DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment received on 02/03/2026.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA on 10/16/2019. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign priority application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope of the claimed invention. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims without undue experimentation. The following factors are weighed when evaluating whether a disclosure satisfies the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is undue:
Breadth of the claims: The claims recite several features which encompass a large breadth for the variety of devices which could be considered. For example, the recitation of “μLED crystal grains” in claim 1 does not indicate any particular material (organic, inorganic, etc.) which may form the necessary components of the device and claim 1 further indicates that a p-type semiconductor, an n-type semiconductor, and a “light emitting structure” are required in the μLED chips. There are effectively limitless examples of materials which this could encompass (organic, inorganic, hybrids, and combinations thereof) and no particular examples are provided by the applicant in either the specification or claims. In fact, the specification states in [0038] that “the p-type semiconductor material, the light emitting structure and the n-type semiconductor material can be an organic material, an inorganic material or a high molecular material (the latter interpreted to refer to a polymer).” This statement suggests that not only could the devices be of an inorganic or organic nature, but they could also be a hybrid of materials for which there is a significant amount of required consideration for how the materials would interact. Thus, there is a lack of enablement for the scope of proposed materials alone, let alone any of the other claimed elements.
Nature of the invention: Applicant is claiming a light emitting device wherein “the upper driving electrode and the lower driving electrode are free from direct electrical contact with the μLED crystal grain” as recited in the only independent claim, claim 1. Without considering the operability of such a device, based on currently understood scientific limitations, such a device is not of a simple nature. Such a device would require extensive understanding of semiconductor physics including the physical limitations of electrons (classically and quantum mechanically), the methods to make such a device when it encompasses the breadth of material combinations considered, and the interactions of such materials at their interfaces defining the resulting band diagram which will influence the behavior of the electrons which flow (or do not flow given the lack of electrical contact) within the device. Applicant has provided little to not detail on how this device operates in either a quantum mechanical or classical sense and the examiner, being one of ordinary skill in the art, is unable to determine how it operates based on the provided details in the specification.
State of the prior art: Applicant provided a single IDS reference (Novel Approach for Alternating Current (AC)-Driven Organic Light-Emitting Devices by Ajay Perumal et al. – “Perumal”), which will be discussed further below, as prior art similar to this invention in the IDS submitted on 09/23/2025. A search by the examiner has yielded minimal further results for prior art available for such a device, particularly prior to the claimed filing date of the invention (10/16/2019). One of the references identified by the examiner, provided below, shares authors with the inventors of the instant application being examined and was published after the effective filing date. A direct quote from this article provided below would suggest this field is largely unexplored such that any disclosure would require extensive details to explain the operation and/or manufacturing details of such a device, which is particularly problematic as it was published after the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Li W, Wang K, Li J, Wu C, Zhang Y, Zhou X, Guo T. Working Mechanisms of Nanoscale Light-Emitting Diodes Operating in Non-Electrical Contact and Non-Carrier Injection Mode: Modeling and Simulation. Nanomaterials. 2022; 12(6):912. (“Li”) – “the working mechanism of nano-LED in NEC&NCI (Non-electrical contact and non-carrier injection) mode is not clear yet. A direct physical picture of how the inherent holes and electrons provide sufficient radiative recombination under an AC electric field is lacking.”, page 2, second paragraph.
The reference provided by the applicant (Perumal) in the IDS submitted on 09/23/2025 details a single example material combination comprising organic materials for which an LED without direct electrical contact to the electrodes appears to function. However, this reference provides extensive details for why this particular material combination may be operational through Zener tunneling as it relates to specific organic material properties (HOMO/LUMO levels, impurity concentrations, layer thicknesses, etc.) which are known to be different from inorganic semiconductors. The current claims encompass organic, inorganic, and hybrid devices and yet there are no details provided in the instant application for if/how such devices may work and the instant application’s specification provides no details about any materials for which the claimed device may function.
