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 in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Dupont (US 20210273132) did not disclose the limitation “the array forming a photonic crystal configuring to form a resonance peak amplifying the intensity of said electromagnetic radiation at at least one second wavelength different from the first wavelength” shared by claims 1 and 15, based on that Fig. 8 of Dupont is used to select one of the resonance peaks of the photonic crystals and an optimization is then made to select the value of λ and the dimensions of the LED to obtain maximum emission/directivity at a wavelength λ. This is not found persuasive. Fig. 8 of Dupont shows variation of the intensity (Power) of the radiation emitted by the array, i.e. the photonic crystal, according to a first quotient a/λ, where λ is the wavelength of the radiation emitted by the photonic crystal, with curves corresponding to a different value of a second quotient 2πR/λ ([0109] of Dupont). For a photonic crystal with a fixed “a” and “R”, Fig. 8 shows the variation of intensity due to variation of the wavelength of the emitted radiation. Fig. 8 of Dupont clearly shows that that the photic crystal has multiple resonance peaks at different wavelengths ([0111] of Dupont). No matter how the value of λ was optimized to match one of the resonance peaks, λ would be different from the wavelength of other resonance peaks. Thus, Dupont teaches this shared limitation of claims 1 and 15.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 03/16/2026.
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 06/13/2023, 06/13/2023 and 06/09/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18267071 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the current application is anticipated by claim 11 of copending Application No. 18267071.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the intensity" in the 5th line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the intensity" in the 2nd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the intensity" in the 2nd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "each light-emitting diode" in the 2nd and 3rd lines of the claim. It is unclear whether it refers to “the light-emitting diodes” in the 2nd line of the claim. It is recommended to replace the limitation with “each of the light-emitting diodes.”
Claims 2-14 are rejected because they depend on the rejected clam 1.
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, 4, 7 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dupont et al. (US 2021/0273132 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dupont et al. teach in Figs. 1-2, 8 and 9A and paragraphs [0044, 0109, 0111, 0065], can optoelectronic device (200; Fig. 2, [0059]) comprising an array of axial light-emitting diodes (100; Fig. 2, [0059]), the light-emitting diodes (100) each comprising an active area (104; Fig. 1, [0044]) configured to emit an electromagnetic radiation ([0055]) having an emission spectrum (802; Fig. 9C; [0120]) comprising a maximum at a first wavelength (the wavelength of the maximum of 802; Fig. 9C), the array (the array of 100) forming a photonic crystal ([0065]) configured to form a resonance peak (the maximum of 804; Fig. 9C, [0120]) amplifying the intensity of said electromagnetic radiation (802; see Fig. 9C) at at least one second wavelength (the wavelength of the maximum of 804; Fig. 9C, [0120]) different from the first wavelength (the wavelength of the maximum of 802; the wavelength of the maximum of 804 is slightly smaller than the wavelength of the maximum of 802; see Fig. 9C below).
PNG
media_image1.png
225
312
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Maximum of 802)][AltContent: textbox (Maximum of 804)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
Fig. 9C of Dupont et al.
Regarding claim 3, Dupont et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the emission spectrum of the active area (802) has energy at the second wavelength (the wavelength of the maximum of 802 (see Fig. 9C).
Regarding claim 4, Dupont et al. teach the device according to claim 1, wherein the photonic crystal (100) is configured to form a resonance peak (multiple resonance peaks in the areas 702 or 704 shown in Fig. 8) amplifying the intensity of said electromagnetic radiation (see Fig. 8) at at least one third wavelength (the wavelength of one of the resonance peaks that is farther away from the peak of 802 and the peak of 804) different from the first and second wavelengths (the wavelengths of the peak of 802 and the peak of 804).
Regarding claim 7, Dupont et al. teach the device according to anyone of claim 4, wherein the photonic crystal (100) is configured to form a resonance peak (multiple resonance peaks in the area between 0.4-0.6 a/λ shown in Fig. 8) amplifying the intensity of said electromagnetic radiation (see Fig. 8) at at least one fourth wavelength (the wavelength of resonance peaks in the area between 0.4-0.6 a/λ) different from the first, second, and third wavelengths (the two resonance peaks in areas 702 and 704 and the wavelength of the maximum of 802).
Regarding claim 10, Dupont et al. teach the device according to claim l, comprising a support (105; Fig. 1, [0046]) having the light-emitting diodes (100) resting thereon, each light-emitting diode (100) comprising a stack of a first semiconductor portion (102; Fig. 1, [0046]) resting on the support (105), of the active area (104) in contact with the first semiconductor portion (102), and of a second semiconductor portion (106; Fig. 1, [0047]) in contact with the active area (104).
Regarding claim 11, Dupont et al. teach the device according to claim 10, comprising a reflective layer (107 made of aluminum, while aluminum is reflective; Fig. 1, [0046]) between the support (105) and the first semiconductor portions (102) of the light-emitting diodes (100).
Regarding claim 12, Dupont et al. teach the device according to claim 11, wherein the reflective layer (107) is made of metal ([0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Dupont et al. teach the device according to claim 10, wherein the second semiconductor portions (106) of the light-emitting diodes (100) are covered with an electrically conductive layer (TCO; [0047]) at least partly transparent to the radiation emitted by the light-emitting diodes (100; transparent; [0047]).
Regarding claim 14, Dupont et al. teach the device according to anyone of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting diodes (100) are separated by an electrically-insulting material (202; Fig. 2, [0060]).
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 8/8/2026
Prosecution Insights