DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed August 18, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on August 18, 2026. These drawings are not accepted. More specifically, the amendment filed August 18, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicants arbitrarily introduced the x-, y- and z-axes or directions in the drawings filed August 18, 2026 when Applicants were silent on the directions of the x-, y- and z-axes mentioned in paragraph [0037] of current application; for example, along the newly assigned x-axis direction in the drawings filed August 18, 2026, one would encounter a sharp corner of a hexagon when the nanowire is viewed from the top, and Applicants did not originally disclose that a sharp corner of the hexagonal cross section of the nanowire would be able to function as a part of the claimed two-dimensional optical cavity. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the nanowire has a two-dimensional optical cavity extending in the x- and y-directions and not in the z-direction (emphasis added)” as recited on lines 7-9, because (a) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0043] of current application that “In the embodiment of FIG. 2B, the length of the scale bar 252 represents 500 nm, (b) therefore, a lateral size of the nanowire Applicants invented is about half the length of the scale bar of 500 nm, i.e. about 250 nm, shown in Fig. 2B of current application, (c) in addition, the wavelength of light emitted from the nanowire(s) is about 560 nm as shown in Fig. 2C of current application, and (d) in this case, what Applicants claim is basically that the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity extending in the x- and y-directions” has a size that is less than half the peak wavelength of light emitted from the nanowire, which does not appear to make a physical sense since (i) an optical cavity should have a size much larger than the wavelength of light, and (ii) the claimed two-dimensional optical cavity with the lateral size of about half the peak wavelength of light would rather transmit the light, and which does not appear to be enabled by Applicants.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0005] of current application that “In embodiments, each nanowire has a two-dimensional optical cavity that operates as a photonic bandgap that results in or modifies (affects or alters; e.g., enhances or amplifies) the spontaneous emission (and hence may be referred to as a weak optical cavity)”, and in paragraph [0037] of current application that “In embodiments, the optical cavity of each nanowire 200 (104) is along the x- and y-axes and not the z-axis, but spontaneous light emission is along the z-axis (where the x- and y-axes are parallel to the plane of the device substrate, and the z-axis is normal to that plane) (emphasis added).” However, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the nanowire has a two-dimensional optical cavity extending in the x- and y-directions and not in the z-direction (emphasis added)” as recited on lines 7-9, because (a) Applicants did not use the verb to “extend” in the original disclosure, and therefore, Applicants did not originally disclose an optical cavity extending in the x- and y-directions, and (b) an optical cavity disposed along the x- and y-axes is not the same with an optical cavity extending in the x- and y-directions, especially when Applicants did not originally disclose what the x- and y-directions refer to as discussed above under Drawings Objection.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose “the triangular lattice providing a photonic bandgap effect that modifies the spontaneous emission of the nanowire” recited on lines 10-11, because (a) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0037] of current application that “In embodiments, the optical cavity of each nanowire 200 (104) is along the x- and y-axes and not the z-axis, but spontaneous light emission is along the z-axis (where the x- and y-axes are parallel to the plane of the device substrate, and the z-axis is normal to that plane) (emphasis added)”, (b) therefore, the spontaneous emission from the nanowire should be a phenomenon separate from the lattice structure of the plurality of nanowires, which do not appear to be directed to Applicants’ claimed invention as discussed below under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, since as the spontaneous emission would occur along the z-direction, and the triangular lattice of the nanowires is arranged in a direction perpendicular to the z-direction as shown in Fig. 2B of current application, and (c) it appears that the limitation cited above is based on a confusing original disclosure that may have been mixed up with “a two-dimensional optical cavity” implied in original claim 1 and “a photonic bandgap effect” of the triangular lattice of the nanowires.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 9-13 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-5, 7 and 9-13 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
(4) Regarding claim 2, Applicants did not originally disclose the condition “operable for the spontaneous emission of light at a current density through the nanowire that is less than one kiloampere per square centimeter (emphasis added)”, because (a) Applicants did not originally disclose the current density with which the spontaneous emission of light from a single nanowire occurs, (b) Applicants did not originally disclose how the claimed current density is measured, especially when Applicants did not originally disclose how the claimed single nanowire is coupled to electrodes, (c) for the current density to be measured “through the nanowire” as recited in the amended claim 2, one electrode should be in contact with the bottommost surface of the first semiconductor region recited on line 2 of claim 1 and the other electrode should be in contact with the topmost surface of the second semiconductor region recited on line 3 of claim 1, which configuration Applicants did not originally disclose, and (d) furthermore, as can be seen in Fig. 2A of current application, there is a tunnel junction in the single nanowire, which is also recited in the amended claim 1 and which suggests that tunneling of charge carriers should also occur at the same rate as the claimed current density such that the claimed current density is measured “through the nanowire”, which does not appear to be possible since if the tunneling occurs at the same rate as the current density, then why would that phenomenon be called “tunneling” rather than a regular flow of charge carriers? Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and therefore, claim 3 also fails to comply with the written description requirement.