Level of one of ordinary skill: It is the examiner’s interpretation that researchers whom are publishing in this field would be considered at least one of skill in the art and may therefore be beyond one of ordinary skill in the art. Given that interpretation, the quote provided above from the inventors’ publication strongly indicate this a very specialized field requiring extensive knowledge and even with such knowledge the technology is not fully understood. An additional review article provides a table (see below) which lists only seven working devices, at least four of which were from works which were published after the instant application’s filing date. Furthermore, these seven devices represent a fraction of the possible material combinations encompassed by the breadth of the current claimed materials. Therefore, the examiner believes that one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be unable to make/understand/use devices encompassing all of the possible combinations based on the limited information in the disclosure.
Biao Xie, Wenhao Li, Junlong Li, Hao Su, Jiawen Qiu, Baoran Shi, Pengpeng Wang, Yongai Zhang, Xiongtu Zhou, Chaoxing Wu, Tailiang Guo, Increasing energy barrier between quantum dots for enhancing non-carrier-injection electroluminescence, Journal of Luminescence, Volume 269, 2024, 120469, ISSN 0022-2313 (“Xie”).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Level of predictability in the art: Given that only a select number of devices have been shown to be operational in the prior art and that the inventor’s themselves have indicated that “the working mechanism . . . is not clear yet” in an article published after the effective filing date, it is clear the art is unpredictable. One skilled in the art cannot readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which that claimed invention pertains, such that there is lack of predictability in the art. It is clear that changing any number of parameters in the device, including materials (claims 1 and 6), layer thicknesses (claim 1), signals used to operate the device (claim 9) would each have entirely unknown/unclear impact on the operation of the device which is largely unexplored in the disclosure and further remains a question in the available art.
Amount of direction provided by the inventor: The specification provides little to no detail with regard to either the materials, methods of formation, or methods of operation of such a device. No particular materials are given for the semiconductor layers, let alone how different layers may interact with one-another at their interface or be formed in the first place. The description of how the device behaves is limited to a single paragraph (see [0038]) which does not explain how solely the application of an external electric field of unknown strength across the device is able to achieve reliable separation of charge carriers for “recycling” leading to continued device emission. Such an electrical field would require a huge potential in order to overcome the ionization energy of these materials. The following is a direct quote from the Perumal reference provided by the applicant – “The applied AC bias can be increased up to the breakdown voltage limit of the insulating layer . . . Beyond the breakdown voltage the device is irreversibly damaged . . . Below the threshold AC bias, all of the above-mentioned capacitive elements are contributing to the total capacitance of the device. During this time the voltage, which drops across the organic layers is not sufficient to move the charge carriers to form excitons and generate light.” (Results and Discussion Section, Perumal). Thus, there is a limited AC-bias window of operation for these devices but applicant does not appear to have provided any direction.
Existence of working examples: See section above (Level of one of ordinary skill in the art) which includes review article, Xie, that provides only seven working examples, at least four of which were published after the effective filing date. Furthermore, no complete working examples are provided in the instant disclosure, and instead all layers and properties are disclosed in generic terms or broad ranges without any details.
Quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Below is one of the claimed features which represent the vast number of devices which the current claims encompass resulting in an unreasonable burden of experimentation to identify a working device (make/use the claimed invention) since no explicit examples are provided.
Claim 1: “the μLED comprises a p-type semiconductor, a light emitting structure and an n-type semiconductor” which according to the specification may be a vast number of materials “the p-type semiconductor material, the light emitting structure and the n-type semiconductor material can be an organic material, an inorganic material or a high molecular material” (the latter interpreted to refer to a polymer).
