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 .
Priority
The current application is a Continuation in Part of 17/507134. The current application added Figures 5A-5D and paragraphs [0041-0045] to the current disclosure. The examiner notes that paragraph 0042 of the current specification gives support to the limitations “the metal nitride comprises a plurality of features characterized by a depth of less than or about 100 nm” (claim 1), “the seed layer of the metal nitride defines a plurality of recesses characterized by a width of between about 1 nm and about 100 nm” (claim 11), and “the layer of the metal nitride comprises a plurality of features characterized by a depth of between less than or about 100 nm” (claim 19).
Since the added disclosure Figures 5A-5D and paragraphs [0041-0045] gives support to the claimed limitations the examiner will treat the current application as have a filing date of 3/16/22. (The examiner notes figures 5A-5D fail to show gallium nitride directly on the seed layer.)
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the gallium nitride directly on the seed layer must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant alleges:
"the substrate with the annealed seed layer may be exposed to an oxygen-containing environment, such as by passing the substrate from a vacuum environment at optional operation 215". See Publication, para. [0031]. Additionally, the present Application explains "an amount of oxide [may] form on the seed layer, or may oxidize aspects of the seed layer" and "[a]s shown in FIG. 3B, oxidation 315 may be formed overlying the seed layer". See Id. The present Application provides "the process may include exposing the substrate and seed layer to oxygen at optional operation 410" and "the device 500 may include an oxygen-containing layer 515 as illustrated in FIG. 5B". See Id. at paras. [0039] and [0044].
However, these citations and the specification fail to explicitly disclose forming the gallium nitride directly on the metal nitride, layer of the metal nitride comprises a plurality of features characterized by a depth of less than or about 100 nm and the metal nitride is selected from the group consisting of aluminum nitride, hafnium nitride, and niobium nitride. the Federal Circuit has also held “[t]he written description requirement is not met when… the specification provides at best disparate disclosures that an artisan might have been able to combine in order to make the claimed invention. Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1352“. Flash Control, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 2020-2141, 2021 BL 262867, at *5, 2021 U.S.P.Q.2d 754 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021). Therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The applicant alleges “Applicants are not presently disclaiming an oxygen-containing layer”. The examiner agrees the oxide layer is not being “disclaimed”. The examiner submits that claims 11 and 19 are broader than claims 14 and 20. Moreover, the specification fails to provide support for the broader claim 11 and claim 19. (Claims 14 and 20 are not currently rejected with respect to 112a with respect to a lack of oxygen containing layer.)
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, 4-8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-23 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.
Claims 1, 11 and 19 have been amended to disclose “wherein the layer of the metal nitride is annealed at a temperature of greater than or about 1000°C for a period of time greater than or about 60 minutes; and a gallium nitride structure overlying the layer of the metal nitride, wherein the gallium nitride structure is characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 7E9/cm2”.
The examiner notes that paragraph [0029] of the original specification discloses:
The anneal may be performed at high temperatures, which may improve the crystalline structure of the nitride seed layer, including at an exposed surface, and which may help to reduce or limit transmission of dislocations through the subsequently formed layers, and may facilitate improved growth of gallium materials. The anneal may be performed at a temperature of greater than or about 1,000 °C, and may be performed at a temperature of greater than or about 1,150 °C, greater than or about 1,200 °C, greater than or about 1,250 °C, greater than or about 1,300 °C, greater than or about 1,350 °C, greater than or about 1,400 °C, greater than or about 1,450 °C, greater than or about 1,500 °C, greater than or about 1,550 °C, greater than or about 1,600 °C, or higher. However, depending on the substrate material, a lower temperature may be used, which may facilitate treatment of the nitride seed layer, but may protect the substrate. For example, in some embodiments, the substrate may be silicon, which may be damaged or melt at higher temperatures. Accordingly, in some embodiments, and depending on the substrate, the temperature may be maintained at less than or about 1,500 °C, and may be maintained at less than or about 1,400 °C, less than or about 1,300 °C, or less.
The examiner notes that paragraph [0030] of the original specification discloses “[t]he anneal may be performed for a period of time sufficient to improve the seed layer, and the anneal may be performed for greater than or about 30 minutes, greater than or about 60 minutes, greater than or about 90 minutes, greater than or about 120 minutes, greater than or about 150 minutes, greater than or about 180 minutes, or more”.
The examiner notes that paragraph [0035] of the original specification discloses:
By performing treatments according to some embodiments of the present technology, dislocation density through the gallium-containing material may be reduced. For example, the present technology may produce regions of gallium nitride of any thickness, such as from dozens of nanometers to several micrometers or more, and which may be characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 8.0E9/cm2, and which may be characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 7.5E9/cm2, less than or about 7.0E9/cm2, less than or about 6.5E9/cm2, less than or about 6.0E9/cm2, less than or about 5.5E9/cm2, less than or about 5.0E9/cm2, or less.
The specification fails to explicitly disclose a specific time and specific temperature that would result in “the gallium nitride structure is characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 7E9/cm2”. For example, paragraph [0035] discloses “[b]y performing treatments according to some embodiments of the present technology, dislocation density through the gallium-containing material may be reduced.” The specification as filed is not clear if the treatment includes a temperature of or about 1,000 °C for 30 minutes in order or a temperature of or about 1,600 °C for 30 minutes would result in a dislocation density of less than or about 7E9/cm2. The Federal Circuit recently held:
As we explained in Ariad, the written description inquiry looks to "the four corners of the specification" to discern the extent to which the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as broadly claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 , 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("It is the disclosures of the applications that count."). The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571 , but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification. Id. at 1571-72 .
Rivera v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
In this case, it might be obvious that “the layer of the metal nitride is annealed at a temperature of greater than or about 1000°C for a period of time greater than or about 60 minutes; and a gallium nitride structure overlying the layer of the metal nitride, wherein the gallium nitride structure is characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 7E9/cm2”. However, the specification as filed does not explicitly teach an anneal of greater than or about 1000°C for a period of time greater than or about 60 minutes will result in the gallium nitride structure is characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 7E9/cm2.
Lastly, the Federal Circuit has also held “[t]he written description requirement is not met when… the specification provides at best disparate disclosures that an artisan might have been able to combine in order to make the claimed invention. Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d at 1352“. Flash Control, LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 2020-2141, 2021 BL 262867, at *5, 2021 U.S.P.Q.2d 754 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2021). Again, the specification as filed does not explicitly teach an anneal of greater than or about 1000°C for a period of time greater than or about 60 minutes will result in the gallium nitride structure is characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 7E9/cm2.
Since the specification fails to explicitly disclose an anneal of greater than or about 1000°C for a period of time greater than or about 60 minutes will result in the gallium nitride structure is characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 7E9/cm2, the examiner will not address the process limitation of an anneal of greater than or about 1000°C for a period of time greater than or about 60 minutes.
Claims 11, 13, 17, 18, 21 and 23 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.
Claim 11 discloses “seed layer of a metal nitride overlying the silicon substrate…a gallium nitride structure overlying the seed layer of the metal nitride, wherein the gallium nitride structure extends into the plurality of recesses defined in the seed layer of the metal nitride”.
Claim 14 discloses “an oxygen-containing layer disposed between the seed layer of the metal nitride and the gallium nitride structure”.
MPEP 2164.08 [R-01.2024] discloses “[t]he examiner should determine what each claim recites and what the subject matter is when the claim is considered as a whole, not when its parts are analyzed individually… ‘a claim in a dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers’ and requires the dependent claim to further limit the subject matter claimed.”
Claim 11 is broader than claim 14. The examiner submits that claim 11 would encompass both “an oxygen-containing layer disposed between the seed layer of the metal nitride and the gallium nitride structure” (as disclosed in claim 14 and shown in figures 5B-5D) and a structure without an oxygen containing layer (i.e. where the gallium nitride layer is directly on the seed layer of metal nitride). The applicant has not disclosed a structure without the oxygen containing layer (515). The drawings and specification fail to explicitly disclose a gallium nitride structure on the seed layer with recesses without an oxygen containing layer. The Federal Circuit has held:
As we explained in Ariad, the written description inquiry looks to "the four corners of the specification" to discern the extent to which the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as broadly claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 , 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("It is the disclosures of the applications that count."). The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571 , but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification. Id. at 1571-72 .
Rivera v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
In this case, the formation of the gallium nitride on the recessed seed layer might be obvious but the applicant fails to disclose the gallium nitride directly on the recessed seed layer in original specification.
Claims 19 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.
Claim 19 discloses “the layer of the metal nitride comprises a plurality of features characterized by a depth of less than or about 100 nm; and a gallium nitride structure overlying the layer of the metal nitride, wherein the gallium nitride structure extends into the plurality of features defined in the layer of the metal nitride”.
MPEP 2164.08 [R-01.2024] discloses “[t]he examiner should determine what each claim recites and what the subject matter is when the claim is considered as a whole, not when its parts are analyzed individually… ‘a claim in a dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers’ and requires the dependent claim to further limit the subject matter claimed.”
Claim 19 is broader than claim 20. The examiner submits that claim 19 would encompass both “an oxygen-containing layer disposed between the layer of the metal nitride and the gallium nitride structure” (as disclosed in claim 20 and shown in figures 5B-5D) and a structure without an oxygen containing layer (i.e. where the gallium nitride layer is directly on the metal nitride layer). The applicant has not disclosed a structure without the oxygen containing layer (515). The drawings and specification fail to explicitly disclose a gallium nitride structure on the seed layer with recesses without an oxygen containing layer. The Federal Circuit has held:
As we explained in Ariad, the written description inquiry looks to "the four corners of the specification" to discern the extent to which the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as broadly claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 , 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("It is the disclosures of the applications that count."). The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571 , but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification. Id. at 1571-72 .
Rivera v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
In this case, the formation of the gallium nitride on the recessed nitride layer might be obvious but the applicant fails to disclose the gallium nitride directly on the recessed seed layer in original specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 10 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertkorn et al. (US 2015/0076507) in view of SHANXI ZHONGKE ADVANCED ULTRAVIOLET OPTOELECTRONICS TECH CO (CN113540295A published 10/22/21)(hereinafter “Shanxi”)(cites are to English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hertkorn et al. disclose a silicon substrate [0040]; a layer of a aluminum nitride (AlN) (22) (fig. 5) overlying the silicon substrate [0049]; a gallium nitride (3)[0051] structure on the layer of the metal nitride.
Hertkorn et al. fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of features characterized by a depth of less than or about 100 nm.
Shanxi disclose a plurality of features characterized by a depth of less than or about 100 nm [0015] (the depth of the holes is 5-100nm).
It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The combination of Hertkorn et al. and Shanxi would result in the gallium nitride structure is characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 7E9/cm2 because the gallium nitride is a result of the same structure. (See MPEP 2112.01 I “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation … has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”) In this case since the claims have the same structure one of ordinary skill would understand that the same structure would have the same dislocation density.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a plurality of features in AlN characterized by a depth of less than or about 100 nm), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (a plurality of features would be formed on the AlN [Shanxi, 0015] which would eliminate cracks on the surface [Shanxi, 0008]).
Regarding claim 4, Hertkorn et al. disclose the metal nitride is aluminum nitride [0049].
Regarding claim 6, Hertkorn et al. disclose an oxygen-containing layer (AlON)(21) disposed between the layer of the metal nitride and the gallium nitride structure[0050]. Paragraph 0050 disclose “it is also possible for a multiplicity of second layers to be deposited on the at least one first layer 21 …The additional layers may also be deposited alternately or repeatedly several times, the entire layer stack consisting of the at least one first layer 21 and the further second layers 22 forming the nucleation layer 2”. The disclosed “several times” would mean at least two times. Therefore, two alternating layers of 21 and 22 would be formed (a first layer of 21 and 22 and a second layer of 21 and 22) and that the second layer of 21 (AlON) would be formed over the first layer 22 (AlN).
Regarding claim 7, Hertkorn et al. disclose an oxygen-containing layer (AlON)(21) has aluminum and oxygen [0050].
Regarding claim 8, Hertkorn et al. disclose the oxygen layer further comprises nitrogen(AlON) [0050].
Regarding claim 10, Shanxi disclose a plurality of features characterized by a depth of less than 50 nm [0015] (the depth of the holes is 5nm).
Regarding claim 22, Shanxi disclose a plurality of recesses characterized by a plurality of recesses characterized by a width of between about 1 nm and about 100 nm [0015] (the width between the holes is 30-50nm).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertkorn et al. (US 2015/0187985) in view of SHANXI ZHONGKE ADVANCED ULTRAVIOLET OPTOELECTRONICS TECH CO (CN113540295A published 10/22/21)(hereinafter “Shanxi”)(cites are to English translation) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2017/0110630).
Hertkorn et al. and Shanxi disclose the invention supra.
Hertkorn et al. and Shanxi fail to explicitly disclose the gallium nitride structure extends into the plurality of features of the layer of the metal nitride.
Kawakami et al. the gallium nitride structure (15) extends into the plurality of features (13, recesses) of the layer of the metal nitride [0101] (fig. 1).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a recess/feature in the metal nitride layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the gallium nitride would extend into the recess/feature).
Claim(s) 11, 13-15, 17, 18 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertkorn et al. (US 2015/0076507) in view of SHANXI ZHONGKE ADVANCED ULTRAVIOLET OPTOELECTRONICS TECH CO (CN113540295A published 10/22/21)(hereinafter “Shanxi”)(cites are to English translation) and further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2017/0110630).
Hertkorn et al. disclose a silicon substrate [0040]; a layer of a aluminum nitride (AlN) (22) (fig. 5) overlying the silicon substrate [0049]; a gallium nitride (3)[0051] structure on the layer of the metal nitride.
Hertkorn et al. fails to disclose metal nitride defines a plurality of recesses characterized by a width of between about 1 nm and about 100 nm.
Shanxi disclose a plurality of recesses characterized by a plurality of recesses characterized by a width of between about 1 nm and about 100 nm [0015] (the width between the holes is 30-50nm).
It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The combination of Hertkorn et al. and Shanxi would result in the gallium nitride structure is characterized by a dislocation density of less than or about 7E9/cm2 because the gallium nitride is a result of the same structure. (See MPEP 2112.01 I “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation … has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”) In this case since the claims have the same structure one of ordinary skill would understand that the same structure would have the same dislocation density.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a plurality of recess/feature/holes the width between the holes is 30-50nm), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (a plurality of recess/feature/holes would be formed with the width between the holes is 30-50nm on the AlN [Shanxi, 0015] which would eliminate cracks on the surface [Shanxi, 0008]).
Hertkorn et al. and Shanxi fail to explicitly disclose the metal nitride structure defines a pluratliy of recesses and the gallium nitride structure extends into the plurality of recesses of the layer of the metal nitride.
Kawakami et al. the metal nitride structure defines a pluratliy of recesses (13)(fig. 1) and the gallium nitride structure (15) extends into the plurality of recesses of the layer of the metal nitride [0101].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a recess/feature/holes in the metal nitride layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the gallium nitride would extend into the recess/feature/holes).
Regarding claim 13, Hertkorn et al. disclose the metal nitride is aluminum nitride [0049].
Regarding claim 14, Hertkorn et al. disclose an oxygen-containing layer (AlON)(21) disposed between the layer of the metal nitride and the gallium nitride structure[0050]. Paragraph 0050 disclose “it is also possible for a multiplicity of second layers to be deposited on the at least one first layer 21 …The additional layers may also be deposited alternately or repeatedly several times, the entire layer stack consisting of the at least one first layer 21 and the further second layers 22 forming the nucleation layer 2”. The disclosed “several times” would mean at least two times. Therefore, two alternating layers of 21 and 22 would be formed (a first layer of 21 and 22 and a second layer of 21 and 22) and that the second layer of 21 (AlON) would be formed over the first layer 22 (AlN).
Regarding claim 15, Hertkorn et al. disclose an oxygen containing layer contains aluminum and oxygen [0050].
Regarding claim 17, Hertkorn et al. disclose an oxygen containing layer contains aluminum and nitrogen [0050].
Regarding claim 18, Shanxi disclose a plurality of features characterized by a depth of less than 100 nm [0015] (the depth of the holes is 5nm).
Regarding claim 23, Shanxi disclose Shanxi disclose a plurality of features characterized by a depth of less than 50 nm [0015] (the depth of the holes is 5nm)
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertkorn et al. (US 2015/0076507) ) in view of SHANXI ZHONGKE ADVANCED ULTRAVIOLET OPTOELECTRONICS TECH CO (CN113540295A published 10/22/21)(hereinafter “Shanxi”)(cites are to English translation) and further in view of Kawakami et al. (US 2017/0110630).
Hertkorn et al. disclose a silicon substrate [0040]; a layer of a aluminum nitride (AlN) (22) (fig. 5) overlying the silicon substrate [0049]; a gallium nitride (3)[0051] structure on the layer of the metal nitride.
Shanxi disclose a plurality of features characterized by a depth of less than or about 100 nm [0015] (the depth of the holes is 5-100nm).
It has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
The combination of Hertkorn et al. and Shanxi would result in the gallium nitride structure is characterized by a dislocation density ofless than or about 7E9/cm2 because the gallium nitride is a result of the same structure. (See MPEP 2112.01 I “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation … has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”) In this case since the claims have the same structure one of ordinary skill would understand that the same structure would have the same dislocation density.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a plurality of features in AlN characterized by a depth of less than or about 100 nm), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (a plurality of features would be formed on the AlN [Shanxi, 0015] which would eliminate cracks on the surface [Shanxi, 0008]).
Hertkorn et al. and Shanxi fail to explicitly disclose the aluminum nitride structure defines a pluratliy of features and the gallium nitride structure extends into the plurality of features of the layer of the metal nitride.
Kawakami et al. the aluminum nitride structure defines a pluratliy of features (recesses) (13)(fig. 1) and the gallium nitride structure (15) extends into the plurality of features (recesseses) of the layer of the metal nitride [0101].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a recess/feature in the metal nitride layer), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the gallium nitride would extend into the recess/feature).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (would allow gallium nitride to grow on the oxygen containing layer).
Regarding claim 20, Hertkorn et al. disclose an oxygen-containing layer (AlON)(21) disposed between the layer of the metal nitride and the gallium nitride structure[0050]. Paragraph 0050 disclose “it is also possible for a multiplicity of second layers to be deposited on the at least one first layer 21 …The additional layers may also be deposited alternately or repeatedly several times, the entire layer stack consisting of the at least one first layer 21 and the further second layers 22 forming the nucleation layer 2”. The disclosed “several times” would mean at least two times. Therefore, two alternating layers of 21 and 22 would be formed (a first layer of 21 and 22 and a second layer of 21 and 22) and that the second layer of 21 (AlON) would be formed over the first layer 22 (AlN).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hertkorn et al. (US 2015/0076507) (hereinafter Hertkorn et al. (507)) in view of SHANXI ZHONGKE ADVANCED ULTRAVIOLET OPTOELECTRONICS TECH CO (CN113540295A published 10/22/21)(hereinafter “Shanxi”)(cites are to English translation) and Kawakami et al. (US 2017/0110630) as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Hertkorn et al. (US 2015/0187985) (hereinafter Hertkorn et al. (985)).
Hertkorn et al. (507) Shanxi and Kawakami et al. disclose the invention supra.
Hertkorn et al. (507) Shanxi and Kawakami et al. fail to explicitly disclose the oxygen layer further comprises gallium.
Hertkorn et al. (985) disclose an oxygen containing layer contains gallium [0006].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming an oxygen containing layer with gallium), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (would allow gallium nitride to grow on the oxygen containing layer).
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 BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817