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
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 09/27/2025.
Applicant’s amendments filed 09/27/2025 have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment of claims 1, 7, 12-13, 18-21, and 24; cancellation of claims 2-5 and 25; and the addition of new claims 26-30.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 24, 26, 28, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “the plurality of the pyramidal seeds” which should be replaced with
“a plurality of the pyramidal seeds”, to avoid antecedent basis issue.
Claim 24 recites “the planar, relaxed (0001) InyGa1-yN region an in-plane a-lattice parameter” (line 12) which should be replaced with
“the planar, relaxed (0001) InyGa1-yN region characterized by an in-plane a-lattice parameter”, to clarify claim language.
Claim 26 recites ”A semiconductor device comprising the semiconductor structure of claim 26” which should be replaced with
”A semiconductor device comprising the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 24”.
Claim 28 recites ”A wafer comprising the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 26” which should be replaced with
”A wafer comprising the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 24”.
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, 7, 12-13, 18-21, 24, and 26-30 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 (claim 24) recites limitations “the InN molar fraction of the underlying pyramidal seed regions” that lack antecedent basis in the claim. Further, it is unclear whether “the underlying pyramidal seed regions” having “the InN molar fraction” relates back to “pyramidal seed regions comprising GaN” defined in line 2 of claim 1 or set forth additional underlying pyramidal seed regions having “the InN molar fraction”.
Claim 1 recites “an average InN molar fraction”, and is unclear whether “an average InN molar fraction” relates to “an average InN molar fraction” of the InyGa1-yN growth region, “the InN molar fraction of the underlying pyramidal seed regions”, or both “an average InN molar fraction” of the InyGa1-yN growth region and “the InN molar fraction of the underlying pyramidal seed regions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2018/0277713 to Ciechonski et al. (hereinafter Ciechonski) (the reference US 2020/03888723 by Ahmed et al. (hereinafter Ahmed) and the reference US 2017/0110630 by Kawakami et al. (hereinafter Kawakami) are presented as evidence).
With respect to Claim 24, Ciechonski discloses a Ill-nitride semiconductor structure (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0001, ¶0004, ¶0005, ¶0030, ¶0033-¶0034, ¶0047-¶0058, ¶0101), comprising:
a) pyramidal seed regions (928) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0033-¶0034, ¶0047-¶0050) comprising GaN (e.g., nanopyramids 928) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0047), wherein each of the pyramidal seed regions consists of six triangular facets (e.g., GaN pyramidal facets includes six {-1101} facets, as evidenced by Ahmed, Figs. 1B, 2B, ¶0035, ¶0038, ¶0040) parallel to a crystallographically equivalent {10-11} plane (e.g., {-1101} plane is crystallographically equivalent {10-11} plane, as evidenced by Kawakami, ¶0037);
(b) an InyGa1-yN growth region (e.g., between the seed region 928 an over the seed region 928) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0053-¶0057) overlying the pyramidal seed regions (928), wherein, 0<y≤1 (e.g., 0.1≤y≤0.4) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0053-¶0057); and
the InyGa1-yN growth region has a sufficiently high molar fraction of InN with respect to the InN molar fraction of the underlying pyramidal seed regions to induce strain relaxation (e.g., to promote growth of the stress-free continuous InGaN layer 910); and
(c) a planar, relaxed (0001) InyGa1-yN region (e.g., stress-free continuous InGaN layer grown on a c-plane (0001 plane) substrate covered with the GaN layer having crystalline structure of the substrate) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0033-¶0034, ¶0047-¶0058) overlying the InyGa1-yN growth region, wherein,
the planar, relaxed (0001) InyGa1-yN region (characterized by) an in-plane a-lattice parameter from 3.20 Å to 3.50 Å (e.g., between 3.22 Å to 3.3 Å, a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range (M.P.E.P. §2131.03)) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0058, ¶0101); and
the in-plane a- lattice parameter is equal to or nearly equal to that of a fully relaxed InyGa1-yN material.
Regarding Claim 26, Ciechonski in view of Lee discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 24. Further, Ciechonski discloses a semiconductor device (e.g., light emitting diode) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0073) comprising the semiconductor structure of claim 24.
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, 7, 12-13, 18-20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0277713 to Ciechonski et al. (hereinafter Ciechonski) in view of Lee (US 2021/0013373) (the reference US 2020/03888723 by Ahmed and the reference US 2017/0110630 by Kawakami are presented as evidence).
With respect to Claim 1, Ciechonski discloses a Ill-nitride semiconductor structure (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0001, ¶0004, ¶0005, ¶0030, ¶0033, ¶0047-¶0057, ¶0101), comprising:
a) pyramidal seed regions (928) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0033-¶0034, ¶0047-¶0050) comprising GaN (e.g., nanopyramids 928) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0047), wherein each of the pyramidal seed regions (928) consists of six triangular facets (e.g., GaN pyramidal facets includes six {-1101} facets, as evidenced by Ahmed, Figs. 1B, 2B, ¶0035, ¶0038, ¶0040) parallel to a crystallographically equivalent {10-11} plane (e.g., {-1101} plane is crystallographically equivalent {10-11} plane, as evidenced by Kawakami, ¶0037); and
(b) an InyGa1-yN layer (e.g., 910) wherein 0<y≤1 (e.g., 0.1≤y≤0.4) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0053-¶0057) overlying the pyramidal seed regions (928), wherein the InyGa1-yN layer (910) comprises:
an InyGa1-yN growth region overlying the pyramidal seed regions (928), wherein the InyGa1-yN growth region comprises:
a sufficiently high molar fraction of InN with respect to the InN molar fraction of the underlying pyramidal seed regions to induce strain relaxation (e.g., to promote growth of the stress-free continuous InGaN layer 910); and
an InN molar fraction greater than 5% (e.g., 0.1≤y≤0.4, (10%≤y≤40%)) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0058); and
a planar, relaxed (0001) InyGa1-yN region (e.g., stress-free continuous InGaN layer grown on a c-plane (0001 plane) substrate covered with the GaN layer having crystalline structure of the substrate) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0033-¶0034, ¶0047-¶0058) characterized by an in-plane a-lattice parameter that is greater than 3.19 Å (e.g., >3.21 Å) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0058, ¶0101), wherein the in-plane a- lattice parameter is equal to or nearly equal to that of a fully relaxed InyGa1-yN material.
Further, Ciechonski does not specifically disclose that the InyGa1-yN region has an average InN molar fraction greater than 5%.
However, Lee teaches forming strain-relaxed InGaN alloy templates (Lee, Figs. 8A-8D, ¶0017-¶0022, ¶0024-¶0025, ¶0061-¶0062, ¶0063-¶0065) with higher indium composition, reduced threading-dislocation densities, and improved surface morphologies, and low point-defect densities, wherein the InGaN layer is formed on the GaN structures having specific width to provide the relaxed InGaN with larger InN mole fraction (e.g., InxGa1-xN with x=0.33-0.4). Specifically, indium composition of the InxGa1-xN varies spatially during the early stage of growth onto the nanopattern (Lee, Figs. 8A-8D, ¶0063-¶0065), with In-rich (x~0.25) growth appearing within the initial pyramidal domain, and with In-poor (x~0.15) domains forming lateral to these initial pyramids, and in the lower coalescent-front regions of the layer. As seen in FIG. 8B of Lee, the composition difference between these two laterally adjacent domains is significant, approaching Δx~0.10 or more. As growth progresses beyond the point of coalescence, the resulting upper half of the layer takes on a much more uniform, and higher composition (x~0.25).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an average InN molar fraction of InxGa1-xN (e.g., including In-rich with 25% of InN mole fraction and In-poor regions with 15% InN mole fraction, Fig. 8D of Lee) is greater than 5%.
Further, Lee recognizes that the width of the GaN seed regions impacts forming the relaxed InGaN with larger InN mole fraction. Thus, the width of the GaN seed regions is a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to vary, through routine optimization, the width of the GaN seed regions as Lee has identified the width of the GaN seed regions as a result-effective variable. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the InyGa1-yN region having an average InN molar fraction greater than 5%, in order to provide strain-relaxed InGaN alloy templates with higher indium composition, reduced threading-dislocation densities, and improved surface morphologies, and low point-defect densities as taught by Lee (¶0002, ¶0017-¶0020, ¶0024-¶0025, ¶0061-¶0065) (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the semiconductor structure of Ciechonski by optimizing a width of the GaN seed regions for growing InGaN alloy templates as taught by Lee to have the semiconductor structure, wherein the InyGa1-yN region has an average InN molar fraction greater than 5%, in order to provide strain-relaxed InGaN alloy templates with higher indium composition, reduced threading-dislocation densities, and improved surface morphologies, and low point-defect densities (Lee, ¶0002, ¶0017-¶0020, ¶0024-¶0025, ¶0061-¶0065).
Regarding Claim 7, Ciechonski in view of Lee discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 1. Further, Ciechonski discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure, wherein each of the pyramidal seed portions (Ciechonski, Figs. 2C-2D, ¶0049) is characterized by a hexagonal base (e.g., the GaN pyramid has a hexagonal base, as evidenced by Ahmed, Figs. 1B, 2B, ¶0035, ¶0038, ¶0040).
Regarding Claim 12, Ciechonski in view of Lee discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 1. Further, Ciechonski discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure, wherein a region at a midpoint between pyramidal seed regions (928) is the InyGa1-yN growth region (e.g., a portion of the InGaN region 910 between the seed regions 928) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0053-¶0058).
Regarding Claim 13, Ciechonski in view of Lee discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 12. Further, Ciechonski discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure, wherein the InyGa1-yN growth region at the midpoint between pyramidal seed regions (928) is at least partially relaxed (e.g., dislocations 911 terminate within the continuous InGaN layer 910 having greater lattice constant than GaN) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0056-¶0058, ¶0101).
Regarding Claim 18, Ciechonski in view of Lee discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 1. Further, Ciechonski discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure, wherein the plurality of pyramidal seed regions (928) are disposed in an array (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0036, ¶0056-¶0058, ¶0101).
Regarding Claim 19, Ciechonski in view of Lee discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 1. Further, Ciechonski discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure, further comprising a substrate (902/904) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0032-¶0038, ¶0047-¶0058) and a mask region (906), wherein the pyramidal seed regions (938) overly a first portion of the substrate (902) and the mask region (906) overlies a second portion of the substrate (902).
Regarding Claim 20, Ciechonski in view of Lee discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 19. Further, Ciechonski discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure, wherein the substrate (902) comprises sapphire (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0033).
Regarding Claim 21, Ciechonski in view of Lee discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 1. Further, Ciechonski discloses a semiconductor device (e.g., light emitting diode) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0073) comprising the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 1.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0277713 to Ciechonski in view of Lee (US 2021/0013373) as applied to claim 1 (claim 21), and further in view of Krames et al. (US 2014/0103356, hereinafter Krames).
Regarding claims 27 and 29, Ciechonski in view of Lee discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 1; and the semiconductor device (e.g., light emitting diode) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0073) of calm 21. Further, Ciechonski does not specifically disclose a wafer comprising the III-nitride semiconductor structure (as claimed in claim 27); a wafer comprising the semiconductor device of claim 21 (as claimed in claim 29).
However, Krames teaches forming a wafer comprising relaxed indium-containing nitride crystal by well-known wafering technique (Krames, ¶0026, ¶0039-¶0040), to fabricate InGaN-based light-emitting devices on InGaN template layer with improved optical performance and reliability.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the III-nitride semiconductor structure of Ciechonski/Lee by forming a wafer comprising relaxed indium-containing nitride crystal by well-known wafering technique as taught by Krames to have a wafer comprising the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 1 (as claimed in claim 27); a wafer comprising the semiconductor device of claim 21 (as claimed in claim 29), in order to provide InGaN-based light-emitting devices on InGaN template layer with improved optical performance and reliability (Krames, ¶0026, ¶0039-¶0040).
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0277713 to Ciechonski as applied to claim 24 (claim 26), and further in view of Krames (US 2014/0103356).
Regarding claims 28 and 30, Ciechonski discloses the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 24; and the semiconductor device (e.g., light emitting diode) (Ciechonski, Fig. 2D, ¶0073) of calm 26. Further, Ciechonski does not specifically disclose a wafer comprising the III-nitride semiconductor structure (as claimed in claim 28); a wafer comprising the semiconductor device of claim 21 (as claimed in claim 30).
However, Krames teaches forming a wafer comprising relaxed indium-containing nitride crystal by well-known wafering technique (Krames, ¶0026, ¶0039-¶0040), to fabricate InGaN-based light-emitting devices on InGaN template layer with improved optical performance and reliability.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the III-nitride semiconductor structure of Ciechonski by forming a wafer comprising relaxed indium-containing nitride crystal by well-known wafering technique as taught by Krames to have a wafer comprising the III-nitride semiconductor structure of claim 24 (as claimed in claim 28); a wafer comprising the semiconductor device of claim 26 (as claimed in claim 30), in order to provide InGaN-based light-emitting devices on InGaN template layer with improved optical performance and reliability (Krames, ¶0026, ¶0039-¶0040).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that in Ciechonski, “[t]he epitaxial strain at the interfaces between the 928 pyramidal gallium nitride portions and the indium gallium nitride material portions can be at a level that does not induce strain-induced dislocations at a significant density” and “Ciechonski does not disclose or suggest each of the elements recited in amended independent claim 1”, specifically, “an InyGa1-yN growth region overlying the pyramidal seed regions, wherein the InyGa1-yN growth region comprises: a sufficiently high molar fraction of InN with respect to the InN molar fraction of the underlying pyramidal seed regions to induce strain relaxation”, the examiner submits that the above limitations do not require “the InyGa1-yN growth region” between the seed regions to have strain relaxation. In Ciechonski, “the InyGa1-yN growth region” promotes growth of the stress-free continuous InGaN layer (910) overlying the seed regions. Therefore, the above Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 over Ciechonski in view of Lee, and the rejection of claim 24 under 35 USC 102 over Ciechonski is maintained.
Further amendment of claims 1 and 24 would be required to overcome Ciechonski.
The following amendment (in accordance with the original specification, paragraphs [0084] and [0085]) of claims 1 and 24 is considered to distinguish patentably over the art (e.g., Ciechonski) of record in this application, and is presented to applicant for consideration:
“wherein the InyGa1-yN growth region comprises: a sufficiently high molar fraction of InN to induce strain relaxation between the pyramidal seed region and along a plane parallel to a (0001) plane of the relaxed (0001) InyGa-yN region and intersecting InyGa1-yN/GaN heterojunctions, wherein an average InN molar fraction of the InyGa1-yN growth region is greater than 5%; and…”
Regarding dependent claims 7, 12-13, 18-21, and 26-30 which depend on the independent claims 1 and 24, the examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments with respect to dependent claims are not persuasive for the above reasons, thus, the rejections of the dependent claims are sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATALIA GONDARENKO whose telephone number is (571)272-2284. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM-7:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/NATALIA A GONDARENKO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891