Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/265,128

GROWTH METHOD AND STRUCTURE OF LED EPITAXY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 02, 2023
Examiner
RAHIM, NILUFA
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Focus Lightings Tech (Suqian) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
374 granted / 451 resolved
+14.9% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-1.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
489
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.5%
+4.5% vs TC avg
§102
28.7%
-11.3% vs TC avg
§112
21.1%
-18.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 451 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Acknowledgment This correspondence is in response to the communications received on 10/29/2025. Claim 9 has been amended. Claims 1-10 are pending. Applicant’s amendments to Claim 9 and arguments presented for claims 1-8 have overcome all claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 08/12/2025. Accordingly, all previous claim rejections have been withdrawn. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract has implied language. For example, the abstract begins with “The present disclosure provides a growth method and structure of LED epitaxy. The growth method of LED epitaxy comprises:…”. It is suggested to be changed as “ MPEP § 608.01(b) provides guidance regarding the language of the abstract as follows: The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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 9-10 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. Regarding claim 9, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 10 does not rectify and likewise rejected based on its dependency on claim 9. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 are allowed over prior art of record. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 U.S.C. §112. The statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why claims are allowed and should not be written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP §1302.14). Prior art of record, Won et al. (KR 20080082327 A; hereinafter “Won”), Sudarshan (US 20130143396 A1; hereinafter “Sudarshan”) and Myers-Ward et al. (US 20210125826 A1; hereinafter “Myers-Ward”) have been found to be the closest prior art of record. Regarding Claim 1: Closest prior art of record, Won as modified by Sudarshan, does not expressly disclose the claimed growth conditions for SiC epitaxial layer on a sapphire or Al2O2/SiO2 composite substrate. Won discloses a SiC layer on a sapphire substrate. However, Sudarshan discloses growing a SiC layer on a SiC substrate, which is homoepitaxy. However, claim 1 requires growing SiC layer heteroepitaxially. Furthermore, Myers-Ward discloses growing SiC film on graphene and/or hexagonal boron nitride (fig. 1; ¶83-87). It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine teachings from Myers-Ward into the device of Won and arrived at the claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1 is allowable over the closest art in its entirety. Dependent claims 2-8 are allowed for the same reason. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 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 NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm 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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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. /NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 02, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 29, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604452
COMPACT ELECTRICAL CONNECTION THAT CAN BE USED TO FORM AN SRAM CELL AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598878
LIGHT EMITTING DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598827
SOLID-STATE IMAGING DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598825
SUBSTRATE CONTACT IN WAFER BACKSIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598735
SEMICONDUCTOR STRUCTURE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (-1.2%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 451 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month