DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to RCE filed November 10, 2025.
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 are objected to because the numeral “120” should be replaced with a numeral “121” in Fig. 1 of current application, because Applicants used a numeral “121” describing “a first portion” in paragraphs [0043]-[0044] of current application. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on lines 7 and 9, “compensation” should be replaced with “compensated”, or “compensated” should be replaced with “compensation”, because as currently presented, the limitation “each strain compensated barrier” recited on line 9 lacks the antecedent basis when strictly interpreted since Applicants do not claim “strain compensated barriers” before claiming “each strain compensated barrier”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Abstract that “In one embodiment, the strain compensation barriers include AlGaN in a configuration that compensates tensile strain within the active region (emphases added)”; Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0008] of current application that “In one embodiment, the strain compensation barriers include AlGaN in a configuration that compensates tensile strain within the active region (emphases added)”; 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.) (emphases added)”; Applicants originally disclosed 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 (emphases added)”; Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0059] of current application that “Previous reports have suggested that AlGaN, due to a smaller lattice constant compared with GaN, can be used to compensate the tensile strain caused by InGaN in the active region, which enhances indium composition InGaN QW as a result of a smaller mismatch strain energy (emphases added)”; and Applicants originally disclosed 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 (emphases added).” However, the amended claim 1 reciting that the unspecified “strain compensation barriers configured to compensate tensile strain within the active region” formed of unspecified material(s) recited on lines 7-8 is much broader than the original disclosure, and thus fails to comply with the written description requirement, because (a) throughout the original disclosure as cited above, Applicants originally disclosed that the only pair of the material compositions for the active region material and the barriers are InGaN and AlGaN, respectively, to compensation of tensile strain, (b) however, Applicants claim that the “strain compensation barriers” are “configured to compensate tensile strain within the active region” without specifically claiming any material compositions of the active region and the barriers, and (c) since Applicants did not originally disclose to what degree the tensile strain within the active region should be altered or modified for the strain compensation barriers to be said to “compensate tensile strain” within the active region, the only relevant original disclosure with regard to the compensation of the tensile strain within the active region should be expressed by the pair of InGaN and AlGaN for the active region and the barriers, respectively, rather than the unspecified material compositions of the active region and the barriers in claim 1.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose “each strain compensated barrier comprising at least one layer having a composition and thickness to compensate tensile strain within the quantum wells” recited on lines 9-11, because (a) Applicants did not originally disclose that “each strain compensated barrier” or a single strain compensated barrier can comprise “at least one layer”, which can be two or more layers, (b) as discussed above, Applicants originally disclose only one material composition, i.e. AlGaN, for the strain compensated barriers, (c) also, Applicants did not originally disclose that a thickness of the strain compensated barriers have anything to do with compensation of tensile strain within the active region, and (d) while Applicants may have originally disclosed compensation of tensile strain within the active region, Applicants did not originally disclose compensation of tensile strain “within the quantum wells”.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, while Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0044] of current application that “The shell comprises a gradient configuration with piezoelectric field compensation characteristics”, Applicants did not originally disclose “the dopant gradient configuration having piezoelectric field compensation characteristics” as recited on lines 15-16, because (a) the limitation recited on lines 15-16 is based on an awkwardly and/or unclearly written sentence “The shell comprises a gradient configuration with piezoelectric field compensation characteristics” in paragraph [0044] of current application cited above, which can be interpreted to suggest that (i) “The shell comprises a gradient configuration”, and the shell is “with piezoelectric field compensation characteristics”, or (ii) “The shell comprises a gradient configuration”, and the gradient configuration is “with piezoelectric field compensation characteristics”, and (b) however, the latter interpretation that Applicants claim in the amended claim 1 implies that a single gradient configuration of the shell is with a plurality of piezoelectric field compensation characteristics, which does not appear to make sense since, for the argument’s sake, a single gradient configuration of the shell may be with a single piezoelectric field compensation characteristic rather than a plurality of piezoelectric field compensation characteristics.
(4) Still further regarding claim 1, Applicants originally disclosed throughout the original disclosure that there is a gradient of Al in an AlGaN shell, and for example, Applicants originally disclosed that “In one embodiment, the shell comprises AlGaN with a negative Al composition gradient” in Abstract, but did not originally disclose “a dopant gradient configuration” as recited on line 15, because Al is not a dopant of the AlGaN shell, but rather one of main constituent components of the AlGaN shell.
(5) Still further regarding claim 1, as already discussed in the Final Office Action mailed August 12, 2025, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0044] of current application that “First portion 121 includes a group III-V compound component with a first type of doping”, and 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 (emphasis added).” However, Applicants did not originally disclose “the active region including a quantum core structure comprising a plurality of quantum wells and strain compensation barriers (emphasis added)” as recited on lines 6-7, because (a) the plurality of quantum wells are not a part of the claimed active region as Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0044], (b) rather, Applicants originally disclosed that the quantum core structure is (only) with the strain compensation barriers and polarization doping, and (c) furthermore, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0008] of current application that “The strain compensated barriers form multiple quantum wells”, which appears to suggest that the strain compensated barriers are also multiple quantum wells rather than the claimed plurality of quantum wells as entities separate from the strain compensated barriers.
