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 with respect to claim(s) 3/31/26 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection below.
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, 3-7 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 claim(s) contains 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 would encompass claim 7. See MPEP 2164.08 discloses “[w]ith respect to dependent claims, 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, should be followed. These paragraphs state “a claim in a dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers” and requires the dependent claim to further limit the subject matter claimed.” MPEP 2163 II 3 (a) discloses “A claim which is limited to a single disclosed embodiment or species is analyzed as a claim drawn to a single embodiment or species, whereas a claim which encompasses two or more embodiments or species within the scope of the claim is analyzed as a claim drawn to a genus.” MPEP 2163 II 3 (a) ii) disclose “Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353–54 ('[T]he purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.'”
Claim 7 disclose “the magnetic layer comprises: at least one first thin film layer comprising a diamagnetic material or a material having a magnetic property; and at least one second thin film layer comprising an n-type semiconductor, and wherein the at least one first thin film layer and the at least one second thin film layer are alternatingly stacked.” Paragraph [0083] discloses “On the magnetic layer 70, a plurality of n-GaN-based first thin film layers and a plurality of second thin film layers having a magnetic property may be formed in stack alternatingly in a repeated manner. In this case, the plurality of second film layers may be a diamagnetic material, e.g., Ge, or a material having a magnetic property, e.g., any one of Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, and Cu.”
The specification fails to support all “n-type semiconductor” layers, because the specification [0083] only discloses “a plurality of n-GaN-based first thin film layers”. The Federal Circuit has held :
As we explained in Ariad, the written description inquiry looks to "the four corners of the specification" to discern the extent to which the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as broadly claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 , 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("It is the disclosures of the applications that count."). The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571 , but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification. Id. at 1571-72 .
Rivera v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
In this case, it might be obvious that the specification would encompass all n-type semiconductors, such as n-type silicon or n-type SiC or n-type GaAs or an n-type Ge but the current specification fails to disclose the second film layer comprises n-type silicon or n-type SiC or n-type GaAs or an n-Ge.
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 7 is 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.
The term “thin film” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin film” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 1, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munchi et al. (US 2022/0262978) in view of Kamiguchi et al. (US Patent 6,043,515) and Bongchu et al. (KR20190075869A).
Regarding claim 1, Munchi et al. disclose n-type GaN-based semiconductor layer having a pillar shape (the “n” in the n-i-p) [0263](fig. 1); an active layer (intrinsic active layer, the “i” in the n-i-p)[0263](fig 1) provided on a first side an uppermost surface and a side surface of the n- type GaN-based semiconductor layer; a p-type GaN-based semiconductor layer(the “p” in the n-i-p) [0263](fig. 1, radial n-i-p structure) provided on the active layer.
Munchi et al. fails to disclose a magnetic layer provided on a second side a lowermost surface of the n-type GaN-based semiconductor layer
Regarding claim 1, Kamiguchi et al. disclose a magnetic layer (ferromagnetic) (308) provided on a second side a lowermost surface of the n-type GaN-based semiconductor layer (fig. 11) [col. 9 lines 20-30].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a magnetic layer on the lowermost side of the n-GaN layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the magnetic layer on the LED layer assemble the LED on a substrate under a magnetic field [Bongchu et al. 0180] ).
Regarding claims 5-6, Kamiguchi et al. disclose Ni and Fe materials for the ferromagnetic layer (308) [col. 9 lines 34-35].
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munchi et al. (US 2022/0262978) in view of Kamiguchi et al. (US Patent 6,043,515) and Bongchu et al. (KR20190075869A)as applied to claim 1 above in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2020/0303026).
Munchi et al. Kamiguchi et al. and Bongchu et al. disclose the invention supra.
Kamiguchi et al. fails to disclose the magnetic layer comprises a diamagnetic material and the diamagnetic material comprises germanium.
Hashimoto et al. disclose magnetic layer comprises a germanium [0016].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using germanium in a magnetic layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the layer comprising germanium would form layer having high uniaxial anisotropy [Hashimoto 0016]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munchi et al. (US 2022/0262978) in view of Kamiguchi et al. (US Patent 6,043,515) and Bongchu et al. (KR20190075869A) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Hashimoto et al. (US 2020/0303026) and Nguyen et al. (US 2011/0315992).
Munchi et al. Kamiguchi et al. and Bongchu et al. disclose the invention supra.
Munchi et al. Kamiguchi et al. and Bongchu et al. fail to disclose the magnetic layer comprises: at least one first thin film layer comprising a diamagnetic material or a material having a magnetic property; and at least one second thin film layer comprising an n-type semiconductor, and wherein the at least one first thin film layer and the at least one second thin film layer are alternatingly stacked.
Hashimoto et al. disclose magnetic layer comprises a germanium [0016].
Nguyen et al. disclose an n-type germanium layer [0041].
The combination of Munchi et al. Kamiguchi et al. and Bongchu et al. with Hashimoto et al. and Nguyen et al. would form an n-type germanium on the bottom of the LED. The examiner submits the n-type germanium layer on the bottom of the LED would satisfy the limitation “a diamagnetic material and at least one second thin film layer comprising an n-type semiconductor, and wherein the at least one first thin film layer and the at least one second thin film layer are alternatingly stacked” because the n-type germanium layer could be divided into two layers a top layer (first thin film) and bottom layer (second thin film) alternately stacked.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using germanium in a magnetic layer and controlling the conductivity of the germanium layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the layer comprising germanium would form layer having high uniaxial anisotropy[Hashimoto 0016] and the n-type germanium would allow one to control the conductivity of the germanium layer).
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bongchu et al. (KR20190075869A) in view of Kamiguchi et al. (US Patent 6,043,515) and Munchi et al. (US 2022/0262978).
Regarding claim 8, Bongchu et al. disclose a thin film transistor (TFT) substrate (1010) [0023, 0141, 0197] (fig 15) comprising a plurality of anode electrodes ( marked up fig 15 below) and a plurality of cathode electrodes ( marked up fig 15 below) provided on a first surface of the TFT substrate; and a plurality of nanowire light emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0196] discloses that the partition wall (1040) is 500nm or less and [0194] notes that the partition wall is twice the height of LED vertical length “y”. Therefore, “y” would be 250nm or less which would make the LED a nanowire) comprising first end parts respectively connected to each anode electrode and second end parts respectively connected to each cathode electrode, wherein each of the plurality of nanowire LEDs has a magnetic property (layer 1240, [0179]) and polarity (upper portion of 1230 doped semiconductor [0018] same as described in applicant’s specification [0050]).
Bongchu et al. fails to disclose LEDs comprises:an n-type GaN-based semiconductor layer having a pillar shape;an active layer provided on an uppermost surface and a side surface of the n-type GaN-based semiconductor layer; a p-type GaN-based semiconductor layer provided on the active layer.
Munchi et al. disclose n-type GaN-based semiconductor layer having a pillar shape (the “n” in the n-i-p) [0263](fig. 1); an active layer (intrinsic active layer, the “i” in the n-i-p)[0263](fig 1) provided on a first side an uppermost surface and a side surface of the n- type GaN-based semiconductor layer; a p-type GaN-based semiconductor layer(the “p” in the n-i-p) [0263](fig. 1, radial n-i-p structure) provided on the active layer.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a radial n-i-p structure), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the structure would form an LED).
Kamiguchi et al. disclose a magnetic layer (ferromagnetic) (308) provided on a second side a lowermost surface of the n-type GaN-based semiconductor layer (fig. 11) [col. 9 lines 20-30].
The combination of Bongchu et al Munchi et al. and Kamiguchi et al. would form the nanowire LED.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a magnetic layer on the lowermost side of the n-GaN layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the magnetic layer on the LED layer assemble the LED on a substrate under a magnetic field [Bongchu et al. 0180] ).
Regarding claim 10, Bongchu et al. disclose the plurality of nanowire LEDs are provided to the TFT substrate (1010) [0023, 0141, 0197] in a form of a unit pixel comprising red, green, and blue sub- pixels, and wherein the unit pixel [0077] comprises a unit substrate on which the red, green, and blue sub- pixels are provided [0077, 0170].
PNG
media_image1.png
487
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights