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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-21) in the reply filed on 7/20/26 is acknowledged.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mishra et al (US 2006/0223211) in view of Ooi et al (US 2018/0261455).
With respect to Claim 1, Mishra et al discloses a method for fabricating a light emitting diode (LED) device (Figures 1A-1B), the method comprising: forming a template (Figures 1A – 1B, 12) on a substrate (Figures 1A-1B, 10); growing a first III- nitride semiconductor segment of a nanostructure (Figures 1A-1B, 16 and paragraphs 36-38); growing an active region (Figures 1A-1B, 18) of the nanostructure, the active region being supported by the first III- nitride semiconductor segment (Figures 1A-1B, 16), the active region comprising a ternary or quarternary III- nitride semiconductor material (paragraph 36-38); and growing a second III- nitride semiconductor segment of the nanostructure (Figure 1A-1B, 20), the second segment being supported by the active region. See Figures 1A-1B and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 36-48.
Mishra et al differs from the Claims at hand in that Mishra et al does not disclose the first III nitride semiconductor segment, first active region and the second active region are each N-polar.
Ooi et al also pertains to growing III-nitride nanostructures (nanowires) for light emitting devices and discloses growing InGaN/GaN nanostructures as N-polar to facilitate red light (705 nm) wavelength emission at low turn on voltage and high injection current. See paragraph 44 of Ooi et al.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to form the first III nitride semiconductor segment, the active region, and the second III nitride semiconductor segment to each be N polar in the device of Mishra et al, for its known benefit in the art of red light (705 nm) wavelength emission at low turn on voltage and high injection current.
With respect to Claim 2, the combined references make obvious “further comprising annealing the N-polar active region after growing the second N-polar , III-nitride semiconductor segment”. See Mishra et al, paragraphs 42-43, 53, and 63-64 and Claims 11-12; and Ooi et al paragraphs 44 and 61.
With respect to Claim 3, the combined references make obvious “wherein growing the N-polar active region comprises implementing a growth procedure configured such that the N-polar active region comprises an N-polar quantum well, an N-polar quantum disk , or an N-polar quantum dot, that emits in the red spectrum”. See Mishra et al paragraph 36; and Ooi et al paragraph 44.
With respect to Claim 4, the combined references make obvious ”wherein annealing the N-polar active region is implemented in a chamber in which the first N-polar, III- nitride semiconductor segment, the N-polar active region, and the second N-polar, III-nitride semiconductor segment are grown”. See Mishra et al paragraphs 42-43, 53, and 63-64 and Claims 11-12; and Ooi et al paragraphs 44 and 61.
With respect to Claim 5, and the limitation “growing the first N-polar, III- nitride semiconductor segment, growing the N-polar active region, and growing the second N-polar, III-nitride semiconductor segment are performed under nitrogen-rich conditions”, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of nitrogen-rich conditions to grow an N-polar (nitrogen-polar) nanowire is well known in the art, and would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 6, the combined references make obvious “wherein growing the N-polar active region comprises implementing a growth procedure configured such that the N-polar active region has red spectrum emission”. See paragraph 44 of Ooi et al.
With respect to Claim 7, the combined references make obvious “wherein the ternary or quaternary III-nitride semiconductor material is In GaN”. See paragraphs 36-38 of Mishra et al.
With respect to Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected for the reasons as discussed above in Claim 1. Moreover, with respect to the limitation “annealing the active region after growing the second III-nitride semiconductor segment”, see Mishra et al paragraphs 42-43, 53, and 63-64 and Claims 11-12; and Ooi et al paragraphs 44 and 61
With respect to Claim 9, the combined references make obvious “wherein growing the N-polar active region comprises implementing a growth procedure configured such that the N-polar active region comprises an N-polar quantum well, an N-polar quantum disk , or an N-polar quantum dot, that emits in the red spectrum”. See Mishra et al paragraph 36; and Ooi et al paragraph 44.
With respect to Claim 10, and the limitation “wherein annealing the active region is implemented without removal from a growth chamber in which the active region and the second III-nitride semiconductor segment are grown”, see Mishra et al paragraphs 42-43, 53, and 63-64 and Claims 11-12; and Ooi et al paragraphs 44 and 61. Moreover, omission of a step (removal from chamber) is obvious if the function of the step is not needed. See Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (BPAI 1989).
With respect to Claim 11, and the limitation “wherein growing the first III-nitride semiconductor segment, growing the active region, and growing the second III-nitride semiconductor segment are performed under nitrogen-rich conditions”, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of nitrogen-rich conditions to grow an N-polar (nitrogen-polar) nanowire is well known in the art, and would be an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to Claim 12, the combined references make obvious “wherein growing the active region comprises implementing a growth procedure configured such that the active region has red spectrum emission”. See paragraph 44 of Ooi et al.
With respect to Claim 13, the combined references make obvious “wherein the ternary or quaternary III-nitride semiconductor material is IN GaN”. See paragraphs 36-38 of Mishra et al.
With respect to Claim 14, the device of Claim 14 is made obvious by the method steps of Claim 1.
With respect to Claims 15-16, the limitations are disclosed by paragraphs 36-38 of Mishra et al.
With respect to Claim 17, and the concentration of indium , changes in concentration are not patentable in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 18, the combined references suggest “ wherein the N-polar active region is configured for “red spectrum emission”, See paragraph 44 of Ooi et al.
With respect to Claim 19 and the limitation “wherein the nanostructure has sub-micron lateral dimensions”, changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 20, the device of Claim 20 is made obvious by the method steps of Claims 1 and 4. Moreover, changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 21 and the limitation pertaining to the thickness, changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
August 27, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights