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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Abstract recite, “The GaN-based nanoLED structure forms a nanopillar structure that runs through an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer, a p-type GaN layer, a multiple quantum well (MQW) active layer and an n-type GaN layer and reaches a GaN buffer layer;”. However, Applicant’s figures show that the nanopillar structure comprises an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer, a p-type GaN layer, a multiple quantum well (MQW) active layer and an n-type GaN layer and reaches a GaN buffer layer. The Examiner believes Applicant intended to write, “comprises” instead of “runs through”.
[0007] recites the same incorrect use of “runs through” as the Abstract.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 recites, “and an Au thickness of 10-1,000 nm”. Au is pronounced as “gold” and therefore should be preceded by, “a” instead of “an” in order for the limitation to be grammatically correct.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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,
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “forms a nanopillar structure, wherein the nanopillar structure runs through the p-type GaN layer, the MQW active layer and the n-type GaN layer and reaches the GaN buffer layer”. The Examiner finds this limitation to be indefinite because the Applicant’s figures show a nanopillar structure comprising the p-type GaN layer, the MQW active layer and the n-type GaN layer and which reaches the GaN buffer layer. It is not possible for the nanopillar structure to run through itself. It is not clear to the Examiner whether the Applicant intended to write, “comprises” instead of, “runs through” or whether the Applicant intended to write, “forms a trench, wherein the trench runs through the p-type GaN layer, the MQW active layer and the n-type GaN layer and reaches the GaN buffer layer ” as Applicant’s figures include a trench which meets this limitation. Because claim 1 further includes the limitation, “the nanopillar structure has a cross-sectional area that is smallest at the MQW active layer”, the Examiner concludes that the first interpretation is more likely and will interpret, “runs through” to mean “comprises”.
Regarding Claims 2-20, these claims depend upon claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 7, 17, and 18,
These claims include the limitation, “a content of In in an InGaN layer accounts for 0.02-0.25”. This limitation is indefinite as Applicant has not labeled what there are 0.02-0.25 units of. Because the elements in the range are less than one, the Examiner interprets the claim to mean, “a content of In in an InGaN layer accounts for 0.02%-0.25% of the content of the InGaN layer”.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura JP 2009049195 A in view of Oohata et al US 20040266043 A1. Oohata et al will be referenced to as Oohata henceforth.
Regarding Claim 1,
Takakura teaches:
“An alternating electric field-driven gallium nitride (GaN)-based nano-light-emitting diode (nanoLED) structure with an electric field enhancement effect (FIG. 1C), comprising the following components in sequence from bottom to top:
a substrate (silicon substrate 11, [0020]); an n-type GaN layer grown on the GaN buffer layer (n-type semiconductor layer 14, [0022]);
a multiple quantum well (MQW) active layer grown on the n-type GaN layer (light-emitting layer 15, [0023], [0025]); and
a p-type GaN layer grown on the MQW active layer (p-type GaN layer 16, [0024]);
wherein the alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure forms a nanopillar structure (nanocolumn 13, [0025]), and
the nanopillar structure has a cross-sectional area that is smallest at the MQW active layer (FIG. 1C) and gradually increases towards two ends of a nanopillar, forming a pillar structure with a thin middle and two thick ends (FIG. 1C).”
Takakura doesn’t substantially teach:
“a GaN buffer layer grown on the substrate; ”
However, Oohata teaches:
“a GaN buffer layer grown on the substrate (Oohata: GaN buffer layer, [0123], [0313]);”
Takakura and Oohata together teach:
“wherein the nanopillar structure runs through the p-type GaN layer, the MQW active layer and the n-type GaN layer (FIG. 1C: 13 includes 14, 15, and 16) and reaches the GaN buffer layer (Takakura/Oohata: Takakura: FIG. 1C: 13 contacts 12. 12 is an AlN buffer layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would replace the AlN layer of Takakura with the GaN layer of Oohata. Therefore 13 would contact a GaN buffer layer.);”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Takakura is modifiable in view of Oohata by substituting the AlN buffer layer of Takakura with the GaN buffer layer Oohata.
This is because Takakura teaches a nitride layer which buffers a GaN light-emitting device from a silicon substrate. Takakura doesn’t substantively teach a GaN buffer layer. Oohata teaches a nitride layer which buffers a GaN light-emitting device from a silicon substrate. Oohata further teaches a GaN buffer layer. Because both Takakura and Oohata have a nitride layer which buffers a GaN light-emitting device from a silicon substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to substitute the AlN buffer layer of Takakura for the GaN buffer layer of Oohata for the predictable result of a GaN light emitting device with fewer impurities which is buffered from a silicon substrate.
Regarding Claim 2,
Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1,”
Takakura/Oohata doesn’t exactly teach:
“further comprising an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer, wherein the ITO layer is grown on the p-type GaN layer and has a thickness of 30-300 nm”
However, Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“further comprising an indium tin oxide (ITO) layer, wherein the ITO layer is grown on the p-type GaN layer and has a thickness of 30-300 nm (Takakura: transparent conductive film 28, [0038], [0040], FIG. 1C: the ITO film may be 25 nm. The ITO film must be required in the first embodiment because the light-emitting devices must be electrically coupled to a p-type electrode.).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Takakura/Oohata may be slightly modified by growing an ITO layer to a thickness of 30 nm instead of 25 nm.
This is because Takakura/Oohata does not disclose the exact claimed thickness range of 30-300 nm. “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” Titanium Metals Copr of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 783, (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05. In the instant case, One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the conductivity of an ITO layer varies with the thickness of the ITO layer. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the 25 nm thickness of the ITO layer to reach a desired conductivity.
Regarding Claim 3,
Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1, further comprising an electrode layer, wherein the electrode layer is located below the substrate (Takakura: laminated film 29b, [0032], FIG. 2C: 29b is a n-type electrode. Though 29b is not shown in FIG. 1C, 29b must be present as a light-emitting GaN device requires an n-type and p-type electrode on opposite ends of the device to function.).”
Regarding Claim 10,
Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1, wherein the electrode layer is a double-layer structure of titanium (Ti) and gold (Au), with a Ti thickness of 2-40 nm and an Au thickness of 10-1,000 nm (Takakura: [0032]: 29b consists of a 50 nm thick titanium layer and a 500 nm gold layer.). ”
Regarding Claim 10,
Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1, wherein the electrode layer is a double-layer structure of titanium (Ti) and gold (Au), Au thickness of 10-1,000 nm (Takakura: [0032]: 29b consists of a 50 nm thick titanium layer and a 500 nm gold layer.).”
Takakura/Oohata doesn’t exactly teach:
“with a Ti thickness of 2-40 nm”
However, Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“with a Ti thickness of 2-40 nm (Takakura: [0032]: 29b consists of a 50 nm thick titanium layer and a 500 nm gold layer.)”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Takakura/Oohata may be slightly modified by adjusting the thickness of the Ti layer to 40 nm instead of 50 nm.
This is because Takakura/Oohata does not disclose the exact claimed Ti layer thickness range of 10-40 nm. “A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.” Titanium Metals Copr of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 783, (Fed. Cir. 1985). MPEP 2144.05. In the instant case, One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that varying the thickness of the Ti layer adjusts the depression of holes in the p-type GaN layer. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the thickness of the Ti layer in order to reach a desired depression of holes in the p-type GaN layer.
Claims 4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura/Oohata as applied to claims 1-3 and 10 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al US 20070248132 A1. Kikuchi et al will be referenced to as Kikuchi henceforth.
Regarding Claim 4,
Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1,”
Takakura/Oohata doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein the substrate is a silicon substrate or a sapphire substrate with a thickness of 300-500 µm.”
However, Kikuchi teaches:
“wherein the substrate is a silicon substrate or a sapphire substrate with a thickness of 300-500 µm (Kikuchi: substrate 1, [0073], FIG. 1: The silicon substrate may have a thickness of 350 µm.).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Takakura/Oohata is modifiable in view of Kikuchi by incorporating the thickness of the substrate of Kikuchi into the device of Takakura/Oohata.
This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a substrate with a large thickness relative to the size of the active components of the light-emitting device is beneficial because a substrate with a large relative thickness provides substantial structural support to the active components of the light-emitting device. This support results in a device which is more resilient to physical stressors.
Regarding Claim 11,
Takakura/Oohata/Kikuchi teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 2, wherein the substrate is a silicon substrate or a sapphire substrate with a thickness of 300-500 µm (Kikuchi: substrate 1, [0073], FIG. 1: The silicon substrate may have a thickness of 350 µm.).”
Regarding Claim 12,
Takakura/Oohata/Kikuchi teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 3, wherein the substrate is a silicon substrate or a sapphire substrate with a thickness of 300-500 µm (Kikuchi: substrate 1, [0073], FIG. 1: The silicon substrate may have a thickness of 350 µm.).”
Claims 5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura/Oohata as applied to claims 1-3 and 10 above, and further in view of Audibert et al FR 3142836 A1. Audibert et al will be referenced to as Audibert henceforth.
Regarding Claim 5,
Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1,”
Takakura/Oohata doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein the GaN buffer layer is an undoped GaN buffer layer with a thickness of 1-5 µm.”
However, Audibert teaches:
“wherein the GaN buffer layer is an undoped GaN buffer layer with a thickness of 1-5 µm (Audibert: [0134]: The GaN buffer layer has a thickness of 1-4 µm.).”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Takakura/Oohata is modifiable in view of Audibert by incorporating the GaN buffer layer thickness of Audibert into the device of Takakura/Oohata.
This is because Audibert teaches that a 1 and 4 µm GaN buffer layer helps to absorb stresses from between the substrate and the GaN buffer layer.
Regarding Claim 13,
Takakura/Oohata/Audibert teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 2, wherein the GaN buffer layer is an undoped GaN buffer layer with a thickness of 1-5 µm (Audibert: [0134]: The GaN buffer layer has a thickness of 1-4 µm.).”
Regarding Claim 14,
Takakura/Oohata/Audibert teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 3, wherein the GaN buffer layer is an undoped GaN buffer layer with a thickness of 1-5 µm (Audibert: [0134]: The GaN buffer layer has a thickness of 1-4 µm.).”
Claims 6, 8, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura/Oohata as applied to claims 1-3 and 10 above, and further in view of Zhang et al US 20150179872 A1. Zhang et al will be referenced to as Zhang henceforth.
Regarding Claim 6,
Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1, and a thickness of 0.5-3 µm (Takakura: [0022]: 14 may have a height of 1 µm.)”
Takakura/Oohata doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein the n-type GaN layer has a doping concentration of 1-500×1017 cm-2”
However, Zhang teaches:
“wherein the n-type GaN layer has a doping concentration of 1-500×1017 cm-2 (Zhang: [0083], [0091]: the n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer have doping concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-3 and 3 x 1017 cm-3 respectively. A thin slice of each of these layers would have the same concentration per area. Because these entire layers are stated to hold these concentration, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider these layers to have uniform concentrations. Therefore, a thin slice of n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer would have dopant concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-2 and 3 x 1017 cm-2 respectively.) ”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Takakura/Oohata is modifiable in view of Zhang by incorporating the particular doping concentrations of the n-type GaN and p-type GaN of Zhang into the device of Takakura/Oohata.
This is because Zhang teaches that these doping concentrations translate to improved carrier injection with no extra consumption of electric power. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this to be beneficial as a more energy efficient device is more cost effective.
Regarding Claim 8,
Takakura/Oohata/Zhang teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1, wherein the p-type GaN layer has a doping concentration of 1-50×1017 cm-2 (Zhang: [0083], [0091]: the n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer have doping concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-3 and 3 x 1017 cm-3 respectively. A thin slice of each of these layers would have the same concentration per area. Because these entire layers are stated to hold these concentration, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider these layers to have uniform concentrations. Therefore, a thin slice of n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer would have dopant concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-2 and 3 x 1017 cm-2 respectively.) and a thickness of 0.1-1 µm ([0024]:16 may have a thickness of 100 nm. 100 nm = 0.1 µm).”
Regarding Claim 15,
Takakura/Oohata/Zhang teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 2, wherein the n-type GaN layer has a doping concentration of 1-500×1017 cm-2 (Zhang: [0083], [0091]: the n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer have doping concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-3 and 3 x 1017 cm-3 respectively. A thin slice of each of these layers would have the same concentration per area. Because these entire layers are stated to hold these concentration, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider these layers to have uniform concentrations. Therefore, a thin slice of n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer would have dopant concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-2 and 3 x 1017 cm-2 respectively.) and a thickness of 0.5-3 µm (Takakura: [0022]: 14 may have a height of 1 µm.).”
Regarding Claim 16,
Takakura/Oohata/Zhang teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 3, wherein the n-type GaN layer has a doping concentration of 1-500×1017 cm-2 (Zhang: [0083], [0091]: the n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer have doping concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-3 and 3 x 1017 cm-3 respectively. A thin slice of each of these layers would have the same concentration per area. Because these entire layers are stated to hold these concentration, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider these layers to have uniform concentrations. Therefore, a thin slice of n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer would have dopant concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-2 and 3 x 1017 cm-2 respectively.)and a thickness of 0.5-3 µm (Takakura: [0022]: 14 may have a height of 1 µm.).”
Regarding Claim 19,
Takakura/Oohata/Zhang teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 2, wherein the p-type GaN layer has a doping concentration of 1-50×1017 cm-2 (Zhang: [0083], [0091]: the n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer have doping concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-3 and 3 x 1017 cm-3 respectively. A thin slice of each of these layers would have the same concentration per area. Because these entire layers are stated to hold these concentration, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider these layers to have uniform concentrations. Therefore, a thin slice of n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer would have dopant concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-2 and 3 x 1017 cm-2 respectively.) and a thickness of 0.1-1 µm (Takakura: [0024]:16 may have a thickness of 100 nm. 100 nm = 0.1 µm).”
Regarding Claim 20,
Takakura/Oohata/Zhang teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 3, wherein the p-type GaN layer has a doping concentration of 1-50×1017 cm-2 (Zhang: [0083], [0091]: the n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer have doping concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-3 and 3 x 1017 cm-3 respectively. A thin slice of each of these layers would have the same concentration per area. Because these entire layers are stated to hold these concentration, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider these layers to have uniform concentrations. Therefore, a thin slice of n-type GaN layer and the p-type GaN layer would have dopant concentrations of 2 x 1017- cm-2 and 3 x 1017 cm-2 respectively.) and a thickness of 0.1-1 µm (Takakura: [0024]:16 may have a thickness of 100 nm. 100 nm = 0.1 µm.).”
Claims 7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura/Oohata as applied to claims 1-3 and 10 above, and further in view of Zang et al US 20120217474 A1. Zang et al will be referenced to as Zang henceforth.
Regarding Claim 7,
Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1, wherein the MQW active layer is a periodic structure of InGaN/GaN (Takakura: [0023]), a content of In in an InGaN layer accounts for 0.02-0.25 (Takakura: [0023]: the Indium concentration may be 17%), and the InGaN layer has a thickness of 1-4 nm (Takakura: [0023]: the InGaN layer has a thickness of 2nm.); and
a GaN layer has a thickness of 5-18 nm (Takakura: [0023]: the GaN layer has a thickness of 5 nm.).”
Takakura/Oohata doesn’t substantially teach:
“with 3-10 periods ”
However, Zang teaches:
“with 3-10 periods (Zang: [0146]: the MQW may have 4 pairs of InGaN/GaN layers.)”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Takakura/Oohata is modifiable in view of Zang by incorporating the particular number of pairs of InGaN/GaN of Zang into the device of Takakura/Oohata.
This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to search for the exact number of pairs of layers made in a MQW in a light-emitting device as Takakura does not teach the exact amount.
Regarding Claim 17,
Takakura/Oohata/Zang teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 2, wherein the MQW active layer is a periodic structure of InGaN/GaN (Takakura: [0023]), with 3-10 periods (Zang: [0146]: the MQW may have 4 pairs of InGaN/GaN layers.);
a content of In in an InGaN layer accounts for 0.02-0.25 (Takakura: [0023]: the Indium concentration may be 17%), and the InGaN layer has a thickness of 1-4 nm (Takakura: [0023]: the InGaN layer has a thickness of 2nm.); and
a GaN layer has a thickness of 5-18 nm (Takakura: [0023]: the GaN layer has a thickness of 5 nm.). ”
Regarding Claim 18,
Takakura/Oohata/Zang teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 3, wherein the MQW active layer is a periodic structure of InGaN/GaN, with 3-10 periods (Zang: [0146]: the MQW may have 4 pairs of InGaN/GaN layers.);
a content of In in an InGaN layer accounts for 0.02-0.25 (Takakura: [0023]: the Indium concentration may be 17%), and the InGaN layer has a thickness of 1-4 nm (Takakura: [0023]: the InGaN layer has a thickness of 2nm.); and
a GaN layer has a thickness of 5-18 nm (Takakura: [0023]: the GaN layer has a thickness of 5 nm.).”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takakura/Oohata as applied to claims 1-3 and 10 above, and further in view of Kishino et al US 20110169025 A1. Kishino et al will be referenced to as Kishino henceforth.
Regarding Claim 9,
Takakura/Oohata teaches:
“The alternating electric field-driven GaN-based nanoLED structure according to claim 1, and a height of 400-2,000 nm (Takakura: [0022-0024], 14 is 1 µm, 16 is 0.1 µm, and 15 is on the order of several nanometers. Therefore, 13 is about 1100 nm.).”
Takakura/Oohata doesn’t substantially teach:
“wherein the nanopillar has a diameter of 150-900 nm, a period of 300-1,000 nm, ”
However, Kishino teaches:
“wherein the nanopillar has a diameter of 150-900 nm (Kishino: [0015]: the nanocolumn diameter may be between 10 nm and 1000 nm.), a period of 300-1,000 nm (Kishino: FIGs. 19-20: A column periodicity of 400 nm results in a light-emitting device with a high intensity in the visible spectrum.), ”
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the invention to recognize that the device of Takakura/Oohata is modifiable in view of Kishino by incorporating the nanocolumn diameter and period of Kishino into Takakura/Oohata.
This is because Kishino teaches that nanocolumns with a diameter of between 166 nm and 236 nm produces light visible to the human eye (visible light has a wavelength from between about 380 nm to 700 nm.) (Kishino: FIG. 6). In order to make a light-emitting device visible to the human eye, one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate nanocolumn diameters which result in the emission of light visible to the human eye.
Further, Kishino teaches that the column periodicity which results in the greatest light intensity, for light of wavelengths of approximately 500 nm, is a 400 nm column periodicity. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would use a column periodicity of 400 nm in order to form a light emitting device with a high intensity in the visible range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE XAVIER RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM to 6:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ALEXANDRE X RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights