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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-18 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.
Claim 1 is based on Specification paragraph 0102 “As shown in FIG. 3, a light-emitting diode emitting in blue may be formed with a diameter in third range P3 and light-emitting diodes emitting in green and in red may be formed with a diameter in first range P1” of PG Pub US 20230361152 A1, however it appears that the benefit that is being claimed is only valid for specific ranges of dimensions and specific material (shown in Fig. 3) which are not in claim 1, thus, it is not clear how the device will function without having these specific dimensions, i.e. it is not clear if even for Fig. 3 it is possible to select dimensions that will satisfy claim 1 but do not achieve the result in Fig. 3 ? See Specification paragraph 0106 explains the claim 1 functionality. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 15-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiruma et al. (WO 2010044129 A1) hereafter referred to as Hiruma in view of Dheeraj et al. (US 20180204977 A1) hereafter referred to as Dheeraj
In regard to claim 1 Hiruma teaches Optoelectronic device [see Fig. 23] comprising first [“rod 612 emits green light”], second [“rod 613 emits red light”], and third [“rod 611 emits blue light”] three-dimensional light-emitting diodes [“when forming a semiconductor (InGaN) rod having a pn junction, the atomic composition ratio of In / Ga is adjusted by adjusting the thickness (diameter) of the rod (see the graph of FIG. 25), and the atomic composition of In / Ga. The emission wavelength is controlled by adjusting the ratio”] with an axial configuration,
each light-emitting diode comprising a semiconductor element [i.e. the rod “when forming a semiconductor (InGaN) rod having a pn junction”] and an active region [i.e. the pn junction] resting on the semiconductor element, each semiconductor element corresponding to [“by setting the diameter of the InGaN semiconductor rod to about 100 nm (rod 611), about 150 nm (rod 612), and about 200 nm (rod 613)”] a microwire, a nanowire, a nanometer- or micrometer-range conical element, or a nanometer- or micrometer-range frustoconical element,
the first light-emitting diodes being configured to emit a first radiation [“rod 612 emits green light”] at a first wavelength, the semiconductor elements of the first light-emitting diodes having [“about 150 nm (rod 612)”] a first diameter,
the second light-emitting diodes being configured to emit a second radiation [“rod 613 emits red light”] at a second wavelength, the semiconductor elements of the second light-emitting diodes having [“about 200 nm (rod 613)”] a second diameter, and
the third light-emitting diodes being configured to emit a third radiation [“rod 611 emits blue light”] at a third wavelength, the semiconductor elements of the third light-emitting diodes having [“about 100 nm (rod 611)”] a third diameter,
the first diameter [see Green 612 is 150 nm whereas Red 613 is 200 nm] being smaller than the second diameter,
the first wavelength [see green greater than blue] being greater than the third wavelength and the second wavelength [see red greater than green] being greater than the first wavelength
but does not teach and the second diameter being smaller than the third diameter.
However see that emission wavelength is controlled by In/Ga ratio and the emission power is determined by area of the emitter, thus any rod diameters for RGB can be chosen. It is noted that packing more nanowires together increases light output.
See Dheeraj teaches nanowire LED see paragraph 0158 “By varying the size of the holes, one could control the size of the nanowire or nanopyramid. By varying the pitch of the holes, one could optimize the light extraction of light from the nanowires or nanopyramids”.
It 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 to use “and the second diameter being smaller than the third diameter ”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
In regard to claim 2 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches wherein the first diameter [see Hiruma “about 150 nm (rod 612)”] varies from 80 nm to 150 nm.
In regard to claim 3 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches wherein the second diameter [see Hiruma “about 200 nm (rod 613)”] varies from 200 nm to 350 nm.
In regard to claim 4 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches wherein the third diameter [see Hiruma, see combination Dheeraj, see case law Aller ] varies from 370 nm to 500 nm.
In regard to claim 5 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches wherein the first wavelength is [see Hiruma, it is Green] in the range from 510 nm to 570 nm.
In regard to claim 6 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches wherein the second wavelength is [see Hiruma, it is Red] in the range from 600 nm to 720 nm.
In regard to claim 7 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches wherein the third wavelength is [see Hiruma, it is Blue] in the range from 430 nm to 490 nm.
In regard to claim 9 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches wherein each active region comprises [see Hiruma, “The semiconductor rod of the present invention preferably has a quantum well structure”] a single quantum well or multiple quantum wells.
In regard to claim 10 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches [see Hiruma, “when forming a semiconductor (InGaN) rod having a pn junction”] wherein the semiconductor elements and the active regions are made of III-V compounds.
In regard to claim 11 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches [see Hiruma, “semiconductor rods 611, 612, and 613 were grown from the substrate 600 through the opening of the insulating pattern portion by the MOCVD method”] wherein the semiconductor elements of the first, second, and third light-emitting diodes are formed by MOCVD.
In regard to claim 13 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches wherein the semiconductor elements of the first, second, and third light-emitting diodes rest on a substrate [see Hiruma, “semiconductor rods 611, 612, and 613 were grown from the substrate 600 through the opening of the insulating pattern portion by the MOCVD method” “semiconductor crystal substrate is prepared, and its crystal axis (111) surface is covered with an insulating film”] and are in contact with a material adapted to the epitaxial growth of the semiconductor elements of the first, second, and third light-emitting diodes.
In regard to claim 14 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined teaches wherein the first, second, and third light-emitting diodes form [see Hiruma, “semiconductor rods 611, 612, and 613 were grown from the substrate 600 through the opening of the insulating pattern portion by the MOCVD method”] a monolithic structure.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined and further in view of Fimland et al. (US 20200161504 A1) hereafter referred to as Fimland
In regard to claim 12 Hiruma and Dheeraj as combined does not teach wherein the active regions of the first, second, and third light-emitting diodes are formed by MBE.
However this is standard in the art, see Fimland teaches see paragraph 0136 “nanostructures are preferably grown by MBE or MOVPE”.
Thus, it 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 to modify Hiruma to include wherein the active regions of the first, second, and third light-emitting diodes are formed by MBE.
Thus it would be obvious to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention.
The motivation is that MBE is well known to give good results for Epitaxy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 2, 3 the Applicant argues “The Office Action appears to consider that claim 1 should specify size ranges for the first, second, and third diameters and the materials comprising the electroluminescent device. Claim 1 already relates to a specific structure of light-emitting diodes, that is a three-dimensional light- emitting diode with an axial configuration having an active region resting on a semiconductor element that corresponds to a microwire, a nanowire, a nanometer- or micrometer-range conical element, or a nanometer- or micrometer-range frustoconical element. Embodiments of the technology disclosed in the application comprises demonstrating that, for this particular optoelectronic device structure, the wavelengths of the radiation emitted by the nanowires are different from what the skilled person would have anticipated. The person skilled in the art would easily determine the ranges and materials covered by claim 1 since the POSA can directly see, for a optoelectronic device with given values of the first, second, and third diameters and given materials whether the feature of claim 1 of "the first wavelength being greater than the third wavelength and the second wavelength being greater than the first wavelength" is achieved or not. Therefore, it is unnecessary to specify structural details in claim 1 since the feature of "the first wavelength being greater than the third wavelength and the second wavelength being greater than the first wavelength" already points out the structural limitations”.
The Examiner responds that the Applicant is saying that emission color is dependent on relative size and even if you assume that the Applicant’s data is correct for the specific dimensions used by the Applicant, this is not universally true for all dimensions of the light emitters, i.e. red green blue emitters emit the wavelength based on the bandgap of the emitter (which is not the same as size), this is because of the Einstein relationship, for this reason the claim is unclear.
On page 2, 3 the Applicant argues “Hiruma describes, in relation to Figures 23 and 25 reproduced below for convenience, semiconductor rods 611, 612, and 613 having p-n junctions. The diameters of the rods 611 are set to 100 nm so that blue light is emitted from the rods 611. The diameters of the rods 612 are set to 150 nm so that green light is emitted from the rods 612. The diameters of the rods 613 are set to 200 nm so that red light is emitted from the rods 612 ... The Office Action refers to Dheeraj to justify that it is known to control the size of nanowires. Embodiments of the technology disclosed in the present application are directed to precisely in demonstrating that, for a particular optoelectronic device structure, the wavelengths of the radiation emitted by the nanowires did not correspond to what a skilled person would have anticipated, since this is contrary to the teachings of Hiruma and no help is given by the teachings of Dheeraj. Nothing the cited references would have motivated a person of skill in the art to look for solutions that would be contrary to those of Hiruma and Dheeraj”.
The Examiner responds that the Applicant is saying that emission color is dependent on relative size and even if you assume that the Applicant’s data is correct for the specific dimensions used by the Applicant, this is not universally true for all dimensions of the light emitters, i.e. red green blue emitters emit the wavelength based on the bandgap of the emitter (which is not the same as size), this is because of the Einstein relationship E=hν, for this reason the rejection based on prior art combination is valid, the color can be chosen independently of relative size and the relative sizes of the claims are obvious in view of the prior art, as stated by the prior art combination, for this reason the Examiner noted that if the Applicant really believes that a novel behavior occurs for the dimensions of the Applicant, then the claim should specify the dimensions and a search can be done to see if the prior art teaches this, but unless dimensions are specified, based solely on relative dimensions, the claim is relating relative size to color which the prior art shows to be obvious, however if the Applicant adds dimensions in the claims, for those specific dimensions if the Applicant is claiming unusual quantum effects based on size, then it can be examined if the Applicant’s claimed unusual color output is patentable or not.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SITARAMARAO S YECHURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8764. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 PM.
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, Britt D Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/SITARAMARAO S YECHURI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893