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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on Oct. 9th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8-14 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7, “a third gas" should read “a third gas precursor”.
In claim 1, line 7, “the third gas" should read “the third gas precursor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, the third gas precursor not being diluted is not disclose in the specification, and the third gas precursor has been diluted/diffusion with a carrier gas in para. 0065. Therefore, this limitation is new matter. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted "not being diluted" to be consistent with the cited prior art. Claims 2, 4-5 and 8-14 would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they are dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouvier et al. (US 20160218240) in view of Li et al. (WO 2018076407) and Svensson et al. (WO 2008079077).
Regarding claim 1, Bouvier teaches a method of manufacturing a device (Abstract) comprising micrometer-or nanometer-range wires (fig. 2A, wires 26 as microwire or nanowire; para. 0048, 0076) comprising a III-V compound (26 has III-V compound GaN; para. 0076), on a substrate (substrate 10 and seed pads 24; para. 0059, 0093), and wherein the wires (26) have a polarity (seed pads 24 provide a preferred polarity for 26; para. 0093) corresponding to the substrate (24 on 10) on which the wires grow (26 grow on 24 on 10), wherein the polarity of the substrate is of the group-V element or of the group-III element (seed pads 24 are made of aluminum nitride provide a metal polarity; para. 0093), the method, comprising, for each wire (26), the forming of at least a portion of the wire (lower portion 28 of 26; para. 0082) by a step of metal-organic vapor epitaxy (MOCVD-type method; para. 0099) comprising an injection (injection; para. 0099) into a reactor (showerhead-type MOCVD reactor; para. 0099) of a first gas precursor of the group-V element (nitrogen precursor gas of ammonia (NH3); para. 0099), of a second gas precursor of the group-III element (gallium precursor gas of trimethylgallium (TMGa); para. 0099), and of a third gas (gas with silane; para. 0099) of a precursor of an additional element (silane contain silicon; para. 0099), dopant of N-type (silane results N-type doped; para. 0100) of the III-V compound (GaN), with a ratio of the flow of the third gas precursor of the additional element (silane has a 20-sccm flow; para. 0099) to the flow of the second gas precursor of the group-III element (TMGa has flow of 60 sccm; para. 0099) greater than 3*10E−4 (20/60 is greater than 3*10E−4) and the ratio of the flow of the first gas precursor of the group-V element (300-sccm flow for NH3 and TMGa; para. 0099) to the flow of the third gas precursor of the additional element (silane has a 20-sccm flow; para. 0099) is smaller than or equal to 1,000 (300/20 is smaller than 1000) to obtain a dopant (silane results N-type doped; para. 0100) in the wire portion (28 in the case where the portion (28) has a homogeneous dopant concentration (doping in 28 is homogeneous as the silane flow maintained in 28; para. 0101).
Bouvier fails to explicitly teach each molecule of the third gas being the precursor of the additional element, the third gas precursor not being diluted.
However, Li teaches each molecule of the third gas (doping source is just silane; para. 0030, 0031, similar to 200/50000*300=1.2 sccm based on ratio of NH3 to 200/350*60=34 sccm based on ratio of TMGa as pure silane of Bouvier. In addition, 200/50000 is smaller than 1000 and 200/350 is greater than 3*10E−4) being the precursor of the additional element (silane contain silicon), the third gas precursor (doping source is just silane without dilution gas) not being diluted.
Li, Bouvier are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor nanowires.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each molecule of the third gas being the precursor of the additional element as taught by Li.
Doing so would realize a higher doping into the heavily-doped nanowire and reducing manufacturing cost by not needing a separate dilution gas step.
In addition, Bouvier in view of Li fails to explicitly teach the dopant concentration greater than 5*10E19 atoms/cm3 in the wire portion.
However, Svensson teaches the dopant concentration greater than 5*10E19 atoms/cm3 (Svensson: a typical doping level 10E17-10E20; Col. 17, lin.2-4) in the wire portion (Svensson: fig. 1b, nanoelement 100, include GaN and Si dope; Col. 16, lin.29-34, similar to 28 of Bouvier).
Svensson, Li, Bouvier are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of semiconductor nanowires.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dopant concentration of the wire portion is greater than 5*10E19 atoms/cm3 as taught by Svensson.
Doing so would realize a higher charge carrier concentration into the nanoelement provide a lower access resistance in an electrical connection and improve electrical connection (Svensson: Col. 4, lin. 11-13).
Regarding claim 2, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the dopant concentration at the surface of the wire portion (Bouvier: fig. 2A, 28) is greater than 10E20 atoms/cm3 (Svensson: a typical doping level 10E20; Col. 17, lin.2-4, Col. 16, lin.32-33) and/or the wire portion (Bouvier: 28) is covered with a layer of a material (Bouvier: Insulating layer 32; para. 0074) different from the III-V compound (Bouvier: GaN) and containing the additional element (Bouvier: silicon oxide contains silicon; para. 0074).
Regarding claim 4, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the temperature at the reactor (Bouvier: showerhead-type MOCVD reactor) at the step of forming said portion (Bouvier: fig. 2A, 28) is greater than or equal to 950 °C (Bouvier: 990° C. to 1,060° C; para. 0099).
Regarding claim 5, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the temperature at the reactor (Bouvier: showerhead-type MOCVD reactor) at the step of forming said portion (Bouvier: fig. 2A, 28).
Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson as applied to claims 1 fails to explicitly teach the temperature is greater than or equal to 1000 °C.
However, Bouvier teaches the temperature is 990° C. to 1,060° C (990° C. to 1,060° C; para. 0099), which overlaps the temperature range greater than or equal to 1000 °C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the temperature range from 990° C. to 1,060° C to greater than or equal to 1000 °C.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 8, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 1, comprising the injection into the reactor (Bouvier: injection into showerhead-type MOCVD reactor) of a neutral gas (Bouvier: carrier gas; para. 0099) and where the ratio of the neutral gas flow (Bouvier: 2,000-sccm flow of carrier gas; para. 0099) to the flow of the second gas precursor of the group-III element (Bouvier: TMGa has flow of 60 sccm; para. 0099) at the step of forming said portion (Bouvier: 28) is smaller than 100 (Bouvier: 2000/60 is smaller than 100).
Regarding claim 9, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the flow of the third gas precursor of the additional element (Bouvier and Li: pure silane has 1.2 to 34 sccm flow) to the flow of the second gas precursor of the group-III element (Bouvier: TMGa has flow of 60 sccm; para. 0099) is smaller than 1,000 (Bouvier: 60/34 is smaller than 1000).
Regarding claim 10, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 8, wherein the ratio of the flow of the third gas precursor of the additional element (Bouvier and Li: pure silane has 1.2 to 34 sccm flow) to the flow of the neutral gas (Bouvier: 2,000-sccm flow of carrier gas; para. 0099) is smaller than 1,000,000 (Bouvier: 2000/34 is smaller than 1,000,000).
Regarding claim 11, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 1, comprising the successive forming of at least a first portion of the wire (Bouvier: fig. 2A, 28) and a second portion of the wire (Bouvier: upper portion 30; para. 0101) by steps of vapor phase metal-organic epitaxy (Bouvier: MOCVD-type method) comprising the injection into the reactor (Bouvier: injection into showerhead-type MOCVD reactor) of the first gas precursor of the group-V element (Bouvier: nitrogen precursor gas of ammonia), of the second gas precursor of the group-III element (Bouvier: gallium precursor gas of TMGa), and of the third gas precursor of the additional element (Bouvier: silane contain silicon), dopant of the III-V compound (Bouvier: GaN), of said gas capable of forming the first portion (Bouvier: 28) to obtain a dopant (Bouvier: silane results N-type doped) concentration greater than 5*10E19 atoms/cm3 (Svensson: a typical doping level 10E20; Col. 17, lin.2-4, Col. 16, lin.32-33), in the first portion of the wire (Bouvier: 28) in the case where the first portion (Bouvier: 28) has a homogeneous dopant concentration (Bouvier: doping in 28 is homogeneous as the silane flow maintained in 28), the flow of the third gas precursor of the additional element (Bouvier: silane) being decreased or stopped (Bouvier: silane flow is decreased or stopped; para. 0101) for the forming of the second portion (Bouvier: 30).
Regarding claim 12, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the substrate favors the growth of the wires of the polarity of the group-III element (Bouvier: seed pads 24 are made of aluminum nitride and provide a preferred polarity for 26, which is a metal/group-III polarity; para. 0093, 24 including material equivalent to the AlN seed layer with metal polarity in the instant specification para. 0073) and wherein the wires (Bouvier: 26) have a polarity of the group-III element (Bouvier: metal/group-III polarity from AlN 24).
Regarding claim 13, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the flow of the first gas precursor of the group-V (Bouvier: 300-sccm flow for NH3; para. 0099) to the flow of the third gas precursor of the additional element (Bouvier and Li: pure silane has 1.2 to 34 sccm flow) is smaller than or equal to 500 (Bouvier: 300/1.2 is smaller than 500).
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Regarding claim 14, Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of the flow of the first gas precursor of the group-V (Bouvier: 300-sccm flow for NH3; para. 0099) to the flow of the third gas precursor of the additional element (Bouvier and Li: pure silane has 1.2 to 34 sccm flow).
Bouvier in view of Li and Svensson as applied to claims 1 fails to explicitly teach the ratio is smaller than or equal to 200.
However, Bouvier in view of Li teaches the ratio is to 9 to 250 (Bouvier and Li: 300/34 based on TMGa ratio or 300/1.2 based on NH3; para. 0030, 0031 of Li), which overlaps or close to the ratio range smaller than or equal to 200.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio range from 9 to 250 to smaller than or equal to 200.
Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5 and 8-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed on Oct. 9th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to pages 5-6 of applicant’s response of claim 1-2, 4-5, and 8-14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.112.
Applicant submits "each molecule of the third gas being a precursor of an additional element, ... " is supported by Applicant's and claim 1 satisfies the written description requirements. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 is respectfully requested.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As cited in para. 0065 of the Specification, the third gas precursor has been diluted/diffusion with a carrier gas. Although the amendment of "each molecule of the third gas being a precursor of an additional element" is supported by the Specification, the third gas, as a pure gas, has been diluted with a carrier gas in the method. Therefore, this limitation "the third gas precursor not being diluted" is not disclose in the specification and is new matter. The rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) remain.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818