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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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)(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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)2) as being anticipated by Tchoulfian (20200365762).
PNG
media_image1.png
383
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Tchoulfian teaches a GaN-based light-emitting diode (par. 52) having a three-dimensional (3D) structure (please see fig. 1 above and par. 28) and comprising
so-called axial portions (fig. 1: 20; please see all portions around axis “D”),
said axial portions comprising at least, stacked according to a longitudinal direction (please see stacked portions in fig. 1):a lower portion comprising a base bearing on a substrate (fig. 1: 12) and a top opposite to the base along the longitudinal direction (please see portion 12 which as a lower portion and top portion along axis “D”),
an active region (fig. 1: 24) configured to emit or receive a light radiation (par. 58, 59 and 61), said active region comprising a base bearing on the top of the lower portion (please see 24 which is on top of 12),
the active region comprising a top opposite to the base of the active region along the longitudinal direction (please see fig. 1 which shows 24 having a top opposite 12 along axis “D”), an upper portion comprising a base bearing on the top of the active region (please see fig. 1 which shows 24 and 20 abutting each other and along axis “D”), the bases the tops each preferably extending transversely to the longitudinal direction (please see all portions mentioned along axis “D”), said axial portions respectively having walls parallel to the longitudinal direction (please see 20 and 24 having abutting walls along axis “D”),
wherein the light-emitting diode further comprises at least one so-called radial portion comprising a carrier blocking layer (fig. 1: 26; 26 is radial with reference to axis “D”) extending in contact with at least one of the base and the top of the active region (please see fig. 1), and completely covering walls of at least one axial portion (please see fig. 1 which shows 26 covering and along axis “D”).
Regarding claim 13, Tchoulfian teaches an diode according to claim 12, wherein the at least one radial portion comprises a first radial portion comprising an electron blocking layer (par. 43 and 82 teaches an EBL) extending over the walls and the top of the active region, and a second radial portion comprising a hole blocking layer (par. 26 and 82 teaches an HBL) extending over the walls and the top of the lower portion.
Regarding claim 14, Tchoulfian teaches a diode according to claims 12, wherein the lower portion bears on the substrate throughout a masking layer (fig. 1: 22), and wherein the at least one radial portion bears on said masking layer (please see figure 1 above).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchoulfian as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Gilbert (20200119231).
Regarding claim 15, Tchoulfian teaches a diode according to claim 12.
However, Tchoulfian fails to teach:
the walls of the upper portion are covered by a passivation layer
Gilbert teaches a 3D GaN device wherein the device is encapsulated by a passivation layer (82), Gilbert teaching that this is acts as the encapsulation layer. Gilbert teaches that passivation layer (82) acted as a encapsulation layer, encapsulation layers protect against moisture, dust, and chemical contamination while preventing surface recombination of electrons and holes. Adding layer (82), of Gilbert, to primary prior art would impart such protection to Tchoulfian 3D GaN device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: prior art, at least, fails to teach the temporal ordering of steps mentioned in claim 1.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818