(5) Regarding claims 10-12, Applicants did not originally disclose the spectral linewidth recited in claim 10, and the invariance of the peak emission wavelength of the spontaneous emission of light with temperature change recited in claim 11 and with current density change recited in claim 12 from the single nanowire, because Applicants may have measured and thus originally disclosed the claimed spectral linewidth and the claimed invariance from a plurality of nanowires or an array of nanowires, Applicants did not originally disclose the claimed spectral linewidth and the claimed invariance from the claimed single nanowire.
(6) Regarding claims 11 and 12, Applicants did not originally disclose the invariance of the peak emission wavelength of the spontaneous emission of light with temperature “change” as recited in claim 11 and with current density “change” as recited in claim 12 from the single nanowire, because Applicants did not use the word “change” or “variation” of the temperature or current density, not to mention the range of the temperature “change” and the current density “change”.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-13 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.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the nanowire has a two-dimensional optical cavity extending in the x- and y-directions and not in the z-direction (emphases added)” recited on lines 7-9 suggests, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants did not originally disclose in which directions the two-dimensional optical cavity extends, not to mention Applicants’ not having used the verb to “extend” in the original disclosure, (b) therefore, it is not clear what the newly added limitation cited above suggests, and (c) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, the size of the nanowire in the x- and y-directions is about half the peak wavelength of light emitted from the nanowire, and it does not appear that the claimed two-dimensional optical cavity can extend in the x- and y-directions, especially the x- and y-directions shown in the drawings filed August 18, 2026.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “the x- and y-directions” and “the z-direction” recited on lines 8-9 refer to, because (a) Applicants do not claim an x-direction, a y-direction and a z-direction before claiming “the x- and y-directions” and “the z-direction”, and (b) therefore, the limitations “the x- and y-directions” and “the z-direction” lack the antecedent bases.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the nanowire being one of a plurality of nanowires arranged in a triangular lattice” recited on lines 9-10 suggests, because (a) Applicants claim “A nanowire” in the preamble, but it appears that Applicants further claim a plurality of nanowires, which Applicants attempted to claim in the amendment filed May 5, 2026, which was not entered, and (b) therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation “the nanowire being one of a plurality of nanowires arranged in a triangular lattice” recited on lines 9-10 should be given any patentable weight.
(4) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the triangular lattice providing a photonic bandgap effect that modifies the spontaneous emission of the nanowire” recited on lines 10-11 suggests, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, the direction of the spontaneous emission of the nanowire and the direction of the arrangement of the triangular lattice of the nanowires are perpendicular to each other, (b) therefore, the spontaneous emission from the nanowire cannot be modified by the triangular lattice of the nanowires, and (c) if arguendo the wavelength of the spontaneous emission from the nanowire(s) is determined in part by the triangular lattice, then the wavelength of the spontaneous emission from the nanowire is not modified by the triangular lattice, but rather is determined in part by the triangular lattice.
(5) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the “two-dimensional optical cavity” recited on line 7 refers to, because (a) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0037] of current application that “In embodiments, the optical cavity of each nanowire 200 (104) is along the x- and y-axes and not the z-axis, but spontaneous light emission is along the z-axis (where the x- and y-axes are parallel to the plane of the device substrate, and the z-axis is normal to that plane)” describing Fig. 2A of current application, (b) however, Fig. 2A of current application shows only a bare nanowire that is not covered with any encapsulant, (c) if there needs an additional material layer or encapsulant for the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity”, the additional material layer or encapsulant would not exactly be “two-dimensional” since the additional material layer or encapsulant would have a nonzero thickness, and (d) therefore, it is not clear whether the “optical cavity” is originated from different indices of refraction of the semiconductor materials constituting the claimed nanowire and air ambient, which would be inherent, or the “optical cavity’ is formed by encapsulating the nanowire with an unclaimed material, in which case, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements, see MPEP § 2172.01, and the omitted elements are: the encapsulant that covers the claimed nanowire.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 9-13 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-5, 7 and 9-13 are also indefinite.