The analysis provided above is indicative that undue experimentation would have been needed to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Therefore, claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 4-10, the claim recites “wavelength down-conversion layers” in lines 2-3. It is unclear, in view of the specification, what is meant by the limitation “wavelength down-conversion layers”. The examiner believes the applicant is trying to indicate that the wavelength down-conversion is an energy down conversion by converting a shorter wavelength photon (higher energy) to a longer wavelength photon (lower energy). This is based on [0011] of the specification which states “the wavelength down-conversion light emitting layer irradiated by the first light source emitted by the μLED crystal grain excites the second light source with a longer wavelength”, i.e. the wavelength is converted to a longer wavelength while the energy converted to a lower value. However, claim 6 has been amended to recite “wavelength down-conversion light emitting layers irradiated by a first light source emitted by the μLED crystal grain excites a second light source” without any specific details of the resulting change in wavelength such that the claim may now encompass conversion to a shorter wavelength (higher energy). Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least for their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Applicant is claiming a light emitting device where there is no electrical contact to the light emitting diode portion of the device by the driving electrodes (see Figure 1 where LED 300 is separated from electrodes 101/201 by insulators 102/202) and an AC signal is used to generate an alternating E-field across the device and drive illumination ([0035]) such that there is no charge injection into the active layers. This is to say that no energy is injected into the device by external connections and the device is somehow able to create its light by harvesting energy from an external electric field created by the attached controller to form separated electron hole pairs and reuse them for subsequent recombination and light emission. In [0038] applicant attempts to explain how the device operates including using only an alternating electric field around the device to produce continuous illumination from the device. As it is written, the examiner believes applicant is suggesting in their explanation that they are able to pull both previously recombined and un-recombined carriers back into their respective regions and “recycle” them for repeated cycles of recombination and light emission. It is the examiner’s position that if such a device were to operate as described, the process would be so inefficient that there would be no credible utility for the device.
Applicant has provided no working examples and instead provides only broad recitations of how the device may be made with no reference to particular materials, manufacturing methods, or required physical characteristics for either the device or operational methods to ensure the device functions (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above regarding enablement for all of the possible devices covered by the scope of applicant’s claims). As a result, the examiner was required to search elsewhere to identify if any working examples even exist, and if they do, interpret their operability and potential utility.
One of the most recent references the examiner was able to identify for this technology was the following reference which includes several inventors in the instant application and was published after the effective filing date:
Wang, K., Liu, Y., Wu, C. et al. Electroluminescence from μLED without external charge injection. Sci Rep 10, 8059 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65092-z, (“Wang”).
Wang discloses such a device wherein a GaN μLED is positioned such that there is no contact with the electrodes (see Figure 1a) along with the following quotes:
Quote 1 – “One of the disadvantages of our device is the high operating voltage and AC frequency. Since the μLED employed in this work is used to fabricate conventional μLED display, it may be not suitable for working in the NEC & NCI mode.”, page 6, second paragraph.
Quote 2 – “an antiparallel μLED acting as ‘carrier pump’ is employed to increase the luminescence intensity, which experimentally confirms our proposed theoretical model”, page 6, fourth paragraph.
Quote 3 – “The performances of the μLEDs operating in the NEC&NCI mode are highly sensitive to the applied AC frequency”, page 6, fourth paragraph.
Quote 4 – “Electroluminescence is too weak to be observed in the low frequency range (<1k Hz)”, page 4, second paragraph.
Quote 5 – “as the operating frequency increases, the number of majority carriers that can diffuse into the MQW during the positive half of the period decreases. In other words, the carrier transport cannot keep up with the changes in the applied field and will result in a decrease in electroluminescence intensity. An extremeness case is that all majority carriers do not have enough time to diffuse to the MQW when the frequency increases to f2. As a result, no electroluminescence can be observed, as shown in Fig. 2e.” (note that this occurs at 10MHz in the figure), page four, third paragraph.
Quote 1 from Wang is strongly indicative that the device lacks credible utility based on the emphasis provided that the device may not be suitable for operation. Furthermore, in order to have sufficient luminescence intensity to begin to interpret operational theories, Wang had to inject charges as evidenced by quote 2, which the device is supposed to not require as being “Electroluminescence from μLED without external charge injection”. Finally Quotes 3-5 are provided here to point out how sensitive these devices likely would be in their operational characteristics in comparison to what the applicant provides in the specification. Quotes 4 and 5 are evidence that the device is only operationally effective in the 1 kHz to 10 MHz range. However, the applicant provides in [0035] for operational ranges of 1Hz to 1000MHz, i.e. a range which is larger than the range they indicate as workable in the Wang reference.
An assertion of utility is credible unless (A) the logic underlying the assertion is seriously flawed, or (B) the facts upon which the assertion is based are inconsistent with the logic underlying the assertion. Credibility as used in this context refers to the reliability of the statement based on the logic and facts that are offered by the applicant to support the assertion of utility. A credible utility is assessed from the standpoint of whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would accept that the recited or disclosed invention is currently available for such use. Based on the complete lack of any working examples provided by the applicant in the specification of the instant application and the quotes from the Wang reference, which includes several of the inventors, it is the examiner’s opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the claimed device to be currently available for use such that there is no credible utility.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph as described above. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 4-10 and corresponding remarks, see page 5 of the remarks, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the objections to claims 1 and 4-10 have been fully considered. The objections to claims 1 and 4-10 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 4-10 and corresponding arguments, see pages 6-11 of the remarks, filed 02/03/26, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of claims 1 and 4-10 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1 and 4-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the specification, does not reasonably provide enablement for the full scope of the claimed invention. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims without undue experimentation. Applicant’s amendments to the claims, while reducing the amount of experimentation required, still present significant experimentation to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with the claims and specification. In particular, the examiner emphasizes here that “Claims reading on significant numbers of inoperative embodiments would render claims non-enabled when the specification does not clearly identify the operative embodiments and undue experimentation is involved in determining those that are operative” (see MPEP 2164.08(b)). The specification does not provide any working examples and the factors detailed above in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above reveals an extensive number of possibilities. Applicant’s arguments for each of the components of the lack of enablement rejection discussed above, as argued in the remarks, are addressed in turn below.
With regard to the Breadth of the Claims , Applicant asserts on page 7 of the remarks that “with these amendments, the claims no longer encompass “countless examples of materials” but instead focus on a narrow, technically feasible range of components with known properties and interactions . . . the specification provides explicit guidance and working examples for each component”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the claims have been narrowed in certain aspects, the key issue remains that the materials used for “μLED crystal grains” in claim 1 do not indicate any particular material (organic, inorganic, etc.) which may form the necessary components of the device. Claim 1 further indicates that a p-type semiconductor, an n-type semiconductor, and a “light emitting structure” are required in the μLED chips. There are effectively limitless examples of materials which this could encompass (organic, inorganic, hybrids, and combinations thereof) and no particular examples are provided by the applicant in either the specification or claims. In fact, the specification states in [0038] that “the p-type semiconductor material, the light emitting structure and the n-type semiconductor material can be an organic material, an inorganic material or a high molecular material (the latter interpreted to refer to a polymer).” This statement suggests that not only could the devices be of an inorganic or organic nature, but they could also be a hybrid of materials for which there is a significant amount of required consideration for how the materials would interact and what materials are even possibly functional.
With regard to the Nature of the Invention, Applicant asserts on pages 7-8 of the remarks that “the specification provides a detailed working principle of the device”, referring to [0035]-[0036] and [0044]-[0047], adequately describing the “recycling mechanism” for “continuous light emission”. Applicant further suggests that this application builds on the technology of the Perumal reference which demonstrates a working device of organic materials from which a POSITA could easily extend the properties to those encompassed by the claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The arguments are suggesting that applicant is able to achieve “continuous light emission” from a recycling mechanism for uncombined electrons and holes. However, Perumal identifies a regeneration of electrons and holes, not just those which are not combined (see Figure 6 and corresponding description) and which seems to be related to specifically organic materials which the article focuses on. This is important given the quote in Perumal’s introduction section of “to date there is no convincing evidence for controlled charge-carrier generation within the device, without injecting charge carriers either in organic or inorganic AC driven light-emitting devices”. If only uncombined charge carriers are utilized for emission in subsequent cycles, there is no explanation for how continuous emission is achieved as eventually all pairs will recombine and emission will be diminished. Alternatively, there is no explanation for a recycling process to rebuild the charge carrier concentration. If charge carriers are regenerated in some way, there is no explanation, particularly in the specification, for how this is achieved consistently in the wide array of claimed materials. Applicant’s arguments that the Li reference’s details, nano-scale LEDs as having an operational mode which is not clear yet, as being not applicable since the instant application considers microLEDs is also not found persuasive by the examiner. While the Li reference is primarily focused on the operations of nano-LEDs, it still raises into question how these devices operate. This is particularly true since the Xie reference which applicant refers to elsewhere in the arguments as supporting operability of their device also makes reference to nanoLEDs (see final paragraph of section 2. Results and discussion) such that the examiner interprets a clear connection in the mechanism of both nano- and micro-scale LED devices operating in non-contact, non-charge injection modes.
