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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Specification
3. The Amendments filed March 17th, 2026 are noted. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification to overcome the objections set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 09/17/2025 are noted. Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Specification have overcome the objection(s) to the minor grammatical informalities previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 09/17/2025, so the objection(s) to minor grammatical informalities have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, final line: “the at least one cap layer;” should read --- the at least one cap layer. --- (change semicolon to a comma)
Claim 15, final line: “the at least one GaN cap layer;” should read --- the at least one GaN cap layer. --- (change semicolon to a comma)
Claim 1, line 8: “forming at least a first layer and second layer of boron nitride” should read – forming at least a first layer and a second layer of boron nitride ---
Claim 15, line 14: “born nitride” should read --- boron nitride ---
Claim 18, line 1: “AlxinxN layer” should read --- AlxInxN ---
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 1-19 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "forming at least one N-polar stacked configuration in reverse order via… " in line 3. This limitation renders claim 1 on multiple grounds; it is unclear whether the claimed order applies to the layers as they are recited or in a reverse order, and it is unclear whether “at least one N-polar stacked configuration in reverse order” comprises the recited elements, such as “multiple layers of N-polar epilayer…”, or is provided as a different stacked configuration from the claimed layers. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, Examiner has interpreted "forming at least one N-polar stacked configuration in reverse order via… " as --- forming at least one N-polar stacked configuration via …”. However, this edit may be altered if Applicant intends otherwise. Claims 2-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one cap layer" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior recitation of “at least one cap layer” in claim 1, rendering it unclear what “the at least one cap layer” refers to in the context of claim 1. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, “the at least one cap layer” in claim 1, line 11 has been interpreted as --- at least one cap layer ---. Claims 2-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one cap layer" in line 13. There is already “the at least one cap layer” recited previously in claim 1, rendering it unclear it “at least one cap layer” in line 13 of claim 1 refers to a same or different cap layer element. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, “at least one cap layer” in claim 1, line 13 has been interpreted as --- the at least one cap layer ---. Claims 2-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the liftoff approach” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior recitation of “a liftoff approach” in claim 1, rendering it unclear what “the liftoff approach” refers to in line 12 of claim 1. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, “the liftoff approach” in claim 1, line 12 has been interpreted as --- a liftoff approach ---. Claims 2-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a liftoff approach” in line 21. There is already a/the liftoff approach previously recited in claim 1, establishing sufficient basis for “the liftoff approach” thereafter. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, “a liftoff approach” in claim 1, line 21 has been interpreted as --- the liftoff approach ---. Claims 2-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inverting” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior recitation of “an inverting” in claim 1, rendering it unclear what “the inverting” refers to in line 14 of claim 1. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, “the inverting” in claim 1, line 14 has been interpreted as --- an inverting ---. Claims 2-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "wherein from 2-10 layers of boron nitride” in lines 1-2. There is already “a second boron nitride layer”, “a first layer of boron nitride”, and “2-10 monolayers” introduced in claim 1 on which claim 5 depends, rendering it unclear if “2-10 layers of boron nitride” in claim 5 refers at least some of the same or different “boron nitride layer(s)” elements from those recited in claim 1. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, “wherein from 2-10 layers of boron nitride” in claim 5, lines 1-2 has been interpreted as --- wherein the 2-10 monolayers of boron nitride ---. Further, “the 2-10 layers” in claim 5, line 2 has been interpreted as --- the 2-10 monolayers”. However, this/these edit(s) may be altered if Applicant intends otherwise.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the boron nitride layers” in line 3. There is already “a second boron nitride layer” and “a first layer of boron nitride” introduced in claim 1 on which claim 5 depends, rendering it unclear if “the boron nitride layers” in claim 5 refers at least some of the same or different “boron nitride layer(s)” elements from those recited in claim 1. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, “the boron nitride layers” in claim 5, lines 3 has been interpreted as --- the first layer of boron nitride ---. However, this/these edit(s) may be altered if Applicant intends otherwise.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " further comprising forming an N-polar epilayer stack as shown in FIG. 6 of the present application” in lines 1-2. Claim 6 is thus rendered indefinite because it is unclear what process is required by figure 6. In order to remedy this indefiniteness and overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Applicant must explicitly specify at least one unique feature which is required by figure 6 of the present application in the language of method claim 6.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the at least one heat sink” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior recitation of “at least one heat sink” in claim 15. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, “the at least one heat sink” in line 4 of claim 15 has been interpreted as --- at least one heat sink ---. Claims 16-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "forming at least one N-polar stacked configuration in reverse order for subsequent inversion onto the at least one heat sink in reverse order via… " in lines 3-4. This limitation “in reverse order” renders claim 15 on multiple grounds; it is unclear whether the claimed order applies to the layers as they are recited or in a reverse order, and it is unclear whether “at least one N-polar stacked configuration in reverse order” comprises the recited elements, such as “multiple layers of N-polar epilayer…” or is provided as a different stacked configuration from the claimed layers. Therefore, for the purposes of Examination, Examiner has interpreted "forming at least one N-polar stacked configuration in reverse order for subsequent inversion onto the at least one heat sink in reverse order via… " as --- forming at least one N-polar stacked configuration for subsequent inversion onto the at least one heat sink via ---. However, this edit may be altered if Applicant intends otherwise. Claims 16-19 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "further comprising forming an N-polar epilayer stack as shown in FIG. 6 of the present application” in lines 1-2. Claim 16 is thus rendered indefinite because it is unclear what process is required by figure 6. In order to remedy this indefiniteness and overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Applicant must explicitly specify at least one unique feature which is required by figure 6 of the present application in the language of method claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19, as interpreted, are considered to contain allowable subject matter over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed limitation(s) “after subsequent removal of the UV transparent III-N epitaxy compatible substrate, an N-polar face of the multiple layers of N-polar epilayer is exposed” in the context of claim 1. Claims 2-14 are also considered to contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 15 is indicated as containing allowable subject matter because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed limitation(s) “and using a liftoff approach to remove all layers above the GaN cap layer in the stacked configuration including the second layer of boron nitride to expose the at least one GaN cap layer” in the context of claim 15. Claims 16-19 are also considered to contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 07/04/2026
Prosecution Insights