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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mi et al. (US 2013/0240348).
Regarding claim 1, Mi et al. disclose heterostructure micropillars (820, 830, 840, 850)(fig. 8) on a substrate (810), each heterostructure micropillar comprising a stack of semiconductor layers separated by heterojunctions (GaN, InGaN)[0185], wherein sidewalls of the heterostructure micropillars (nanowires) are completely or substantially devoid of ion-induced defects [0185, nanowires are grown “growth methodology of the nanowires”] (the nanowires are not formed by RIE (reactive ion etching) as noted in paragraph [0036] of the current specification, and therefore the nanowires would be “completely or substantially devoid of ion-induced defects”).
Regarding claim 2, Mi et al. disclose some of the semiconductor layers comprise wide-bandgap semiconductor layers having a bandgap above about 3 eV (GaN)[0185].
Regarding claim 3, Mi et al. disclose the semiconductor layers include two or more group III-nitride semiconductors (GaN, InGaN)[0185].
Regarding claim 4, Mi et al. disclose the two or more group III-nitride semiconductors comprise gallium nitride and indium gallium nitride [0185].
Regarding claim 5, Mi et al. disclose each of the heterostructure micropillars comprises a range of bandgaps (any number would cover “a range”) and Mi discloses gallium nitride and indium gallium nitride[0185] which would anticipate “a range”.
Regarding claim 6, Mi et al. disclose the heterostructure micropillars include one or more multiple quantum wells (MQWs) (830)[0185].
Regarding claim 7, Mi et al. disclose each of the heterostructure micropillars includes from 3 of the semiconductor layers [0185].
Regarding claim 10, Mi et al. disclose each heterostructure micropillar is configured to emit visible light [0185 emits 440 nm wavelength(blue) ].
Regarding claim 11, Mi et al. disclose the substrate comprises a semiconductor (silicon) [0185].
Regarding claim 12, Mi et al. disclose the LED structure of claim 1 [0185].
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 2013/0240348) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Jain et al. (US 2018/0108806).
Mi et al. disclose the invention supra.
Mi et al. fails to disclose each heterostructure micropillar has maximum width or diameter in a range from about 1 mm to about 20 mm.
Jain et al. disclose each micropillar has maximum width or diameter of a few microns [0074]. The examiner submits “few microns” (i.e. two or more) would be inside 1 mm to about 20 mm. MPEP 2144.05 discloses “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” . The combination of Mi et al. and Jain et al. would disclose heterostructure micropillar.
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 (changing the diameter of the micropillar/nanowire), 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 relative dimensions of the of the micropillar/nanowire would be changed). MPEP 2144.04 IV A discloses “In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mi et al. (US 2013/0240348) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Jain et al. (US 2017/0236975).
Mi et al. disclose the invention supra.
Mi et al. fails to disclose from 100 to 600,000 heterostructure micropillars are arranged in an array on the substrate.
Jain disclose arrays of hundreds of nano wires [0023].
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 (making an array of nanowires), 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 (an array would be formed).
Conclusion
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