DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed June 5, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-4 and 6-12 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. Regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose “the light-emitting elements in a thickness direction of the substrate, and comprising a plurality of semiconductor layers, wherein the plurality of semiconductor layers have a polyhedral shape in the thickness direction” as recited on lines 4-7, because (a) the newly claimed plurality of semiconductor layers should refer to the first semiconductor layer SEM1 and the second semiconductor layer SEM2 illustrated below, (b) however, the first semiconductor layer SEM 1 does not have the claimed polyhedral shape in the thickness direction, and (c) furthermore, the electron-blocking layer EBL, the active layer MQW and the superlattice layer SLT should also be semiconductor layers even though Applicants did not refer to them explicitly as semiconductor layers, but the electron-blocking layer EBL, the active layer MQW and the superlattice layer SLT do not have the claimed polyhedral shape in the thickness direction, either. Claims 2-4 and 6-12 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-4 and 6-12 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-4 and 6-12 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 1, it is not clear what “a plurality of semiconductor layers” in the limitation “the light-emitting elements in a thickness direction of the substrate, and comprising a plurality of semiconductor layers, wherein the plurality of semiconductor layers have a polyhedral shape in the thickness direction” recited on lines 4-7 refer to, because (a) Applicants explicitly referred to the elements SEM1 and SEM2 as “a first semiconductor layer SEM1” and “a second semiconductor layer SEM2” respectively in the original specification, (b) however, as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejection, the first semiconductor layer SEM1 does not have the claimed polyhedral shape in the thickness direction, and (c) furthermore, the electron-blocking layer EBL, the active layer MQW and the superlattice layer SLT should also be semiconductor layers even though Applicants did not explicitly refer to them as semiconductor layers as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejection, but the electron-blocking layer EBL, the active layer MQW and the superlattice layer SLT do not have the claimed polyhedral shape in the thickness direction, either. Claims 2-4 and 6-12 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-4 and 6-12 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.
Shimayama (US 11,462,600)
Sato (US 2015/0008407)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 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 at (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 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights