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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 15-20) in the reply filed on 03/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 14 of Group I and claims 15-20 of Group II share a technical feature of a masking layer that constitutes a special technical feature not disclosed by Noda. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature of the masking layer of claim 14 is not a common feature shared by all the claims. For example, claim 1 does not share this feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/30/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 17-18 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “a diameter less than a diameter of the tops of the bottom parts”, and the claim also recites “at least 10% less” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “a characteristic dimension Φ”, and the claim also recites “a diameter” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “
Φ
Φ
+
d
s
≥
0.6
”, and the claim also recites “
Φ
Φ
+
d
s
≥
0.8
” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daudin et al. (WO 2020260541 A1 as evident from US 2022/0359782 A1) in view of Noda et al. (US 2020/0279974 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Daudin et al. teach an optoelectronic device (60; Fig. 2, [0054]) comprising a plurality of three-dimensional (3D) structures (26/28s; Fig. 2, [0048]) being in the form of a wire (in axial configuration; [0048]) and each (26/28) comprising: • a bottom part (26; Fig. 2, [0048]) extending in a longitudinal direction (the vertical direction in Fig. 2) and comprising a base (62; Fig. 2, [0054]) bearing (“bear” is interpreted as “to be situated” as disclosed in “https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear”) on a substrate (14; Fig. 2, [0037]), • an active region (40) configured to emit or receive light radiation (emitting light radiation; [0052]), said active region (40; Fig. 2, [0045]) bearing on a top (64; Fig. 2, [0054]), opposite to the base (62), of the bottom part (26), and • a top part (42; Fig. 2, [0045]) bearing on a top of the active region (the top of 40), wherein the device (60) further comprises a masking layer (insulating layer 22; Fig. 2, [0039]) in contact with a surface layer (20; formed on the top surface of the substrate 14; Fig. 2, [0039]) of the substrate (14), said masking layer (22) comprising openings (24s; Fig. 2, [0039]) through which the bottom parts (26s) in the form of a wire (see Fig. 2) extend, the bases (62) of said bottom parts (26s) bearing on the surface layer (20) of the substrate (14), wherein two tops (64s) of two adjacent bottom parts (26s) are separated from each other by a separation distance ds (see Fig. 2), and wherein the bottom parts (26s) have across-section that increases abruptly between an area within the openings (24s) and an area outside the openings (24s; see Fig. 2).
Daudin et al. do not teach a separation distance ds of less than 180 nm.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Noda et al. teach a separation distance ds (the separation distance of columnar parts 30; Fig. 6, [0034]) of not smaller than 1 nm and no larger than 500 nm ([0034]), which overlaps the claimed range of less than 180 nm, that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Daudin et al. and Noda et al. and to use the separation distance of the columnar structures 30 of Noda et al. in the array of the columnar structures 26/28 of Daudin et al., because the separation distance of columnar structure 30 of Noda et al. can develop an effect of a photonic crystal which can obtain narrow radiation angle and high power light emission ([0034, 0003] of Noda et al.).
Regarding claim 16, Daudin et al. teach the device according to claim 15, wherein the tops (64) of the bottom parts (26s) of the 3D structures (30) are separated from each other by a separation distance ds (see Fig. 2).
Daudin et al. do not teach a separation distance ds of less than or equal to 100 nm.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Noda et al. teach a separation distance ds (the separation distance of columnar parts 30; Fig. 6, [0034]) of not smaller than 1 nm and no larger than 500 nm ([0034]), which overlaps the claimed range of less than or equal to 100 nm, that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Daudin et al. and Noda et al. and to use the separation distance of the columnar structures 30 of Noda et al. in the array of the columnar structures 26/28 of Daudin et al., because the separation distance of columnar structure 30 of Noda et al. can develop an effect of a photonic crystal which can obtain narrow radiation angle and high power light emission ([0034, 0003] of Noda et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Daudin et al. teach the device according to claim 15, wherein the bases (62, which can be circular; [0055]) have a diameter (diameter of 62) less than a diameter of the tops (64) of the bottom parts (26s; [0055], the area of the tops of the bottom parts is 20% greater than the area of the bases, i.e. area-of-the-top/area-of-the-base > 1.2, i.e. the diameter-of-the-top/diameter-of-the-base > squat-root of 1.2 = 1.095, i.e. the diameter-of-the-base/diameter-of-the-top < 1/1.095 = 0.913, i.e. the diameter-of-the-base is at least 9% less than the diameter-of-the-top), at least 9% less which overlaps the claimed range of preferably at least 10% less, that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 18, Daudin et al. teach the device according to claim 15, wherein the tops (64) of the bottom parts (26s) have a characteristic dimension Φ, such as a diameter (diameter of 64, which can be circular; [0055]), taken in a plane normal to the longitudinal direction (the vertical direction in Fig. 2).
Daudin et al. do not teach wherein the separation distance ds and the characteristic dimension Φ are selected so that
Φ
Φ
+
d
s
≥
0.6
,
and preferably
Φ
Φ
+
d
s
≥
0.8
,
with 30 nm ≤ Φ ≤ 550 nm.
In the same field of endeavor of light emitting devices, Noda et al. teach wherein the separation distance ds (the separation distance of columnar parts 30 of not smaller than 1 nm and no larger than 500 nm; Fig. 6, [0034]) and the characteristic dimension Φ (30 nm ≤ Φ ≤ 550 nm as required by this limitation) are selected so that 0.06 ≤
Φ
Φ
+
d
s
≤
1.00
,
(i.e. 0.06 for Φ =30 nm and ds=500 nm, 1.00 for and Φ =550 nm and ds=1 nm) with 30 nm ≤ Φ ≤ 550 nm, which overlaps the claimed range of
Φ
Φ
+
d
s
≥
0.6
,
and preferably
Φ
Φ
+
d
s
≥
0.8
, that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Daudin et al. and Noda et al. and to use the separation distance of the columnar structures 30 of Noda et al. in the array of the columnar structures 26/28 of Daudin et al., because the separation distance of columnar structure 30 of Noda et al. can develop an effect of a photonic crystal which can obtain narrow radiation angle and high power light emission ([0034, 0003] of Noda et al.).
Regarding claim 19, Daudin et al. teach the device according to claim 15 , wherein the active region (40) extends solely from the top (64) of the bottom part (26; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Daudin et al. teach the device according to claim 15, wherein the active region (40) has a truncated pyramidal form ([0079]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSIN YI HSIEH whose telephone number is (571)270-3043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 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, Zandra V Smith can be reached on 571-272-2429. 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.
/HSIN YI HSIEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899 6/12/2026
Prosecution Insights