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 I and Species I of Fig. 1(b) in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 is amended to include the subject matter of claim 5, which changes the scope of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because the restriction is already finished at the beginning of the examination and would only be changed if there was an obvious error, and would not be affected by the later amendments. There was no obvious error in the restriction. Applicant is reminded that withdrawn claims would be considered rejoined at the time when claim 1 is allowed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7 and 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/13/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2023, 06/13/2023 and 09/19/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 3 and 4 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.
The term “strictly” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strictly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. the limitation “the refractive index of the first material at the first wavelength is strictly greater than the refractive index of the second material at the first wavelength” in the claim has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “strictly”.
Claim 4 is rejected because it depends on the rejected claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (“Thermally Engineered Flip-Chip InGaN/GaN Well-Ordered Nanocolumn Array LEDs”, IEEE PHOTONICS TECHNOLOGY LETTERS, VOL. 27, NO. 22, pages 2343-2346, NOVEMBER 15, 2015).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi et al. teach in Fig. 8, an optoelectronic device (LED; Fig. 1(b), pg. 2323, right column) comprising an array of axial light-emitting diodes (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn extending in a vertical axial direction; Fig. 1(b), pg. 2323, right column) each comprising an active area (MQW; Fig. 1(b), section II, first paragraph) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation (section III, first paragraph) whose emission spectrum comprises a maximum at a first wavelength (Fig. 6 shows the emission spectrum, which has a maximum at about 570 nm, which is in the middle of the visible light range; Abstract), the device (LED) further comprising a cladding (Al2O3 film; Fig. 1(b), section III, 2nd paragraph) for each light-emitting diode (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn), transparent to said radiation (Al2O3 is transparent), made of a first material (Al2O3) surrounding the sidewalls of the light-emitting diode (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn, section III, first paragraph) over at least a portion of the light-emitting diode (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn), each cladding (Al2O3 film) having a thickness greater than 10 nm (50nm; section III, second paragraph), the device (LED) further comprising a layer (the spin-on-glass SOG layer, section III, 2nd paragraph) between the claddings (the Al2O3 on the InGaN/GaN nanocolumn, section III, 2nd paragraph), transparent to said radiation (SOG is transparent), of a second material (SOG), different from the first material (Al2O3), the second material (SOG) being electrically insulating (SOG is insulating material), wherein each light-emitting diode (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn) comprises a semiconductor element (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn) of a third material (InGaN; [0082-0085]) and at least partially surrounded by said cladding (Al2O3 film; section III, 2nd paragraph), the difference between the refractive index of the first material (the refractive index of Al2O3, 1.76 as evident from the paragraph [0069] of Ito et al., US 2007/0170448) and the refractive index of the third material (the refractive index of InGaN, 2.1 to 2.3, as evident from paragraph [0055] of Barnett et al., US 20090314332) is less than 0.5 (the difference is 0.3-0.5), the array of cladded axial light-emitting diodes (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn) forming a photonic crystal (periodic refractive structure having a photonic band, i.e. a photonic crystal; section IV, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein each cladding (Al2O3 film) has a thickness greater than 20 nm (50nm; section III, second paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the refractive index of the first material (Al2O3, the refractive index of Al2O3 is approximately 1.76-1.78 in visible spectrum based on “RefractiveIndex.INFO”) at the first wavelength (about 570 nm, which is in the middle of visible light range) is strictly greater than the refractive index of the second material (SOG; the refractive index of 1.4-1.5 at visible range based on paragraph [0168] of Fan et al, US 20180045953 A1) at the first wavelength (about 570 nm, which is in the middle of visible light range).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the first material (Al2O3) is electrically insulating (Al2O3 is insulating).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the light-emitting diodes (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn) each comprise a portion of a Group III-V compound, a Group II-VI compound, or a group IV semiconductor or compound (GaN, a Group III-V compound; section III, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 1, comprising a support (supportive carrier; Fig. 1(b)) on which the light-emitting diodes (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn) rest (see Fig. 1(b)), each light-emitting diode (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn) comprising a stack of a first semiconductor portion (p-type nanocolumn) resting on the support (supportive carrier; see Fig. 1(b)), the active area (MQW) in contact with the first semiconductor portion (p-type nanocolumn; Fig. 1(b), section III, first paragraph) and a second semiconductor portion (SL and n-type nanocolumn; Fig. 1(b), section III, first paragraph) in contact with the active area (MQW; Fig. 1(b), section III, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 12, comprising a reflective layer (p-type electrode of Pt/Au, Au is reflective; Fig. 1(b), section III, 2nd paragraph) between the support (supportive carrier) and the first semiconductor portions (p-type nanocolumn; see Fig. 1(b)) of the light-emitting diodes (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 13, wherein the reflective layer (p-type electrode of Pt/Au) is metal (Pt and Au are metals).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 12, wherein the second semiconductor portions (SL and n-type nanocolumn) of the light-emitting diodes (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn) are covered with a conductive layer (transparent electrode; Fig. 1(b)) and at least partially transparent (transparent; Fig. 1(b)) to the radiation emitted by the light-emitting diodes (p-type nanocolumn, SL & MQW, and n-type nanocolumn; the radiation emitted is in the middle of the visible light range and ITO is transparent to the visible light; Abstract).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. as applied to claims 3 and 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 3, wherein the first material (Al2O3) and the second material (SOG).
Hayashi et al. do not teach the difference between the refractive index of the first material at the first wavelength and the refractive index of the second material at the first wavelength is greater than 0.5.
Parameters such as the difference between the refractive index of the first material at the first wavelength and the refractive index of the second material at the first wavelength, which affects the periodic refractive index of the structure (section I, 5th paragraph) in the art of semiconductor manufacturing process are subject to routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired radiation profile during device fabrication (section I, 5th paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the difference between the refractive index of the first material at the first wavelength and the refractive index of the second material at the first wavelength within the range as claimed in order to achieve the desired radiation profile (section I, 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the first material (Al2O3) and the third material (InGaN).
Hayashi et al. do not teach the difference between the refractive index of the first material and the refractive index of the third material is less than 0.3.
Hayashi et al. teach the difference between the refractive index of the first material (the refractive index of Al2O3, 1.76 as evident from the paragraph [0069] of Ito et al., US 2007/0170448) and the refractive index of the third material (the refractive index of InGaN, 2.1 to 2.3, as evident from paragraph [0055] of Barnett et al., US 20090314332) is 0.3 to 0.5 which overlaps the claimed range of less than 0.3 at the edge, that establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pougeoise et al. (US 20140077151 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the first material (Al2O3).
Hayashi et al. do not teach the first material is silicon nitride or titanium oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of light-emitting devices, Pougeoise et al. teach the first material (36 of silicon nitride for covering the nanocolumn/wire 24; Fig. 4, [0081, 0065]) is silicon nitride or titanium oxide (silicon nitride; [0081]).
Hayashi et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Hayashi et al. is using Al2O3 for providing a dielectric material covering the nanocolumn (section III, 2nd paragraph) rather than silicon nitride.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Pougeoise et al. teach using silicon nitride for providing a dielectric material covering the nanocolumn (36 of silicon nitride for covering the nanocolumn/wire 24; Fig. 4, [0081, 0065]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Al2O3 and silicon nitride are known equivalents for providing a dielectric material covering the nanocolumn within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (Al2O3) for another known equivalent element (silicon nitride) resulting in the predictable result of providing a dielectric material covering the nanocolumn (KSR rationales B).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the second material (SOG).
Hayashi et al. do not teach the second material is silicon oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of light-emitting devices, Pougeoise et al. teach the second material (37 of silicon oxide for filling the space between the nanocolumns/wires 24; Fig. 4, [0069]) is silicon oxide ([0069]).
Hayashi et al. teach all the claimed elements except that Hayashi et al. is using SOG for providing a dielectric material filling the space between the nanocolumns (section III, 2nd paragraph) rather than silicon oxide.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Pougeoise et al. teach using silicon oxide for providing a dielectric material filling the space between the nanocolumns (37 of silicon oxide for filling the space between the nanocolumns/wires 24; Fig. 4, [0069]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that SOG and silicon oxide are known equivalents for providing a dielectric material filling the space between the nanocolumns within the semiconductor art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to substitute one know element (SOG) for another known equivalent element (silicon oxide) resulting in the predictable result of providing a dielectric material filling the space between the nanocolumns (KSR rationales B).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dupont et al. (US 20210273132 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the photonic crystal (periodic refractive structure having a photonic band, i.e. a photonic crystal; section IV, 2nd paragraph).
Hayashi et al. do not teach the photonic crystal is configured to form a resonance peak amplifying the intensity of said electromagnetic radiation at at least a second wavelength (λT1) different from or equal to the first wavelength.
In the same field of endeavor of semiconductor manufacturing, Dupont et al. teach the photonic crystal (200; Fig. 4A, [0064]) is configured to form a resonance peak (see 804 of Fig. 9C with a peak near 0.63 µm; [0120]) at amplifying the intensity of said electromagnetic radiation at at least a second wavelength (see 802 of Fig. 9C with a peak near 0.63 µm; [0120]) different from or equal to the first wavelength (about the same; see Fig. 9C).
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 Hayashi et al. and Dupont et al. and to adjust the pitch of the periodic structure of Hayashi et al. as taught by Dupont et al. ([0016] of Dupont et al.), because the adjustment of the pitch can maximize the intensity supplied by the array as taught by Dupont et al. ([0016] of Dupont et al.).
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 4/4/2026