Claims 2-17 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-17 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
(6) Regarding claim 4, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the tensile strain across the active region is compensated” as recited on lines 4-5, because (a) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0063] of current application that “FIG. 4C is an exemplary corresponding LAADF image of FIG. 2B, wherein the intensity change is significantly reduced across the active region compared with FIG. 4B (emphasis added)”, which is the only sentence that Applicants used the preposition “across” in the original specification, and (b) however, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the tensile strain across the active region is compensated” since (i) it appears that Applicants used the dashed line 430 in Fig. 4C of current application for the “across” direction, and (ii) however, Applicants did not originally disclose in which direction the tensile strain is applied and then compensated.
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 what the limitation “strain compensation barriers configured to compensate tensile strain within the active region” recited on lines 7-8 suggests, because (a) if arguendo Applicants’ arguments in the REMARKS filed November 10, 2025 are correct, and the strain compensation barriers are parts of the claimed active region, (b) however, Applicants claim that the strain compensation barriers, which are parts of the active region and thus are within the active region, compensate tensile strain within the active region, and (c) therefore, by the limitation cited above, basically Applicants claim that the strain compensation barriers compensate tensile strain inside itself as well as other parts of the active region, which does not appear to make sense since the strain compensation barriers cannot compensate its own tensile strain.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “strain compensation barriers configured to compensate tensile strain within the active region” recited on lines 7-8 suggests, because (a) as Fig. 1 of Van Den Broeck et al. (“Strain-balanced InGaN/GaN multiple quantum wells,” APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 105 (2014) 031107) clearly shows, quantum wells and barriers would have strain with equal magnitude but opposite signs, i.e. when the quantum wells are under compressive strain, the barriers are under tensile strain, vice versa, which is natural due to the Third Law of Newtonian Mechanics of action and reaction, (b) therefore, the total strain within the active region should be zero unless there are other mechanisms that place the active region under tensile strain, (c) however, Applicants did not originally disclose, and do not claim, any other mechanisms that place the active region under tensile strain, and (d) in this case, it is not clear what the limitation cited above suggests, and it is not clear whether Applicants claim that somehow the strain compensation barriers compensate tensile strain of the quantum wells, while the strain compensation barriers are not being affected by the quantum wells, which appears to be in violation of the Third Law of Newtonian Mechanics, and thus appears to fail to comply with the Enablement requirement.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear how “strain compensation barriers” are “configured to compensate tensile strain within the active region” as recited on lines 7-8, and then “each strain compensated barrier comprising at least one layer having a composition and thickness selected to compensate tensile strain within the quantum wells” as recited on lines 9-11, because (a) it is not clear whether “tensile strain within the active region” is the same with or different from “tensile strain within the quantum wells”, (b) if the two tensile strains are the same, it is not clear how they can be the same since the strain compensation barriers should contribute a certain amount of strain, be it compressive or tensile, to the active region in addition to the strain contributed by the quantum wells, and (c) if the two tensile strains are different from each other, it is not clear how the quantum wells can be under tensile strain such that the tensile strain within the quantum wells are compensated by the strain compensation barriers since (i) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants originally disclosed AlGaN for the material composition of the strain compensation barriers, and InGaN for the material composition of the quantum wells, (ii) when an InGaN quantum well is deposited on the underlying and as-deposited AlGaN strain compensation barrier, the InGaN quantum well would be placed under compressive strain rather than the claimed tensile strain since the lattice constants of AlGaN are smaller than the lattice constants of InGaN, and (iii) therefore, the only way that the quantum wells may have tensile strain that may be compensated by the strain compensation barriers is that the quantum wells have inherent and intrinsic tensile strain that is larger than the compressive strain applied by the underlying and as-deposited AlGaN strain compensation barrier, which does not appear possible sine a strain, be it compressive or tensile, should be generated with respect to another material rather than onto itself.
(4) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the verb to “compensate” means on lines 8 and 10, because (a) as cited above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants used the verb to “compensate” and the phrase to “effectively compensate” in the original disclosure, and (b) therefore, it is not clear whether the verb to “compensate” implies complete compensation or complete annihilation of the claimed tensile strain, while the phrase to “effectively compensate” implies a certain degree of compensation or reduction of the claimed tensile strain.
(5) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the source or origin of the “piezoelectric field” recited on line 16 is, because without knowing what the source or origin of the “piezoelectric field”, one cannot compensate the “piezoelectric field”.
(6) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the piezoelectric field compensation “characteristics” or the plurality of piezoelectric field compensation characteristics recited on line 16 refer to, because (a) Applicants do not claim a single piezoelectric field compensation characteristic, but rather claim a plurality of piezoelectric field compensation “characteristics”, and (b) therefore, it is not clear what the plurality of piezoelectric field compensation “characteristics” can be when one may not recognize even what a piezoelectric field compensation “characteristic” can be without knowing the source or origin of the piezoelectric field.
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.
Pahn et al. (US 10,326,048)
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 March 27, 2026