PNG
media_image2.png
364
880
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to the State of the Prior Art, Applicant asserts on page 8 of the remarks that between the Perumal reference described above and the provided chart from the Xie reference, provided again above for clarity with publication dates, that “the general concept of the device was known in the art”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Only two of the references in the Xie reference were published prior to applicant’s filing date, references 11 and 25 from Xie. When combined with the Perumal reference, this provides only three possible material combinations from prior to the application date. Thus the prior art remains limited when compared to the sheer number of possible combinations for organic, inorganic, and hybrid systems are all considered by the claims of the instant application.
With regard to the Level of One of Ordinary Skill in the Art, Applicant asserts on page 9 of the remarks that one of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would be able to make and use the claimed invention based on the details provided in the specification and goes on to point out the working devices presented in the articles detailed above. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Because there are no provided working semiconductor materials (organic, inorganic, hybrid) in the specification, the POSITA would have no examples to work off of and would be required to look to the art. While select examples may be found in prior art, these do not encompass all of the possible examples considered by the claims. Furthermore, MPEP 2141.03 states that “References which are not prior art may be relied upon to demonstrate the level of ordinary skill in the art at or around the relevant time.”, i.e. references published after the filing date may be considered. In this case, the examiner has identified several references above, particularly the Wang reference which makes it clear that this field contains limited information for if/how these devices work and it was published after the effective filing date. Based on this reference, it is the examiner’s interpretation that for an application to be enabling, extensive details would be required to explain the mechanism for the particular claimed materials. Such details are not found in the instant application.
With regard to the Level of Predictability in the Art, Applicant asserts on page 9 of the remarks that the amended claims and specification make the art highly predictable, including “limiting materials to well-characterized substances . . . standard semiconductors” and “A POSITA would know that changing these parameters outside the specified ranges might affect performance”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no provided working semiconductor materials (organic, inorganic, hybrid) in the specification, so the POSITA would have no examples to work off of. Additionally, applicant has introduced ranges which encompass values which the art suggests are non-operational such that a POSITA would be unable to determine which values are proper and/or operational. For example, the specification provides for frequencies as low as 1Hz and as high as 1000MHz, see [0035]. The Wang reference considered above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 reference, published after the filing date, makes it clear that at least this range encompasses values which are broader than those understood to work in the art (See quotes 3-5 from the Wang reference above).
With regard to the Amount of Direction Provided by the Inventor, Applicant asserts on pages 9-10 of the remarks that the specification provides sufficient guidance for materials, operational parameters, and component placement. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no provided working semiconductor materials (organic, inorganic, hybrid) in the specification, so the POSITA would have no examples to work off of.
With regard to the Existence of Working Examples, Applicant asserts on page 10 of the remarks that the specification provides sufficient guidance for working examples when considered in combination with the Xie reference. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no provided working semiconductor materials (organic, inorganic, hybrid) in the specification, so the POSITA would have no examples to work off of. The Xie reference provides only two working examples from prior to the publication date, a small fraction of the total possibilities considered by the claims.
With regard to the Quantity of Experimentation Needed, Applicant asserts on pages 10-11 of the remarks that the amended/narrowed claims and specification provides sufficient guidance for working examples and every critical aspect of the invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There are no provided working semiconductor materials (organic, inorganic, hybrid) in the specification, so the POSITA would have no examples to work off of and the examiner argues that materials of the semiconductor layers are a critical aspect of the device.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 4-10, and corresponding remarks, see pages 11-12 of the remarks, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1 and 4-10 have been fully considered. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of amended claims 1 and 4-10 are partially maintained. The amendment to remove the preamble phrase in all claims of “electrical contact free” has partially resolved the lack of clarity in the claims. However, the use of the phrase “wavelength down conversion” has not been clarified. The issue remains that there is a lack of clarity as to what is actually being down converted, energy or wavelength. [0011] of the specification states “the wavelength down-conversion light emitting layer irradiated by the first light source emitted by the μLED crystal grain excites the second light source with a longer wavelength”, i.e. the wavelength is converted to a longer wavelength while the energy converted to a lower value. However, claim 6 has been amended to recite “wavelength down-conversion light emitting layers irradiated by a first light source emitted by the μLED crystal grain excites a second light source” without any specific details of the resulting change in wavelength such that the claim may now encompass conversion to a shorter wavelength (higher energy). Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) at least for their dependency on claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1 and 4-10, see pages 12-15 of the remarks, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1 and 4-10 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Claims 1 and 4-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the invention as claimed lacks credible utility. The examiner’s opinion remains that one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the claimed device to be currently available for use such that there is no credible utility. Each of applicant’s specific arguments are addressed in turn below.
Applicant argues that the scientific principle is scientifically sound as the core invention and working mechanism has a solid theoretical foundation. Indicating further that the “recycling” of charge carriers is a reasonable physical process. This argument is not found persuasive. While the concept of charge recombination leading to light emission generated by the application of electrical fields to drive charges together is well understood, the recycling process is not interpreted by the examiner as well understood. It remains unclear if only uncombined charge carriers are utilized for emission in subsequent cycles (applicant remarks filed on 02/03/2026, pages 12-13) since there is no explanation for how continuous emission is achieved as eventually all pairs will recombine and emission will be diminished. In contrast, there may be an unexplained recycling process to rebuild the charge carrier concentration since applicant indicates that charges are driven to “recombine again” in the same arguments and all of the identified prior art, by both applicant and examiner, suggests some form of regeneration. If charge carriers are regenerated in some way, there is no explanation, particularly in the specification, for how this is achieved consistently in the wide array of claimed materials. Thus, technical principle of the regeneration/recycling/recovery of charges for continuous light emission is not sufficiently well defined or identified to be considered sound in view of the originally filed specification.
Applicant argues that the invention has been verified by related research and domestic authorization. With regard to the related research, applicant refers to the Wang reference as confirming the feasibility of the device. With regard to domestic authorization, applicant refers to the corresponding Chinese patent as having been authorized. These arguments are not found persuasive by the examiner. While the Wang reference presents a possible device, the direct quote from the Wang reference, “One of the disadvantages of our device is the high operating voltage and AC frequency. Since the μLED employed in this work is used to fabricate conventional μLED display, it may be not suitable for working in the NEC & NCI mode.” (page 6, second paragraph) must be considered. This quote explicitly states that the device they present may not be suitable for NEC and NCI (non-electrical contact and non-carrier injection). This is interpreted by the examiner as a clear instance of lacking credible utility and is indicative that even this device from the inventors in a published article, and consequently other devices encompassed by the claims, may not operate as expected. With regard to the domestic authorization, the decisions rendered by foreign patent offices are, at best, merely non-binding opinions that may be taken in to consideration. however, any patent application filed with the united states patent office will be assessed with respect to all current and applicable laws and rules, including 35 USC 101. Furthermore, there is no showing that the Chinese patent office considered the teachings of Wang.
Applicant argues that operating frequency range recited in the claims is reasonable and supported by the specification. Applicant argues that the frequency range limitations identified in the Wang reference can be overcome through applicant’s optimization of the device. These arguments are not found persuasive by the examiner. Specifically, applicant argues that the limitations of the Wang reference are a consequence of their experimental setup and the present invention’s optimized structure and material selection can overcome these limitations. Yet, the material selection is not complete as it does not provide for any particular semiconductor materials of the actual device which is performing these operations and thus may encompass those considered by Wang. Thus the examiner cannot ascertain how to make an optimized device which can overcome the identified limitations of the Wang reference.
With regard to the 112(a) arguments on pages 14-15 of the remarks filed on 02/03/2026, those arguments were addressed above in relation to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections and have not been found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAMES WIEGAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0096. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8AM-5PM.
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.
/TYLER J WIEGAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812