(6) Regarding claim 2, it is not clear what the claim limitation of claim 2 suggests, because (a) it is not clear what the phrase “operable for the spontaneous emission of light” recited on lines 1-3 implies since the claimed nanowire, i.e. a single nanowire, cannot simply be operable without any electrodes attached to it and any power supply electrically connected to the unclaimed electrodes, neither of which is claimed in claims 1 and 2, (b) it is not clear how the “current density” is measured since for one to supply an electrical current to the claimed nanowire, i.e. a single nanowire, one first needs to form electrodes electrically connected to the claimed single nanowire, (c) the unclaimed electrodes should be macroscopic electrodes and the claimed single nanowire is an microscopic and nanometer-scale entity, and therefore, the current density measured at the macroscopic electrodes would be different from the current density measured at the microscopic and nanometer-scale nanowire, and (d) however, it is not clear which interpretation of the term “current density” would be correct. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and therefore, claim 3 is also indefinite.
(7) Regarding claim 10, it is not clear whether Applicants actually measured and one of ordinary skill in the art can measure the claimed spectral linewidth recited in claim 10, because it does not appear that the claimed spectral linewidth has been observed from the claimed single nanowire, but rather it appears that the claimed spectral linewidth has been observed from a plurality of nanowires or a nanowire array, see the 35 USC 112(a) rejections above.
(8) Regarding claim 11, it is not clear how the claimed nanowire, i.e. a single nanowire, can be characterized by a peak emission wavelength of the spontaneous emission of light that is invariant with temperature change, because (a) it is not clear whether the “temperature” is an ambient temperature in which the claimed nanowire is located, or a temperature inside the nanowire during an operation of the nanowire, which can be different from each other before a thermal equilibrium is reached between the nanowire and the ambient, (b) when the temperature is changed, the bandgap of the claimed nanowire should also be changed accordingly, which is an inherent characteristic of a semiconductor material, (c) therefore, the limitation recited in claim 11 would fail to comply with the Enablement requirement without Applicants specifically claiming what the word “invariant” means since Applicants claim that, while the bandgaps of the semiconductor materials constituting the nanowire are changed with temperature, the peak emission wavelength is invariant, and (d) furthermore, it is not clear what the range of the “temperature change” is since, as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants did not originally disclose a temperature “change”, not to mention the claimed invariance with respect to the temperature “change”.
(9) Further regarding claim 11, it is not clear whether the “temperature” and “temperature change” recited on lines 2-3 can be any temperature and temperature change, or the “temperature” and “temperature change” should be within a certain range, because it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the claimed nanowire emits a spontaneous emission whose peak emission wavelength is invariant when the temperature varies, for example, from 0oC to 1000oC or from 100oC to 200oC.
(10) Regarding claim 12, it is not clear how the claimed nanowire, i.e. a single nanowire, can be characterized by a peak emission wavelength that is invariant with current density change, because (a) as discussed above, it is not clear how the “current density” is defined, (b) when the current density is changed, the bandgap of the claimed nanowire should also be changed accordingly since the current would heat up the claimed nanowire since there is no semiconductor material that can convert 100% of an electrical current into light without generating any heat, (c) therefore, the limitation recited in claim 12 would fail to comply with the Enablement requirement without Applicants specifically claiming what the word “invariant” means since Applicants claim that, while the bandgaps of the semiconductor materials constituting the nanowire are changed with current density, the peak emission wavelength is invariant, and (d) furthermore, it is not clear what the range of the “current density change” is since, as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants did not originally disclose a current density “change”, not to mention the claimed invariance with respect to the current density “change”.
(11) Further regarding claim 12, it is not clear whether the “current density” and “current density change” recited on lines 2-3 can be any current density and any current density change, or the “current density” and “current density change” should be within a certain range, because it is not clear whether Applicants claim that the claimed nanowire emits a spontaneous emission whose peak emission wavelength is invariant when the current density varies, for example, from 1 kA/cm2 to 10 kA/cm2 or from 0.1 kA/cm2 to 10 kA/cm2.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The following responses the Examiner made in the Non Final Office Action mailed February 5, 2026 are still relevant to Applicants’ arguments included in the REMARKS filed August 18, 2026.
“Applicants' arguments filed September 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 2 on pages 6-9 of the REMARKS are not persuasive, because (a) while Applicants point to Fig. 2C of current application for the disclosure of the claimed nanowire, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0043] of current application that “Of particular interest, the green spectrum is observed from the photoluminescence (PL) of an InGaN photonic nanowire array with a lattice constant of 280 nm and a spacing of around 20 nm, as shown in FIG. 2C (emphasis added)”, (b) therefore, it is clear that what Applicants originally disclosed was an array of nanowires that have a two-dimensional optical cavity that functions via a photonic bandgap effect to modify the spontaneous emission rather than a single nanowire that has a two-dimensional optical cavity that functions via a photonic bandgap effect to modify the spontaneous emission, not to mention the operating condition recited in claim 2 for an array of nanowires rather than for the claimed single nanowire.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claim 1 on pages 10-11 of the REMARKS are not persuasive, because (i) it is not clear what Applicants argue about since Applicants’ arguments (b) and (c) appear to be contradictory to each other, (ii) it appears that Applicants argue that an unclaimed “surrounding material” is “an integral optical property of the nanowire”, and (iii) it is not clear how the “surrounding material” that is “an integral optical property of the nanowire” is not shown in Fig. 2A of current application, and is not claimed in claim 1, which further substantiates the Examiner’s Drawings objection and 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the 35 USC 102 rejection on pages 12-15 of the REMARKS are not persuasive, because those arguments are based on limitations that fail to comply with the written description requirement and that are also indefinite.
The following responses the Examiner wrote in the Final Office Action mailed June 11, 2025 may also be relevant to the arguments included in the REMARKS filed September 8, 2025:
“Applicants’ arguments traversing the claim objection regarding the term “photonic bandgap” in the REMARKS are not persuasive, i.e. the statement that “Applicant notes that the term “photonic bandgap” are materials with a periodic dielectric profile, which can prevent light of certain frequencies or wavelengths from propagating in one, two or any number of polarization directions within the materials” is not persuasive, because (a) as discussed above, Applicants did not use the terms “period”, “periodic”, “periodical”, “periodically”, “dielectric” and “profile” in the original specification, (b) in addition, Applicants did not file a copy of the relevant portion of the “Encyclopedia of Material: Electronics 2023” that Applicants cite in the REMARKS, (c) as can be seen clearly, the “Encyclopedia of Material: Electronics 2023” was published after Applicants had filed current application, and therefore, there is no evidence that the definition of the term “photonic bandgap” was the same at the time current application was filed with the definition of the term “photonic bandgap” in the “Encyclopedia of Material: Electronics 2023”, and (d) if arguendo Applicants’ arguments are correct, then the definition of the term “photonic bandgap” can be further changed if a future publication defines the term “photonic bandgap” in a different way, which would render Applicants’ argument above further unconvincing and unpersuasive.
Applicants argue in the REMARKS filed May 17, 2025 that “Therefore, the two-dimensional optical cavity clearly refers to the nanowire”, that “Applicant submits that the term “photonic bandgap” are materials with a periodic dielectric profile, which can prevent light of certain frequencies or wavelengths from propagating in one, two or any number of polarization directions within the materials (See Encyclopedia of Material: Electronics, 2023)”, that “In addition, the term “two-dimensional optical cavity” is defined in the specification at paragraph 0037 as an optical cavity along the x- and y-axes and not the z-axis that spontaneously emits light along the z-axis”, that “Therefore, those skilled in the art understand a photonic bandgap to be materials with a periodic dielectric profile, which can prevent light of certain frequencies or wavelengths from propagating in one, two or any number of polarization directions within the materials, and therefore “modifies the spontaneous emission” of the nanowire by preventing propagation of certain frequencies of the spontaneous emission in one or more directions”, and that “Applicant further notes that Claims 1 does not recite "a an “additional material layer,” “encapsulant” and/or “indices of refraction.”” These arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons: (1) Applicants’ arguments above are incoherent arguments that are contradictory to each other. (2) In the first argument above, Applicants argue as if the nanowire itself had the claimed two-dimensional optical cavity. This argument is not persuasive, because Applicants claim that “the nanowire is operable for spontaneous emission of light” and then the two-dimensional optical cavity, which is also the nanowire according to Applicants’ argument, also operates as the photonic bandgap that modifies the spontaneous emission, i.e. the nanowire does two things of spontaneous emission of light and modification of the spontaneous emission, which does