DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 9, 16-18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-7, 9, 16-18 previously withdrawn from consideration without traverse (See Response to Election/Restriction dated 01/05/2026 and Non-Final Rejection dated 01/05/2026) are improperly identified as (Currently Amended) or (Previously Presented) instead of (Withdrawn-Currently Amended) or (Withdrawn) as required by 37 CFR 1.121, see MPEP 714
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 and 13 limitations “– A provision”, “- A formation” “the formation” etc. do not contain positively recited method step. The Examiner interprets and recommends amending claim limitations into positively recited method step language: providing, forming etc.
Further, the Examiner recommends following proper punctuation/mechanics and removing capital letters in the middle of the claim.
The Examiner notes that MPEP 608.01(m) states that "Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period" and "Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i)."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites “a resonating cavity configured to resonate at a wavelength in a visible spectrum” and according Applicants Arguments dated 04/01/2026 on Page 8-9
“To form a resonating cavity or photonic crystal for visible light applications (red, green, and blue wavelengths ranging from approximately 400 nm to 700 nm), the separation distance must be on the order of the visible light wavelength.”
Therefore, the separation distance ds is must be on the order the visible light wavelength between 400 nm and 700 nm.
However, claim 15 recites “the separation distance ds is between 50 nm and 700 nm.” which is broader range than 400 nm and 700 nm required by Claim 10.
. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 12, 15 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2021/0335884 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2008/0093622 A1)
Regarding Claim 10, Wang (Fig. 1) discloses a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device comprising a substrate (102, 100) and on a first face of the substrate (top), at least one stack, in a longitudinal direction, of at least one injection layer of a first type of carriers (110) and an active layer (112), said method comprising:
A provision of the substrate (102, 100),
A formation of a growth mask (104) on the first face of the substrate (100, 102), said growth mask comprising at least one opening (106) in the longitudinal direction through which the first face (top) is exposed,
A formation, from the exposed zone of the substrate (100, 102), of the injection layer of the first type of carriers (110, n-type) within the at least one opening (106),
A formation of the active layer (112) on said injection layer (110), within the at least one opening (106) such that said active layer (112) is confined in the at least one opening (106) and does not extend outside of said at least one opening (106), wherein
the growth mask (104) comprises a plurality of openings (106) and wherein the openings, having surfaces substantially equal to one another (Fig.1B,C),
taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, are separated two-by-two (Fig. 1C) [0054] by a separation distance ds (“the pitch distance, i.e. the distance between the centres of closest adjacent micro-holes, may be, for example, from 4 μm to 500 μm”) in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction z.
Wang does not explicitly disclose that a separation distance ds chosen such that said openings form a resonating cavity configured to resonate at a wavelength in a visible spectrum in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction
Li (Fig. 7A) discloses a separation distance ds (D; “the distance d between two adjacent trenches may be at least equal to the average width of the adjacent trenches” [0043]) chosen such that openings form a resonating cavity (W; “width w of the trench may be less than about 500 nm” [0027]) configured to resonate at a wavelength in a visible spectrum in a plane transverse to a longitudinal direction z.
The Examiner notes that at a wavelength in a visible spectrum is typically spanning wavelengths between 380 and 750 nanometers and according to Applicants originally filed specifications” said resonating cavity is therefore typically formed by a plurality of stacks of the same size, more specifically with a size less than 1 µm. This makes it possible to form a photonic crystal. [0046]. Further, according Applicants Arguments dated 04/01/2026 on Page 8-9
“To form a resonating cavity or photonic crystal for visible light applications (red, green, and blue wavelengths ranging from approximately 400 nm to 700 nm), the separation distance must be on the order of the visible light wavelength.”
Therefore, the limitation is considered to be met as long as a separation distance ds is “on the order of the visible light wavelength” and openings have a size less than 1 µm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device in Wang in view of Li to select such values for distance d between two adjacent trenches and width w of the trench such that a separation distance ds chosen such that said openings form a resonating cavity configured to resonate at a wavelength in a visible spectrum in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction z in order to provide200 a broad-area laser or LED [0043] and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang in view of Li discloses the method according to claim 10 wherein
the formations of the injection layer and of the active layer are achieved by metalorganic vapour-phase epitaxy (MOVPE) in the longitudinal direction in the at least one opening. [0039 Wang]
Regarding Claim 15, Wang in view of Li discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein
the separation distance ds is between 50 nm and 700 nm. (D; “the distance d between two adjacent trenches may be at least equal to the average width of the adjacent trenches” [0043, Li] and (W; “width w of the trench may be less than about 500 nm” [0027] Li))
Regarding Claim 22, Wang in view of Li discloses the method according to claim 10 wherein
the injection layer (n-GaN layer 110 Wang) of the first type of carriers is GaN-based, and the active layer is InGaN-based (the InGaN MQWs 112 Wang).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2021/0335884 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2008/0093622 A1) and further in view of in view of Charles (US 2021/0119075 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang in view of Li discloses the method according to claim 10.
Wang in view of Li does not explicitly disclose the substrate comprises a nucleation layer, a face of which forms the first face of the substrate, such that the injection layer of the first type of carriers is formed within the at least one opening by bearing on said nucleation layer, said nucleation layer being made of a material different from the material of the injection layer of the first type of carriers.
Charles (Fig. 2) discloses a substrate (10) comprises a nucleation layer (12), a face of which forms a first face of the substrate (10), such that an injection layer (31) of the first type of carriers (n-doped first segments 31) is formed within an at least one opening (21) by bearing on said nucleation layer (12), said nucleation layer (12 being made of a material [0057] different from the material of the injection layer of the first type of carriers [0070-0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device in Wang in view of Li and Charles such that the substrate comprises a nucleation layer, a face of which forms the first face of the substrate, such that the injection layer of the first type of carriers is formed within the at least one opening by bearing on said nucleation layer, said nucleation layer being made of a material different from the material of the injection layer of the first type of carriers in order to promote the nucleation and the epitaxial growth of the semiconductor stacks [0057].
Claim(s) 13 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2021/0335884 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2008/0093622 A1) and further in view of Sugawara (JP 2003158296 A)
Regarding Claim 13, Wang in view of Li discloses the method according to claim 10 wherein
the growth mask (104 Wang) comprises at least one first opening and one second opening respectively having a first surface and a second surface, taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, different from one another, (Fig. 1B, C Wang) and
wherein the formation of the active layer (112 Wang) comprises a formation of a first active layer (112 in one opening Wang) within the first opening and simultaneously, a formation of a second active layer within the second opening (112 in another opening Wang)
Wang in view of Li does not explicitly disclose said first and second active layers have thicknesses, taken in the longitudinal direction, different from one another
Sugawara (Fig. 3) discloses first (51) and second (53) active layers have thicknesses, taken in the longitudinal direction, different from one another (“Therefore, if a region having a different area ratio between the mask portion and the opening is formed above the substrate, the growth rate is high and the thickness of the active layer is large in the opening having a small area to obtain long wavelength light emission. On the contrary, in the large-area opening region, the growth rate is slow and the thickness of the active layer is small, so that light emission of short wavelength can be obtained. Then, a plurality of light emitting elements which emit light of different wavelengths can be manufactured over the same substrate by a single film forming process.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device in Wang in view of Li and Sugawara such that said first and second active layers have thicknesses, taken in the longitudinal direction, different from one another in order to light emitting elements which emit light of different wavelengths can be manufactured over the same substrate by a single film forming process. (Sugawara)
Regarding Claim 19, Wang in view of Li discloses the method according to claim 10 wherein
the growth mask (104 Wang) comprises a plurality of openings distributed according to the first, second and third subassemblies (106 Wang) respectively comprising openings having first, second and third middle surfaces (surfaces of 106 Wang), taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction.
Wang in view of Li does not explicitly disclose openings having first, second and third middle surfaces, taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, different from one another.
Sugawara (Fig. 3) discloses openings having first (S1), second (S2) and third middle surfaces (S3), taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, different from one another. (“Therefore, if a region having a different area ratio between the mask portion and the opening is formed above the substrate, the growth rate is high and the thickness of the active layer is large in the opening having a small area to obtain long wavelength light emission. On the contrary, in the large-area opening region, the growth rate is slow and the thickness of the active layer is small, so that light emission of short wavelength can be obtained. Then, a plurality of light emitting elements which emit light of different wavelengths can be manufactured over the same substrate by a single film forming process.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device in Wang in view of Li and Sugawara such that openings having first, second and third middle surfaces, taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, different from one another. in order to light emitting elements which emit light of different wavelengths can be manufactured over the same substrate by a single film forming process. (Sugawara)
Regarding Claim 20, Wang in view of Li and Sugawara discloses the method according to claim 19, wherein
the first, second and third middle surfaces are chosen so as to respectively form first, second and third subassemblies respectively comprising active layers having first, second and third thicknesses, taken in the longitudinal direction, different from one another, said subassemblies of active layers (51, 52, 53 Sugawara) being configured to emit light radiations respectively having first, second and third wavelengths, different from one another. (“Therefore, if a region having a different area ratio between the mask portion and the opening is formed above the substrate, the growth rate is high and the thickness of the active layer is large in the opening having a small area to obtain long wavelength light emission. On the contrary, in the large-area opening region, the growth rate is slow and the thickness of the active layer is small, so that light emission of short wavelength can be obtained. Then, a plurality of light emitting elements which emit light of different wavelengths can be manufactured over the same substrate by a single film forming process.”) (Sugawara)
Regarding Claim 21, Wang in view of Li discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein
the growth mask (104 Wang) comprises a plurality of openings (106 Wang) and wherein
the formation of the injection layer (110 Wang) of the first type of carriers is performed simultaneously within all the openings (106 Wang) and wherein
the formation of the active layer (112 Wang) is performed simultaneously within all the openings (106 Wang)
Wang in view of Li does not explicitly disclose the thickness of said injection layer varies according to the surface, taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, of the openings, and the thickness of said active layer varies according to the surface, taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, of the openings.
Sugawara (Fig. 3) discloses a thickness of an injection layer (41, 42, 43)) varies according to the surface, taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, of openings (S1, S2, S3), and a thickness of an active layer (51, 52, 53) varies according to the surface, taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, of the openings. (“Therefore, if a region having a different area ratio between the mask portion and the opening is formed above the substrate, the growth rate is high and the thickness of the active layer is large in the opening having a small area to obtain long wavelength light emission. On the contrary, in the large-area opening region, the growth rate is slow and the thickness of the active layer is small, so that light emission of short wavelength can be obtained. Then, a plurality of light emitting elements which emit light of different wavelengths can be manufactured over the same substrate by a single film forming process.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method for manufacturing an optoelectronic device in Wang in view of Li and Sugawara such that the thickness of said injection layer varies according to the surface, taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, of the openings, and the thickness of said active layer varies according to the surface, taken in a plane transverse to the longitudinal direction, of the openings in order to light emitting elements which emit light of different wavelengths can be manufactured over the same substrate by a single film forming process. (Sugawara)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicants Arguments Pages 8-9, filed 04/01/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2021/0335884 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2021/0335884 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2008/0093622 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights