DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to RCE filed September 8, 2025.
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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the x- and y-axes of the nanowire as described in the specification. Since Applicants argue on page 10 of the REMARKS filed September 8, 2025 that “The cavity is confined along the x- and y-axes (substrate plane) due to the heterostructure’s periodic structure”, “the x- and y-axes” are parts of a structural detail that are essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing; (a) for the claimed hexagonal nanowire shown in Fig. 2A of current application, there do not appear to be any natural x- and y-axes such that the claimed nanowire can constitute or function as an optical cavity, and (b) for example, if the x- and y-axes can be designated as illustrated below, light would be emitted along the x-axis according to the Snell’s Law rather than along the z-axis, and the nanowire would not function as a two-dimensional optical cavity. MPEP § 608.02(d).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 and 7-13 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, the amended claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement for the following reasons:
(1-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)”, that “Thus, while the optical cavity is in the x and y directions, spontaneous light emission is in a different direction: the z direction, along the longitudinal axis of the nanowire”, and that “The disclosed x- and y-axis optical cavity configuration is referred to herein as a two-dimensional (2D) optical cavity”; these sentences in paragraph [0037] of current application clearly indicate that the optical cavity associated with a single nanowire cannot modify the spontaneous emission contradictory to the limitation recited on lines 7-8 of the amended claim 1 since the spontaneous emission propagates in a direction where no optical cavity associated with the single nanowire is formed;
(1-b) 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)”; this sentence clearly indicates that the spectrum shown in Fig. 2C is observed for a plurality of nanowires rather than a single nanowire as is the case with claim 1;
(1-c) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0044] of current application that “Microscale LEDs are also fabricated using the photonic nanowire arrays grown by SAE (emphasis added)”;
(1-d) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0047] of current application that “The output characteristics of an example of the disclosed InGaN photonic nanowire LEDs were measured for the green spectrum (emphasis added)”;
(1-e) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0050] of current application that “An example of the emission properties of the disclosed InGaN photonic nanowire LEDs are shown for wavelengths of green light in FIG. 5A (emphasis added):;
(1-f) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0052] of current application that “The extraordinary stability of the disclosed InGaN photonic nanowire LEDs is attributed to the reduced strain distribution of InGaN dot-in-nanowire structures and, more importantly, the strong resonance at the Γ point of the photonic band structure, which largely governs the emission characteristics and is only determined by the geometry of photonic nanowires (emphasis added)”;
(1-g) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0053] of current application that “Such optics-free, highly directional emission is directly related to the surface-emission mode at the Γ point of the InGaN photonic nanowire structures disclosed herein, which can greatly simplify the design and reduce the cost of next-generation ultrahigh resolution display devices and systems (emphasis added)”;
(1-h) Finally, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0039] of current application that “More specifically, for InGaN for example, the spontaneous emission typically shows a very broad spectrum (e.g., full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) in the range of 30 to 50 nm) in the green wavelength range, and the emission direction is often random; however, with the 2D photonic crystal effect achieved according to the embodiments disclosed herein, the spontaneous emission is modified so that the linewidth is much narrower and emission is more directional, as discussed above (emphasis added).
Therefore, while Applicants originally disclosed that a plurality of nanowires function as a photonic crystal, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the nanowire” or a single nanowire “has a two-dimensional optical cavity that functions via a photonic bandgap effect to modify the spontaneous emission” as recited on lines 7-8, especially when Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0037] of current application that “while the optical cavity is in the x and y directions, spontaneous light emission is in a different direction: the z direction, along the longitudinal axis of the nanowire.”
(2) Further regarding claim 1, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0038] of current application that “The cavity effect provided by the disclosed nanowire arrays is used to achieve more directional emission as just described and also to achieve narrower spectral linewidths (emphasis added)”, in paragraph [0039] of current application that “The nanowire design parameters (e.g., diameter and lattice constant) are chosen to operate in a regime that is close to, but not exactly at, the photonic band edge of the nanowire array (emphasis added)”, that “By operating near this regime, the weak cavity effect is achieved (emphasis added)”, that “More specifically, for InGaN for example, the spontaneous emission typically shows a very broad spectrum (e.g., full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) in the range of 30 to 50 nm) in the green wavelength range, and the emission direction is often random; however, with the 2D photonic crystal effect achieved according to the embodiments disclosed herein, the spontaneous emission is modified so that the linewidth is much narrower and emission is more directional, as discussed above (emphasis added).
Therefore, Applicants did not originally disclose “the nanowire” or a single nanowire “has a two-dimensional optical cavity that functions via a photonic bandgap effect to modify the spontaneous emission” as recited on lines 7-8, because (a) while Applicants claim a single nanowire, the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity” and “photonic bandgap effect” are achieved by an array of nanowires as disclosed in paragraphs [0038] and [0039] of current application, and (b) however, Applicants claim that even a single nanowire can have the claimed two-dimensional optical cavity that functions via the photonic bandgap effect.
Claims 2-5 and 7-13 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-5 and 7-13 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
(2) 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)” as recited on lines 2-3, 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 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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 and 7-13 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 whether the claimed “nanowire” does not comprise any structural elements that are not recited in claim 1, because (a) after the Drawings objection included in the Final Office Action mailed June 11, 2025, Applicants deleted claim 6 reciting “shell layers” and “core layers” included in a heterostructure which is a part of a single nanowire recited in claim 1, (b) however, without additional structural elements, it does not appear there would be any “two-dimensional optical cavity that functions via a photonic bandgap” as recited on lines 7-8, and (c) furthermore, Applicants argue that “the surrounding material” would be required for the claimed two-dimensional optical cavity in item (b) on page 10 of the REMARKS filed September 8, 2025.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the newly added limitation “functions via a photonic bandgap effect to modify the spontaneous emission” recited on lines 7-8 suggests, because (a) this limitation appears to be grammatically incorrect since it is not clear what the limitation “a two-dimensional optical cavity that functions” refers to as the two-dimensional optical cavity should function as a two-dimensional optical cavity always and in or by itself rather than “via a photonic bandgap effect”, (b) it is not clear whether the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity” functions as a photonic bandgap, or the claimed “two-dimensional optical cavity” is supported or facilitated by “a photonic bandgap effect” such that the nanowire emits the modified spontaneous emission, (c) if it is the latter, it is not clear which element causes or initiates “a photonic bandgap effect”, and (d) depending on how the grammatically incorrect limitation cited above is interpreted, the newly added limitation cited above would either fail to comply with the written description requirement as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, or be directed to an intended use of the claimed nanowire, where the limitation “a photonic bandgap effect to modify the spontaneous emission” would be observable with an addition of another feature to the nanowire, which is not a part of the claimed nanowire.
(3) 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) Applicants also claim that the optical cavity functioning via a photonic bandgap effect modifies “the spontaneous emission” on lines 7-8, where the spontaneous emission is emitted by the nanowire as recited on line 6, which collectively suggests that the “optical cavity” should be an entity separate from the nanowire since it does not make sense when the nanowire emits the spontaneous emission of light and then the optical cavity, which is a part of the same nanowire, modifies it, (d) on the other hand, 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 (e) 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.
(4) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear how the two-dimensional optical cavity functioning via the photonic bandgap effect can modify the spontaneous emission emitted from the nanowire as recited on lines 6-8, because (a) as discussed above, it is not clear what the “two-dimensional optical cavity” refers to, (b) if the “two-dimensional optical cavity” requires an additional material layer or encapsulant that Applicants do not claim, claim 1 would be indefinite as discussed above, and (c) on the other hand, if the “two-dimensional optical cavity” is a part of the claimed nanowire such as a sidewall surface or sidewall surfaces of the nanowire, then the limitation recited on lines 6-8 would not make sense in that Applicants claim that the nanowire emits the spontaneous emission of light along the z-direction and then a part of the nanowire also modifies the spontaneous emission of light along the x- and y-directions shown in Fig. 2A of current application, which would suggest that the nanowire would emit two emissions of light, one being the spontaneous emission of light along the z-direction and the other being the modified spontaneous emission of light along the x- and y-directions even though there would be no light propagating along the x- and y-direction from the claimed heterostructure.
Claims 2-5 and 7-13 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-5 and 7-13 are also indefinite.
(5) 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 1-2 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.
(6) 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.
(7) 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”.
(8) Further regarding claim 11, it is not clear whether the “temperature” and “temperature change” recited on line 2 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.
(9) 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”.
(10) Further regarding claim 12, it is not clear whether the “current density” and “current density change” recited on line 2 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
In the below prior art rejections, the claim limitations that are not associated with the structural features of the claimed nanowire specify intended uses or fields of use, and are treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claims 1-4, 7 and 10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mi et al. (US 2016/0365480)
Regarding claims 1-4, 7 and 10, Mi et al. disclose a nanowire (Fig. 1A and Fig. 5), comprising: a first semiconductor region (n-GaN); a second semiconductor region (p-GaN); and a heterostructure (composite structure of n-AlGaN, i-AlGaN and p-AlGaN) disposed between and coupled to the first semiconductor region and the second semiconductor region; wherein the nanowire is operable for spontaneous emission of light ([0053] and Fig. 5C), and wherein the nanowire has a two-dimensional optical cavity, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, it is not clear what the “optical cavity” refers to, and what it is constituted of since Applicants’ nanowire shown in Fig. 2 of current application is a bare nanowire, and (b) therefore, the sidewall surface(s) of the nanowire shown in Fig. 1A of Mi et al. can be referred to as “a two-dimensional optical cavity”, that functions via a photonic bandgap effect to modifies the spontaneous emission, which is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections (claim 1), operable for spontaneous emission of light at a current density through the nanowire that is less than one kiloampere per square centimeter (1 kA/cm2), which is directed to an intended use of the nanowire as well as being indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections (claim 2), wherein the current density is on the order of 0.2 kA/cm2 and less, which is directed to an intended use of the nanowire as well as being indefinite (claim 3), the first semiconductor region (n-GaN) comprises n-doped gallium nitride, and wherein the second semiconductor region (p-GaN) comprises p-doped gallium nitride (claim 4), the nanowire has a transverse cross-section that is hexagonal (claim 7), and the spontaneous emission of light is characterized by an electroluminescence spectrum having a spectral linewidth less than or equal to approximately four nanometers, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, this limitation is indefinite, and (b) Mi et al. should disclose the claimed characteristic since Mi et al. disclose all the claimed structural and material limitations, and therefore, if Mi et al. do not disclose the claimed characteristic, claim 10 would be further indefinite (claim 10).
Claims 1-5, 7, 10 and 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ra et al. (“An electrically pumped surface-emitting semiconductor green laser,” Science Advances 6 (2020))
Please refer to the explanations of the corresponding limitations above in the prior art rejection over Mi et al.
Regarding claims 1-5, 7, 10 and 13, Ra et al. disclose a nanowire (Fig. 2), comprising: a first semiconductor region (n-GaN); a second semiconductor region (p-GaN); and a heterostructure (MQDs) disposed between and coupled to the first semiconductor region and the second semiconductor region; wherein the nanowire is operable for spontaneous emission of light, which is an inherent characteristic of a laser mentioned in the Title of Ra et al., and wherein the nanowire has a two-dimensional optical cavity that functions via a photonic bandgap, which is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections and which is discussed above under 35 USC 102 rejection over Mi et al., to modify the spontaneous emission, which is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections (claim 1), operable for the spontaneous emission of light at a current density through the nanowire that is less than one kiloampere per square centimeter (1 kA/cm2), which is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections and which is directed to an intended use of the claimed nanowire as discussed above under 35 USC 102 rejection over Mi et al. (claim 2), wherein the current density is on the order of 0.2 kA/cm2 and less, which is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections and which is directed to an intended use of the claimed nanowire as discussed above under 35 USC 102 rejection over Mi et al. (claim 3), the first semiconductor region (n-GaN) comprises n-doped gallium nitride, and wherein the second semiconductor region (p-GaN) comprises p-doped gallium nitride (claim 4), the heterostructure comprises quantum disks comprising aluminum gallium nitride and indium gallium nitride (InGaN/AlGaN nanocrystal arrays; fourth line in first full paragraph on right column of page 1) (claim 5), the nanowire has a transverse cross-section that is hexagonal, see Fig. 1 (claim 7), and the spontaneous emission of light is characterized by an electroluminescence spectrum having a spectral linewidth less than or equal to approximately four nanometers, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, this limitation is indefinite, and (b) Ra et al. should disclose the claimed characteristic since Ra et al. disclose all the claimed structural and material limitations, and therefore, if Ra et al. do not disclose the claimed characteristic, claim 10 would be further indefinite (claim 10), and operable for spontaneous emission of light having a wavelength in a range of 520-560 nanometers (Fig. 1(G)) (claim 13).
Response to Arguments
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.
Munshi et al. (US 12527134)
Dheeraj et al. (US 11,594,657)
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 February 2, 2026
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815