not appear to be logical in that, if the nanowire modifies the spontaneous emission, the nanowire would not emit the spontaneous emission in the first place. (3) In the second argument above, Applicants argue that “the term “photonic bandgap” are materials with a periodic dielectric profile”, which requires additional structural elements that Applicants do not claim in claim 1. However, Applicants did not originally disclose any “periodic dielectric profile” in the original specification, and Applicants did not use any the terms “period”, “periodic”, “periodical”, “periodically”, “dielectric” and “profile” in the original specification, which appears to suggest that the second argument above is not directed to Applicants’ inventive concept of the “two-dimensional optical cavity”. (4) If Applicants had meant an optical cavity such as that formed by using a dielectric DBR 2582 in Fig. 25E of Wang et al. (US 10,622,498), “Dielectric DBR 2582 on the P-GaAs 2580 completes the optical cavity” on lines 36-37 of column 37 of Wang et al., such a dielectric DBR or Distributed Bragg Reflector is not a nanowire, not to mention “a two-dimensional optical cavity”, and also, Applicants did not mention any DBR structure associated with the claimed single nanowire. (5) In the third argument above, Applicants argue as if only when light was emitted along the z-axis, there would be an optical cavity; however, light should be emitted from the nanowire shown in Fig. 2A of current application omnidirectionally since (i) there is no mechanism that would bounce light back into the nanowire in the x- and y-direction, and (ii) for the light to be emitted only along the z-direction, there should be additional structural element that reflects light back into the nanowire in the x- and y-direction, which Applicants did not originally disclose and Applicants do not claim. (6) However, in the fourth and fifth arguments above, Applicants argue that “Therefore, those skilled in the art understand a photonic bandgap to be materials with a periodic dielectric profile, which can prevent light of certain frequencies or wavelengths from propagating in one, two or any number of polarization directions within the materials, and therefore “modifies the spontaneous emission” of the nanowire by preventing propagation of certain frequencies of the spontaneous emission in one or more directions”, and that “Applicant further notes that Claims 1 does not recite "a an “additional material layer,” “encapsulant” and/or “indices of refraction”, which are contradictory to each other since the claimed nanowire without any mechanism to reflect light back into the nanowire in the x- and y-direction would not comprise the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity”. (7) In conclusion, it appears that Applicants cannot explain coherently what the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity” refers to, how it is structured, and whether additional structural element is required to for the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity”.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the prior art rejection in the REMARKS filed May 17, 2025 are not persuasive, because (a) independent claim 1 is indefinite as discussed above, and (b) Applicants’ arguments are not based on the original disclosure where Applicants did not use the terms “period”, “periodic”, “periodical”, “periodically”, “dielectric” and “profile” in the original specification, and (c) the prior art references of Mi et al. and Ra et al. disclose a nanowire having a hexagonal shape just like Applicants’ nanowire shown in Fig. 2A of current application, and therefore, if Mi et al. and Ra et al. do not disclose the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity”, then claim 1 would be further indefinite for Applicants’ not having specifically claimed what can constitute the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity”.
In conclusion, the Examiner notes that Applicants may have claimed features or characteristics of a structure comprising a plurality of nanowires or an array of nanowires, while the claimed invention is directed to a single nanowire; for example, the photonic bandgap recited on line 7 of claim 1 may have been a characteristic that may be observed for the plurality of nanowires shown in Fig. 2B of current application rather than having been observed for the single nanowire shown in Fig. 2A of current application; also, the current density recited in claim 2 may have been measured for the plurality of nanowires rather than the single nanowire; in addition, the shell layers and core layers recited in claim 6 may have been formed for the plurality of nanowires rather than the claimed single nanowire; finally, the spectral bandwidth recited in claim 10 may have been observed from the plurality of nanowires rather than the single nanowire; finally, the invariance of the peak emission with respect to the temperature change and the current density change recited in claims 11 and 12 may have been observed with the plurality of nanowires rather than the single nanowire even if the claimed invariance is possible for the arguments’ sake.””
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noda et al. (US 20190267775)
Noda et al. (US 2020/0106244)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached on (571) 270-1435. 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.
/J.K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 August 31, 2026
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights