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. 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: 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) 1, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo et al., (Lo) US 2020/0203555. Regarding claim 1 , Lo shows in FIG. 3, and discloses a method of forming an indium gallium nitride quantum well structure [0048] , comprising: forming a gallium nitride microdisk (2)[0052] on a substrate (1)[0052] , wherein the gallium nitride microdisk (2) is in a form of an inverted pyramid and has an end surface; and forming multiple quantum well layers (41,42,43)[0053] on the end surface, wherein each quantum well layer includes an indium gallium nitride quantum well (41,42,43)[0053] and a barrier layer (61,62)[0054] , wherein the indium gallium nitride quantum well is grown at a growth temperature in a range of 480°C to 810°C [0055] , and wherein the growth temperature is adjusted using a trend equation ( indium gallium nitride layer 4 is changed by adjusting the flux ratio of indium to gallium to nitrogen of the epitaxial reaction in the indium gallium nitride layer )(the ratio could be a trend equation)[0056] . The limitation “using a trend equation” is broad, and Lo discloses adjusting adjusting the flux ratio of indium to gallium to nitrogen of the epitaxial reaction in the indium gallium nitride layer . The adjustment of the ratio is likely to be calculated via an equation that could be a trend equation. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Lo and calculate the ration using a trend equation. As for the range of the growth temperature, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular range of 480°C to 810°C . To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 6, Lo shows in FIG. 3, and discloses a method of forming the indium gallium nitride quantum well structure further comprising forming a cover layer (63)[0057] on the multiple quantum well layers. Regarding claim 7, Lo shows in FIG. 3, and discloses a method forming the indium gallium nitride quantum well structure, wherein forming multiple quantum well layers includes forming two to five quantum well layers (41,42,43) [0053] . Regarding claim 8, Lo shows in FIG. 3, and discloses a method of forming the indium gallium nitride quantum well structure, wherein an In/Ga flow ratio is 7.5 [0055] while forming the indium gallium nitride quantum well. As for the specific ratio of 7.5, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular ratio . To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Regarding claim 9, Lo shows in FIG. 3, and discloses a method of forming the indium gallium nitride quantum well structure wherein the growth temperature is in a range of 600°C to 800°C [0055]. As for the range of the growth temperature, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular range of 600°C to 800°C . To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo as applied to claims 1, 6-9 and further in view of Nan et al., (Nan) US 2015/0318448. Regarding claim 2, Lo discloses adjusting the flux ratio of indium to gallium to nitrogen of the epitaxial reaction in the indium gallium nitride layer for the growth temperature [0055,0056] Lo differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device trend equation is Nan discloses [0029] a trend equation to adjust growth temperature. Nan is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Lo . Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Nan in the device of Lo because it will solve defects of existing LED epitaxial growth technology [0005]. Although the formula’s variables are different, both formula have the same purpose of adjusting the growth temperature using a trend equation to improve the growth technology. Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo as applied to claims 1, 6-9 and further in view of Khan US 2010/0320440. Regarding claim s 3, 4 Lo discloses a method of forming the indium gallium nitride quantum well structure (41,42, 43) [ 0053]. Lo differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a method further comprising forming multiple indium gallium nitride buffer layers between the end surface and the quantum well layer, wherein an indium content of the indium gallium nitride buffer layer increases as the indium gallium nitride buffer layer is farther from the end surface. Khan discloses a method further comprising forming multiple indium gallium nitride buffer layers (321,421) [0027] between the end surface and the quantum well layer, wherein an indium content of the indium gallium nitride buffer layer increases as the indium gallium nitride buffer layer is farther from the end surface; wherein forming multiple indium gallium nitride buffer layers (321,421) [0027] includes forming two indium gallium nitride buffer layers. Khan is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Lo. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Khan in the device of Lo because it will reduce defect density [0012]. Regarding claim 5 , Lo in view of Khan discloses a method of forming the indium gallium nitride quantum well structure, wherein In/Ga flow ratios are 0.5 and 1.67 [0055] , respectively, while forming the two indium gallium nitride buffer layers. As for the specific ratio of 0.5 and 1.67, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular ratio . To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5178 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8am-5pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steven B Gauthier can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-0373 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND Examiner Art Unit 2813 /STEVEN B GAUTHIER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813