DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed June 30, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 30, 2026. These drawings are accepted.
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 1-17 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 claims contain 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0040] of current application that “In one embodiment, a light emitting device includes a barrier (e.g., an AlGaN barrier, etc.) that effectively compensates the tensile strain within the active region, which significantly reduces the strain distribution and results in higher indium incorporation (e.g., in comparison to a conventional GaN barrier, etc.) (emphasis added)”, in paragraph [0042] of current application that “In one exemplary implementation, an AlGaN barrier can effectively compensate the tensile strain caused by InGaN QWs and lead to an enhanced indium incorporation as well as longer emission wavelengths (emphasis added)”, and in paragraph [0070] of current application that “Moreover, AlGaN as a quantum barrier can effectively compensate the tensile strain caused by InGaN QW in GaN nanowire (emphasis added).” However, Applicants did not originally disclose “AlGaN strain compensation barriers configured to effectively compensate tensile strain caused by the InGaN quantum wells” as recited on lines 8-10, because the thee sentences cited above from the original disclosure clearly state that it is a single AlGaN barrier layer, rather than the claimed “AlGaN strain compensation barriers” or a plurality of AlGaN strain compensation barriers, that can effectively compensate the tensile strain.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, Applicants originally disclosed in the Abstract that “The active region comprises a quantum core structure with strain compensation barriers and polarization doping (emphases added)”, in paragraph [0008] of current application that “The active region comprises a quantum core structure with strain compensation barriers and polarization doping (emphases added)”, in paragraph [0011] of current application that “In one embodiment, a method comprises: forming a substrate comprising silicon; forming a first portion comprising a group III-V compound component with a first type of doping; forming a second portion comprising an active region, wherein the active region comprises a quantum core structure with strain compensated barriers, wherein the second portion is coupled to the first portion; forming a shell coupled to the second portion, wherein the shell comprises polarization doping, and forming a third portion comprising a group III-V compound component with a second type of doping, wherein the third portion is coupled to the second portion”, in paragraph [0040] of current application that “In one embodiment, an=light [sic] emitting device includes an introduced core-shell structure and polarization doping”, and that “The introduced core-shell structure and polarization doping enable stable operation and light emission (e.g., with negligible quantum-confined Stark effect, etc.)”, in paragraph [0044] of current application that “Second portion 130 includes an active region, wherein the active region comprises a quantum core structure with strain compensation barriers (e.g., 131, 132, and 133, etc.) and polarization doping (emphases added).” However, Applicants did not originally disclose “polarization doping in the quantum core structure” as recited on lines 15-16, because while Applicants originally disclosed that the active region comprises the quantum core structure and the polarization doping, Applicants did not originally disclose that the quantum core structure itself comprises the polarization doping.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the negative Al composition gradient” is “configured to mitigate or overcome piezoelectric field issues” recited on lines 20-21, because (a) Applicants did not use the verbs to “mitigate” and to “overcome” in the original disclosure, and (b) Applicants did not use the noun “issues” and the phrase “piezoelectric field issues” in the original disclosure.
Claims 2-17 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-17 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-17 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.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear where the “tensile strain caused by the InGaN quantum wells” recited on lines 9-10 is applied, because (a) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0040] of current application that “In one embodiment, a light emitting device includes a barrier (e.g., an AlGaN barrier, etc.) that effectively compensates the tensile strain within the active region, which significantly reduces the strain distribution and results in higher indium incorporation (e.g., in comparison to a conventional GaN barrier, etc.) (emphasis added)”, in paragraph [0042] of current application that “In one exemplary implementation, an AlGaN barrier can effectively compensate the tensile strain caused by InGaN QWs and lead to an enhanced indium incorporation as well as longer emission wavelengths (emphasis added)”, and in paragraph [0070] of current application that “Moreover, AlGaN as a quantum barrier can effectively compensate the tensile strain caused by InGaN QW in GaN nanowire (emphasis added)”, (b) therefore, even the original disclosure is not clear where the tensile strain is applied, i.e. is it within the active region or in the GaN nanowire?, (c) any stain or stress is a tensor, which has associated direction or directions, and the strain or stress should also be applied to a physical object, but Applicants do not specifically claim in which direction and on which physical object the claimed tensile strain is applied, and (c) without knowing in which direction and on which physical object the claimed tensile strain is applied, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know what the limitation “to effectively compensate tensile strain caused by the InGaN quantum wells” suggests.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “to effectively compensate (the) tensile strain” recited on lines 9 and 11-12 suggests, because (a) Applicants did not originally disclose the definition of the phrase “to effectively compensate tensile strain”, and (b) it is not clear whether the phrase “to effectively compensate tensile strain” suggests (i) a complete compensation of the tensile strain, (ii) a 90% compensation of the tensile strain, (iii) a 80% compensation of the tensile strain, etc.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear how the “AlGaN strain compensation barriers” or a plurality of AlGaN strain compensation barriers can be “configured to effectively compensate tensile strain caused by the InGaN quantum wells (emphasis added)” as recited on lines 8-10, and then “each AlGaN strain compensation barrier” is “configured to effectively compensate the tensile strain caused by the InGaN quantum wells (emphasis added)” as recited on lines 10-12, because (a) these two limitations appear to be contradictory to each other since Applicants claim that all of the AlGaN strain compensation barriers can effectively compensate the tensile strain caused by the plurality of the InGaN quantum wells, while a single AlGaN strain compensation barrier can also effectively compensate the tensile strain, (b) it does not appear that both configurations or schemes can be true simultaneously since, when presence of one AlGaN strain compensation barrier is sufficient enough to effectively compensate the tensile strain caused by the InGaN quantum wells, the remainder of the AlGaN strain compensation barriers would not be involved in effective compensation of the tensile strain caused by the InGaN quantum wells, and (c) furthermore, it is not clear whether the effective compensation of the tensile strain by the “AlGaN strain compensation barriers” is an effective compensation of the tensile strain to a degree different from the effective compensation of the tensile strain by each AlGaN strain compensation barrier since as discussed above, Applicants did not originally disclose the definition of the phrase “to effectively compensate tensile strain”.
(4) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the negative Al composition gradient” is “configured to mitigate or overcome piezoelectric field issues” recited on lines 20-21 suggests, because (a) it is not clear whether the verbs to “mitigate” and to “overcome” are the same since otherwise it is not clear how a single “negative Al composition gradient” can potentially both mitigate and overcome the piezoelectric field issues, (b) it is not clear whether the mitigation and overcoming of the piezoelectric field issues are associated with the values of “the negative Al composition gradient” such that, for example, a small negative Al composition gradient can be configured to mitigate the piezoelectric field issues, while a large negative Al composition gradient can be configured to overcome the piezoelectric field issues, (c) it is not clear what the “issues” in the limitation “piezoelectric field issues” refer to, (d) it is not clear where the “piezoelectric field issues” occur, (e) it is not clear whether the “piezoelectric field issues” are actual issues or issues associated with unexpected outcome(s) different from the original design, (f) it is not clear what the “piezoelectric field issues” comprise since Applicants do not claim even one piezoelectric field issue in the first place, and without knowing what the single piezoelectric field issue is, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what the claimed plurality of “piezoelectric field issues” are, and (g) it is not clear whether the “piezoelectric field issues” are a plurality of different piezoelectric field issues or a single piezoelectric issue appearing on a plurality of materials, regions or locations.
Claims 2-17 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-17 are also indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ra et al. (US 11,909,176)
Mi et al. (US 11,804,570)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached on (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J.K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights