Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/040,524

LED DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURE

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Feb 03, 2023
Examiner
MEHTA, RATISHA
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Poro Technologies Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
89%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 89% — above average
89%
Career Allow Rate
559 granted / 625 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
649
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
44.9%
+4.9% vs TC avg
§102
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§112
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 625 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/19/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn. However upon further consideration, some of the claims are rejected under U.S.C 112 (b) rejection. For above mentioned reasons, the rejection is deemed proper and considered final. 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 13, 63 and 64 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. Claim 13 recites the limitation “dividing the LED structures into a plurality of LED structures, to form a first LED structure above the first porous region and a second LED structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be to form the first LED structure and the second LED structure. Claim 63 recites the limitation “dividing the LED structures into a plurality of LED structures, to form a first LED structure above the first porous region and a second LED structure and a third LED structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim should be to form the first LED structure and the second LED structure and the third LED structure. Also the limitation “a third LED structure containing the porous portion of the light emitting region” is unclear to the examiner as the limitation the limitation “the porous portion” is not defined in the independent claim or the claims on which the claim 63 is dependent on. Also how is the third LED structure containing the porous portion of the light emitting region is unclear. Regarding claim 64, the limitation: An LED device according to claim 32, in which or in which the second LED structure, seems to be a typo or missing a limitation. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, 16, 18, 20, 21, 32-34, 37-38, 40-41, 43, 45-46, 51-54, 58-62 and 65 are allowed. Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “in which the template comprises a non-porous intermediate layer of III-nitride material above the first porous region and in which the first and second LED structures are formed on the non-porous intermediate layer”. Regarding claim 32, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “in which the first and second LED structures are formed on the non-porous intermediate layer”. Regarding claim 53, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “in which the second LED structure and/or the third LED structure is positioned over a non-porous region of III-nitride material, the non-porous region of III-nitride material being arranged in a same place as the first porous region”. 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 RATISHA MEHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am - 5:00 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, Eliseo Ramos Feliciano can be reached at 571-272-7925. 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. /RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 03, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 19, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 06, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600904
CIRCULARLY POLARIZED LIGHT EMITTING ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604474
TRENCH PATTERNING PROCESS USING MICROCRACKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595393
Curable Compositions for Forming Light Scattering Layers
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593733
Vertical Light Emitting Diode Die Packaging Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588335
LIGHT EMITTING DIODE FILAMENT INCLUDING FLIP CHIP LIGHT EMITTING DIODES TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PHOSPHOR THAT IS INTEGRATED INTO THE FILAMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
89%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+6.4%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 625 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month