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 .
Claims 1-17 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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;
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claim 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okuno et al. (US 20250151463 A1 – hereinafter Okuno).
Regarding independent claim 14, Okuno teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method for producing a semiconductor light
emitting element (400 – Fig. 20 – [0117] – “semiconductor light-emitting device 400”), the method comprising:
semiconductor layers (130 – Fig. 20 [0117] – “columnar semiconductor 130”) on a growth substrate (110 – Fig. 20 – [0117] – “substrate 110”); and
(443 – Fig. 20 – [0118] – “the third layer 443”) to cover the columnar semiconductor layer (130 – Fig. 20 shows this),
wherein the forming the columnar semiconductor layer (130)
comprises:
(131 – Fig. 15 – [0078] – “the n-type columnar semiconductor 131”) having an inclined side surface portion (440 – Fig. 20 – [0118] – “buried layer 440”) which is a side surface inclined with respect to a main surface of the growth substrate (110 – Fig. 20 shows this);
([0078] – “the well layer is an InGaN layer”) on an outer periphery of the inclined side surface portion (440); and
(133 – Fig. – [0078] – “the p-type cylindrical semiconductor 133 is a p-type GaN layer”) on an outer periphery of the active layer ([0078] – “the well layer is an InGaN layer”).
Regarding claim 15, Okuno, teaches claim 14 from which claim 15 depends. Okuno further teaches
(Currently Amended) The method for producing the semiconductor
light emitting element according to claim 14,
wherein the forming the nanowire layer (130)
(131 – Fig. 15 – [0078] – “the n-type columnar semiconductor 131”) having a side surface perpendicular to the main surface of the growth substrate (110 – Fig. 20 shows this); and
side surface portion (440) on an outer periphery of the nanowire core (131 – [{0047] – “columnar semiconductor 130 includes an n-type columnar semiconductor 131”} – Fig. 20 shows this).
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.
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.
Notes: when present, hyphen separated fields within the hyphens (- -) represent, for example, as (30A - Fig 2B - [0128]) = (element 30A - Figure No. 2B - Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. The same conventions apply to Column and Sentence, for example (19:14-20) = (column19:sentences 14-20). These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui et al. (US 20120235117 A1 – hereinafter Fukui) in view of Okuno et al. (US 20250151463 A1 – hereinafter Okuno).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fukui teaches:
(Original) A semiconductor light emitting element (100 – Fig. 3 –
[0184] – “light emitting element 100”) comprising:
a growth substrate (110 – Fig. 3 – [0184] – “substrate 110”);
a plurality of columnar semiconductor layers (131 – Fig. 3 – [0184] – “center
nanorod 131”) on the growth substrate (110);
a side surface reflection portion (160 – [0190] – “electrode 160 partially covers
the side surfaces (upper portions) of the core-multishell nanowires 130”) provided on a side surface of the columnar semiconductor layer (131) and configured to reflect ([0192] – “the generated light is reflected by the second electrode 160, the light is emitted externally from the upper end face of the core-multishell nanowires 130, and not from the side surfaces”) at least a part of light emitted from the columnar semiconductor layer (131); and
an embedded layer covering the columnar semiconductor layer and the side surface reflection portion (160).
Fukui does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 1.
However, in an analogous art, Okuno teaches
an embedded layer (140 – Fig. 2 – [0035] – “buried layer 140”) covering the columnar semiconductor layer (130 – Fig. 3 – [0035] – “columnar semiconductor 130”) and the side surface reflection portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute an embedded layer covering the columnar semiconductor layer structure as taught by Okuno into Fukui.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Okuno in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result providing support and stability to the nanowire structures.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 2, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. Fukui further teaches
(Original) The semiconductor light emitting element according to
claim 1,
wherein the side surface reflection portion (160) is a light reflection
film ([0190] – “electrode 160 is, for example, a Cr/Au multilayer film, an AuZn alloy film”) in contact with the side surface of the columnar semiconductor layer (131).
Regarding claim 3, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 2 from which claim 3 depends. Fukui further teaches
(Original) The semiconductor light emitting element according to
claim 2,
wherein the light reflection film (160) is formed of a metal material containing any one of Al, Au, Ag, and Cr as a main component ([0190] – “electrode 160 is, for example, a Cr/Au multilayer film, an AuZn alloy film”).
Regarding claim 5, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 2 from which claim 5 depends. Fukui further teaches
(Original) The semiconductor light emitting element according to
claim 2,
wherein the light reflection film is a dielectric multilayer film containing any one of HfO2,TiO2, Ta2OS, A12O3, SiO2, and MgF2 ([0122] – “Appropriate materials for use as the totally reflecting insulating film and the partially reflecting insulating film are optically transparent (either transparent or translucent) insulators that have a refractive index smaller than that of the III-V compound semiconductor used to form the second barrier layer. Example materials for the totally reflecting insulating film and the partially reflecting insulating film include SiO.sub.2, SiN, and Al.sub.2O.sub.3.”).
Regarding claim 6, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 1 from which claim 6 depends. Fukui further teaches
wherein the side surface reflection portion is formed of an interface
between the inclined side surface and the embedded layer (140 – Fig. 3 – [0188] – “insulating resin 140 is provided for the n-type silicon substrate 110 (the insulating film 120) to fill the spaces between the core-multishell nanowires 130, and electrically isolates the individual core-multishell nanowires 130.”}, {[0122] – “the interface between the lower end face of the quantum well layer and the insulating film that covers the substrate is preferably an interface of "a III-V compound semiconductor/a totally reflecting insulating film." That is, it is appropriate for the outermost layer of the insulating film that contacts the lower end face of the quantum well layer to be a totally reflecting insulating film”}).
Fukui does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 6.
However, in an analogous art, Okuno teaches
(Original) The semiconductor light emitting element according to claim 1,
wherein the embedded layer (140) is formed of a material ([0039] – “buried layer 140 is made of, for example, n-type GaN”) having a refractive index different from that of the columnar semiconductor layer ({[0079] – “the buried layer 140 is a n-type GaN layer. However, a n-type AlGaN layer instead of a n-type GaN layer may be used as the buried layer 140. The refractive index of the AlGaN layer is smaller than the refractive index of the n-type GaN layer. Therefore, when a LD structure is formed, the efficiency of light confinement is improved. The buried layer 140 may be other n-type AlInGaN layer”}, {[0078] – “n-type columnar semiconductor 131 is an n-type GaN layer”}),
wherein the side surface of the columnar semiconductor layer (130 – Fig. 20 – [0117] – “columnar semiconductor 130”) has an inclined side surface inclined ([0118] – “buried layer 440 has a first layer 441, a second layer 442, and a third layer 443”) – Fig. 20 shows an incline surface) with respect to a main surface of the growth substrate (110 – Fig. 20 – [0117] – “substrate 110”), and
wherein the side surface reflection portion is formed of an interface
between the inclined side surface and the embedded layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the embedded layer material structure as taught by Okuno into Fukui.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Okuno in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of not scattering emitted light away from the perpendicular to the substrate thus [0079] – “the efficiency of light confinement is improved.”
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding independent claim 9, Fukui teaches:
(Currently Amended) A method for producing a semiconductor light
emitting element (100 – Fig. 3 – [0184] – “light emitting element 100”), the method comprising:
semiconductor layers (131 – Fig. 3 – [0184] – “center nanorod 131”) on a growth substrate (110 – Fig. 3 – [0184] – “substrate 110”);
reflection portion (160 – [0190] – “electrode 160 partially covers the side surfaces (upper portions) of the core-multishell nanowires 130”) on a side surface of the columnar semiconductor layer (131); and
forming an embedded layer to cover the columnar semiconductor layer.
Fukui does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 9.
However, in an analogous art, Okuno teaches
forming an embedded layer (140 – Fig. 2 – [0035] – “buried layer 140”) to cover the columnar semiconductor layer (130 – Fig. 3 – [0035] – “columnar semiconductor 130”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute an embedded layer covering the columnar semiconductor layer structure as taught by Okuno into Fukui.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Okuno in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result providing support and stability to the nanowire structures.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding independent claim 10, Fukui teaches:
(Original) A semiconductor light emitting element (100 – Fig. 3 –
[0184] – “light emitting element 100”) comprising:
a growth substrate (110 – Fig. 3 – [0184] – “substrate 110”);
a plurality of columnar semiconductor layers (130 – Fig 4. – [0184] – “core-multishell nanowires 130”) formed on the growth substrate (110); and
an embedded layer covering the columnar semiconductor layer,
wherein the columnar semiconductor layer (130) comprises:
a nanowire layer (131 – Fig. 3 – [0184] – “center
nanorod 131”) ;
an active layer (133 – Fig. 4 – [0184] – “a quantum well layer 133, formed of an i-type III-V compound semiconductor”) disposed on an outer periphery of the nanowire layer (130); and
a p-type layer (134 – Fig. 4 – [0184] – “a second barrier layer 134, formed of a p-type III-V compound semiconductor”) disposed on an outer periphery of the active layer (133), and
wherein a side surface of the active layer is inclined with respect to a main
surface of the growth substrate.
Fukui does not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 10.
However, in an analogous art, Okuno teaches
an embedded layer (140 – Fig. 2 – [0035] – “buried layer 140”) covering the columnar semiconductor layer (130 – Fig. 3 – [0035] – “columnar semiconductor 130”),
wherein a side surface of the active layer (440 – Fig. 20 – [0118] – “buried
layer 440 has a first layer 441, a second layer 442, and a third layer 443” – this corresponds to the active layer) is inclined with respect to a main surface of the growth substrate (110 – Fig. 20 – [0117] – “substrate 110” – Fig. 20 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute an embedded layer covering the columnar semiconductor layer and the inclined structure as taught by Okuno into Fukui.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Okuno in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result providing support and stability to the nanowire structures and to focus extracted light from the sides towards the substrate.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 11, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 10 from which claim 11 depends. Fukui does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 11.
However, in an analogous art, Okuno teaches
(Original) The semiconductor light emitting element according to claim 10,
wherein the nanowire layer (130 – Fig. 20 – [0036] – “columnar semiconductor 130”) includes an inclined side surface portion (440) which is a side surface inclined with respect to the main surface (110 – Fig. 20 – [0117] – “substrate 110” – Fig. 20 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the embedded layer material structure as taught by Okuno into Fukui.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Okuno in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result as stated above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. Fukui does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
However, in an analogous art, Okuno teaches
(Original) The semiconductor light emitting element according to claim 11,
further comprising:
a mask (120 – Fig. 20 – [0035] – “a mask 120”) on the growth substrate (110), the mask (120) having an opening (120a – Fig. 3 – [0046] – “the opening 120a of the mask 120”),
wherein the nanowire layer (130) is selectively grown from the opening ({[0049] – “The n-type columnar semiconductor 131 is a semiconductor layer selectively grown in a column shape from the n-type semiconductor layer 112”}, {[0047] – “columnar semiconductor 130 includes an n-type columnar semiconductor 131”}) and the inclined side surface portion (440) is formed in a region partially covering the mask (120 – Fig. 20 shows this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the mask embedded layer material structure as taught by Okuno into Fukui.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Okuno in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result growing columnar shaped structures perpendicular to the substrate without having to etch them.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Regarding claim 13, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 10 from which claim 13 depends. Fukui does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 13.
However, in an analogous art, Okuno teaches
(Currently Amended) The semiconductor light emitting element according
to claim 10,
wherein the nanowire layer (131 – Fig. 15 – [0078] – “the n-type columnar
semiconductor 131”), the active layer ([0078] – “the well layer is an InGaN layer”), and the p-type layer (133 – Fig. – [0078] – “the p-type cylindrical semiconductor 133 is a p-type GaN layer”) are formed of a nitride semiconductor ([0078] – “the n-type columnar semiconductor 131 is an n-type GaN layer, the well layer is an InGaN layer, the barrier layer is an AlGaN layer, and the p-type cylindrical semiconductor 133 is a p-type GaN layer. These are merely examples, and other Group III nitride semiconductor or other semiconductor may be employed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the material as taught by Okuno into Fukui.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Okuno in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of more rapidly and easily growing a crystal on a base that is efficiently emits light of a desired wavelength.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui in view of Okuno and Jin (KR 20190115726 A – hereinafter Jin).
Regarding claim 4, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 2 from which claim 4 depends. Fukui further teaches
(Original) The semiconductor light emitting element according to
claim 2,
wherein the light reflection film ({[0204] – “The first barrier layer 222 is formed of a p-type III-V compound semiconductor (e.g., p-type AlGaAs)”}, {[0122] – “the insulating film that covers the substrate is preferably an interface of "a III-V compound semiconductor/a totally reflecting insulating film." That is, it is appropriate for the outermost layer of the insulating film that contacts the lower end face of the quantum well layer to be a totally reflecting insulating film”} – this barrier layer acts as a reflection film) is formed of a semiconductor material having a band gap larger than a wavelength of the light ([0105] – “The first barrier layer is formed of a III-V compound semiconductor of the first conductivity type that has a bandgap larger than that of the III-V compound semiconductor used to form the center nanorod”), the light reflection film having an optical thickness larger than the wavelength of the light.
Fukui and Okuno do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 4.
However, in an analogous art, Jin teaches
the light reflection film having an optical thickness larger than the wavelength of the light ([0044] – “the distributed Bragg reflector (130a) may be formed by repeatedly stacking SiO2/TiO2, SiO2/Ta2O2, or SiO2/HfO, and SiO2/TiO2 will have good reflection efficiency for blue light, and SiO2 /Ta2O2 or SiO2/HfO will have good reflection efficiency for UV light. When the distributed Bragg reflector (130a) is composed of SiO2/TiO2, it is desirable to go through an optimizationprocess by considering the incident angle and reflectivity according to the wavelength based on an optical thickness of 1/4 of the wavelength of light coming from the active layer (115), and it is not necessary that the thickness of each layer maintain an optical thickness of 1/4 of the wavelength. The number of combinations is suitable for 4 to 40 pairs” – the combined thickness is greater than the wavelength).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the optical thickness as taught by Jin into Fukui and Okuno.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Jin in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result creating a reflective surface using a silicon oxide material, otherwise known as a Bragg Reflector.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui in view of Okuno and Tsuda et al. (US 20040041156 A1 – hereinafter Tsuda).
Regarding claim 7, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. Fukui further teaches
(Currently Amended) The semiconductor light emitting element
according to claim 1,
wherein the light of the side surface reflection portion (170 – Fig. [0191] –
“The dielectric film 170 is an insulating film that covers part of the side surfaces of the core-multishell nanowires 130 (the lower portions not covered with the second electrode) and part of the insulating film 120 (the portion where the core-multishell nanowires 130 are not arranged). The dielectric film 170 is either a lamination of an Al.sub.2O.sub.3 film having a thickness of 15 nm and an SiO.sub.2 film having a thickness of 50 nm, or an SiO.sub.2 film having a thickness of 50 nm” – 170 is a Distributed Bragg Reflector) has a reflectivity in a range of 30% to 90%.
Fukui and Okuno do not expressly disclose the other limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Tsuda teaches
a reflectivity in a range of 30% to 90% ({[0184] – “As the feedback method of the laser resonator, commonly known DFB (distributed feedback), DBR (distributed bragg reflector) or the like may also be employed”}, {[0185] – “After formation of the mirror end surfaces of the Fabry-Perot resonator, dielectric films of SiO.sub.2 and TiO.sub.2 are alternately formed on one of the mirror end surfaces by evaporation, to make a dielectric multilayer reflection film having a reflectance of 70%. Alternatively, multilayer films of SiO.sub.2/Al.sub.2O.sub.3 or the like may be used for the dielectric multilayer reflection film”}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the side surface reflection structure as taught by Tsuda into Fukui and Okuno.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Tsuda in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of decreasing the amount of light loss from not traveling perpendicular to the substrate.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukui in view of Okuno and Dheeraj et al. (US 20180204977 A1 – hereinafter Dheeraj).
Regarding claim 8, Fukui as modified by Okuno, teaches claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. Fukui and Okuno do not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 7.
However, in an analogous art, Dheeraj teaches
(Currently Amended) The semiconductor light emitting element according
to claim 1,
wherein an upper surface reflection portion (6 – Fig. 3 – [0208] – “top electrode/light reflective layer 6 is positioned on top of nanowires 4”) configured to reflect the light toward the growth substrate (6 – Fig. 3 – [0208] – “top electrode/light reflective layer 6 is positioned on top of nanowires 4. The light reflective layer may also be provided with a p-electrode comprising Ni or Au. In use, this layer reflects any light emitted by the device to ensure that the light is emitted through the top of the device opposite the reflective layer”) is formed on a surface of the embedded layer (5 – Fig. 6 – [0208] – “filler 5”) opposite to the growth substrate (3 – Fig. 3 – [0207] – “Nanowires 4 are grown from substrate layer 3”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the upper surface reflection structure as taught by Dheeraj into Fukui and Okuno.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to use the known technique of Dheeraj in the manner set forth above to produce the predictable result of decreasing the amount of light loss from not traveling perpendicular to the substrate.
To do so would have merely been to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143 I. D.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 16, prior art of record fails to teach or suggest
ratio of a raw material is set to be lower than that in the forming the
nanowire core.
Regarding claim 17, prior art of record fails to teach or suggest
wherein in the forming the inclined side surface portion
growth temperature is set to be lower than that in the forming the nanowire core.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to GARY ABEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-0246. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm (Eastern).
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached on (571) 270-7996. 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 ttps://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.
/GRA/
Examiner, Art Unit
/CHAD M DICKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights