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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In response to a restriction requirement mailed on 12/19/2025, the Applicant provisionally elected Species I encompassing a device with traverse on 02/18/2026.
The Applicant argues that the restriction between Species I and Species II is improper, because a feature of “the absorbing region comprising a photonic crystal” is not taught by Amstatt. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On page 4 of the restriction requirement, the examiner concluded that the GaN seeds 46A are crystalline on the basis that GaN seeds 46A are deposited using MOCVD-type method such that the seeds 46A have Ga polarity. GaN intrinsically is a photonic semiconductor. Therefore, GaN seeds 46A is a photonic crystal.
In the 02-18-26 Response, the Applicant amended the independent claim 1 to include the limitations of claim 14 and then canceled claim 14. The non-elected method claims 16-18 have not been amended to include all of the limitations of corresponding amended independent claim 1. Further, a search for Species I and II would not be coextensive, because a search indicating that the product is known or would have been obvious would not extend to a holding that the process is known or would have been obvious.
For the reasons above, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Currently, claims 1-13 and 15-18 are pending. Non-elected claims 16-18 have been withdrawn from the examination. Elected claims 1-13 and 15 are examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Two information disclosure statements submitted on 06/22/2022 (“06-22-22 IDS”) and 05/08/2024 ("05-08-24 IDS") are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 06-22-22 IDS and 05-08-24 IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because it is a multiple dependent claim that depends from claim 3, claim 4 and claim 5. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 6 has not been further treated on the merits.
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 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Section 2173.02.I. of the MPEP provides the following guidance on how pre-issuance claims under examination are construed differently than patented claims:
Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record. While "absolute precision is unattainable" in patented claims, the definiteness requirement "mandates clarity." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 527 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129, 110 USPQ2d 1688, 1693 (2014). A court will not find a patented claim indefinite unless the claim interpreted in light of the specification and the prosecution history fails to "inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty." Id. at 1689.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Office does not interpret claims when examining patent applications in the same manner as the courts. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1312, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Office construes claims by giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution in an effort to establish a clear record of what the applicant intends to claim. Such claim construction during prosecution may effectively result in a lower threshold for ambiguity than a court's determination. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1323-24, 110 USPQ2d at 1796-97 (Plager, J., concurring). However, applicant has the ability to amend the claims during prosecution to ensure that the meaning of the language is clear and definite prior to issuance or provide a persuasive explanation (with evidence as necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear. In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)( claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution "to facilitate sharpening and clarifying the claims at the application stage"); see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Here, the independent claim 12 is indefinite, because a limitation of “a mixture of at least two of these compounds” in the last line of claim 12 is amenable to more than one claim construction as the limitation may also include a selection of compounds from “a nitride, a carbide, or a boride of a transition metal of column IV, V, or VI of the periodic table of elements.”
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Independent claim 1 is allowed, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 1, wherein the support comprises first and second opposite surfaces, the laser being intended to cross the support from the first surface to the second surface, the absorbing region at least partly covering the second surface.
Claims 2-5, 7-11, 13 and 15 are allowed, because they depend from the allowed independent claim 1.
But for the pending claim objection of claim 6, claim 6 would be allowable.
But for the pending 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 12, claim 12 would be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2019/0111723 A1 to Whiteman
Pub. No. US 2011/0247676 A1 to Grossman et al.
Pub. No. US 2008/0217639 A1 to Kim et al.
Pub. No. US 2006/0284187 A1 to Wierer JR. et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM to 7 P.M..
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano, can be reached on (571) 272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 04 March 2026