page 4, paragraphs [0033]-[0034], page 9, paragraph [0147], and page 17, paragraph [0195]).
Khatibzadeh et al differs from claim 1 in that he fails to specifically teach
the LED having an optical bandwidth of at least 3 dB for the applied current.
However, Wang et al in Pub. No.: US 2014/0008607 teaches the LED having an optical bandwidth of at least 3 dB for the applied current (i.e., Figures 2 and 3, page 2, paragraph [0022], page 3, paragraphs [0031]-[0039], page 4, paragraph
[0040], and page 5, paragraph [0056]). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the LED having an optical bandwidth of at least 3 dB for the applied
current as taught by Wang et al in the system of Khatibzadeh et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the error signal and improving the performance of the system.
The combination of Khatibzadeh et al and Wang et al differs from claim 1 in that it fails to specifically teach the current having a magnitude greater than a current that provides a current density of 1000 Amperes/centimeter² to the LED. However, David et al in US Patent No. 9,677,723 teaches the current having a magnitude greater than a current that provides a current density of 1000 Amperes/centimeter² to the LED (i.e., Figure 43, col. 29, lines 44-67). Based on this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the current having a magnitude greater than a current that provides a current density of 1000 Amperes/centimeter² to the LED as taught by David et al in the system of Khatibzadeh et al and Wang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing improving the quality of light and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Khatibzadeh et al, Wang et al, and David et al teaches wherein the data rate is 2.0 Gb/s or greater (i.e., Fig. 1 of Khatibzadeh et al).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Khatibzadeh et al, Wang et al, and David et al teaches wherein the p doped barrier layers are doped with Mg (i.e., Figs. 2 and 3 of Wang et al, page 3, paragraphs [0031]-[0039], page 4, paragraph
[0040]).
Claims 10, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Khatibzadeh et al (Pub. No.: US 2020/0303588) and Wang et al (Pub. No.: US 2014/0008607) in view of David et al (US Patent No. 9,677,723) and further in view of Broell et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0126164).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Khatibzadeh et al, Wang et
al, and David et al differs from claims 10 in that it fails to specifically teach the
LED has 5 quantum well layers and 5 barrier layers, and a first two of the
barrier layers closest to the p-type GaN layer are not p doped. However,
Broell et al in PUB. No.: US 2021/0126164 teaches the LED has 5 quantum
well layers and 5 barrier layers, and a first two of the barrier layers closest
to the p-type GaN layer are not p doped (i.e., Figs. 12A-12D, 13A-13C and
14, page 1, paragraphs [0003]-[0005], page 13, paragraph [0126], page 16,
paragraphs [0154]-[0155], page 17, paragraphs [0156]-[0163], page 18,
paragraphs [0164]-[0166], and page 22, paragraph [0193]). Based on this
teaching, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to incorporate the LED has 5 quantum well
layers and 5 barrier layers, and a first two of the barrier layers closest to the
p-type GaN layer are not p doped as taught by Broell et al in the system of
the combination of Khatibzadeh et al, Wang et al, and David et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this since allowing reducing the error signal and improving the performance of the system.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Khatibzadeh et al, Wang et al, David et al, and Broell et al teaches wherein the LED has 5 quantum well layers and 5 barrier layers, and a first three of the barrier layers closest to the n type GaN layer are not p doped (i.e., Figs. 12A-12D, 13A-13C and 14 of Broell et al).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Khatibzadeh et al, Wang et al, David et al, and Broell et al teaches wherein the LED has a cross-sectional area between 16 and 400 micrometers², inclusive (i.e., Figs. 2 and 3 of Wang et al).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Khatibzadeh et al, Wang et al, David et al, and Broell et al teaches wherein the LED has a cross-sectional area between 64 and 256 micrometers², inclusive (i.e., Figs. 2 and 3 of Wang et al).
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yin et al (US Patent No. 10,840,408) discloses enhanced efficiency of LED
structure with N-doped quantum barriers.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
the examiner should be directed to Hanh Phan whose telephone number is
(571)272-3035. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are
unsuccessful the examiner's supervisor, Kenneth Vanderpuye, can be
reached on (571)272-3078. The fax phone number for the organization
where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Any
inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or
proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number
is (703)305-4700.
/HANH PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights