DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/16/2026 and 7/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 3-18 are pending. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 8-15 and 17 have been withdrawn. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 16, and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 reciting "a pyramid consisting of a first InGaN-based material" renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “consisting of” seemingly requiring the pyramid to be made of InGaN exclusively. On the other hand, InGaN-based appears to imply the base material is InGaN, but allows for inclusion of other material. It is unclear what the intended scope of the limitation is. More specifically, what material is intended to be excluded and what material is permissible to be included by the claim language? The indefinite claim language fails to clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen et al. US 2010/0148149 A1 (Pedersen) in view of Kishino et al. US 2011/0169025 A1 (Kishino).
PNG
media_image1.png
786
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Pedersen discloses (e.g. FIG. 5d) an optoelectronic device based on gallium nitride (GaN) (¶ 46) comprising:
a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) structures (¶ 76-77, see array in FIGs. 13-16), each 3D structure of the plurality of 3D structures comprising a pyramid (top portion of 512 above 511, see FIG. 5d annotated above) “consisting of a first InGaN- based material” (InGaN well layers 512, ¶ 46) formed from a planar substrate 506, and
a wire 511 made of a second GaN-based material (GaN core 511, ¶ 46), different from the first material InGaN-based material, said wire 511 extending in a longitudinal direction (vertical direction in drawing) perpendicular to a plane of the substrate 506 between said substrate 506 and a base (bottom) of the InGaN-based pyramid (top portion of 512),
wherein the GaN-based wire 511 comprises a base (bottom) resting on the planar substrate 506, and a planar top supporting the base (bottom) of the InGaN-based pyramid (top portion of 512), said top being surrounded by an InGaN-based collar (bottom portion of 512 surrounding 511, ¶ 46) forming with the InGaN-based pyramid (top portion of 512) a cap (entirety of 512) covering the top of the GaN-based wire 511.
Pedersen discloses an array of 3D structures are used to form LED devices (¶ 76-77, see array in FIGs. 13-16). Pedersen does not explicitly disclose first and second pluralities of 3D structures respectively having first and second separation distances between wires, and first and second diameters Φ1, Φ2 of wires, such that ds1 < ds2 and Φ1 > Φ2, said first and second pluralities of 3D structures emitting a light radiation having respectively first and second wavelengths λ1, λ2 such that λ1 > λ2,
However, Kishino discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1, 4 & 24) an optoelectronic device (¶ 45) based on gallium nitride (GaN) (¶ 51,56) comprising:
first and second pluralities of three-dimensional (3D) structures 23G,23R, each 3D structure 23 of the first and second pluralities of 3D structures 23G,23R comprising a pyramid top on a nanocolumn wire. Kishino further discloses the first and second pluralities of 3D structures 23G,23R respectively having first and second separation distances ds1,ds2 between wires (e.g. ds1 between two select nanocolumns in group 23G, and ds2 between two select nanocolumns in group 23R see FIG. 24 annotated above), and first and second diameters Φ1, Φ2 of wires (Φ1 being diameters of nanocolumns 23R, Φ2 being diameters of nanocolumns 23R), such that ds1 < ds2 and Φ1 > Φ2 (see FIG. 24 annotated above), said first and second pluralities of 3D structures 23G,23R emitting a light radiation having respectively first and second wavelengths λ1, λ2 (23R emitting red light λ1, 23G emitting green light λ2) such that λ1 > λ2 (FIGs. 5-7, ¶ 95). Kishino teaches arrangements of the plurality of arrays of nanocolumns 23R,23B,23R emitting different colors that are combined for forming a white light emitting diode (¶ 146).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange multiple arrays of nanocolumn LEDs for emitting different colors to make a white light emitting diode as taught by Kishino. A white LED is desired for its use to replace convention white light sources as is known in the art.
In re claim 3, Pedersen discloses (e.g. FIG. 5d see annotated above) wherein the base (bottom) of the InGaN-based pyramid (top portion of 512) is substantially parallel to the plane of the substrate 506.
In re claim 4, Pedersen discloses (e.g. FIG. 5d see annotated above) wherein the InGaN-based pyramid (top portion of 512) has a base diameter Φp (e.g. corresponding to lateral width at the bottom of top portion 512) and the wire 511 has a diameter Φ, the diameter Φ of the wire 511 being less than the base diameter Φp.
In re claim 5, Pedersen discloses (e.g. FIG. 5d) wherein each 3D structure further comprises an active InGaN-based region (e.g. an upper layer of the one or more InGaN well layers, ¶ 46) on at least one face of the InGaN-based pyramid (top tip portion of a lower layer of 512), said active region (an upper layer of well layers 512) being configured to emit light radiation.
In re claim 6, Kishino discloses (e.g. FIGs. 19 & 22) wherein the 3D structures 23 of the first plurality 23R are spaced from each other by the separation distance ds1 less than or equal to 650 nm (e.g. period of 269 nm for emission wavelength of 643 nm (red), ¶ 126, the distance being period minus the diameter of the wire would be even less), and wherein the 3D structures 23 of the second plurality 23G are spaced from each other by the separation distance ds2 less than or equal to 650 nm (e.g. period of 400 nm for emission wavelength of 508 nm (green), ¶ 121, the distance being period minus the diameter (e.g. 190nm, ¶ 122) of the wire would be even less).
In re claim 7, Kishino discloses (e.g. FIG. 24) comprising at least the first and second pluralities of 3D structures and a third pluralities of 3D structures 23R,23G,23B respectively having the first and second separation distances ds1 and ds2, and a third separation distance ds3 and the first and second diameters Φ1 and Φ2 of wires, and a third diameter Φ3 of wires such that ds1<ds2 <ds3 (see annotated FIG. 24 above) and/or Φ1>Φ2>Φ3, said first, second and third pluralities of 3D structures 23R,23G,23B emitting light radiation respectively having the first and second wavelengths λ1 (red) and λ2 (green), and a third wavelength λ3 (blue) such that λ1> λ2> λ3 (red light wavelength λ1 is greater than green light wavelength λ2 which is greater than blue light wavelength λ3).
In re claim 16, Kishino discloses (e.g. FIGs. 19 & 22) wherein the 3D structures 23 of the first plurality 23R are spaced from each other by the separation distance ds1 less than or equal to 300 nm (e.g. period of 269 nm for emission wavelength of 643 nm (red), ¶ 126, the distance being period minus the diameter (e.g. 190 nm, ¶ 122) of the wire would be 269 nm - 190 nm = 79 nm), and wherein the 3D structures 23 of the second plurality 23G are spaced from each other by the separation distance ds2 less than or equal to 300 nm (e.g. period of 400 nm for emission wavelength of 508 nm (green), ¶ 121, the distance being period minus the diameter (e.g. 190nm, ¶ 122) of the wire would be 400 nm - 190 nm = 210 nm).
In re claim 18, Pedersen discloses (e.g. FIG. 5d) wherein the InGaN-based pyramid (top portion of 512) comprises faces and the InGaN-based collar (bottom portion of 512) comprises facets as a continuation of the faces of the InGaN-based pyramid (top portion of 512).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 16, and 18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights