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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 10 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 10 August 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claim 1 is amended and claims 14-16 and 18-20 are cancelled. The Office withdraws the section 112(b) rejections identified in the Office Communication dated 9 April 2026 in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 10 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue, in the third and fourth paragraphs of page 5 and with respect to claim 1, that “there is no motivation to combine Shin’s buffer layer with the stacked body of Yamamoto.” Claim 1 is rejected over the combined teachings of Yamamoto, Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane and recites “a buffer layer; … wherein the buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc, … wherein the buffer layer is in direct contact with the electrode layer.” Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Yamamoto teaches in Fig. 7 a buffer layer (106) {¶0036}; wherein the buffer layer (106) is in direct contact with the electrode layer (301) {Fig. 7; ¶0058}. In an analogous art, Shin teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0038] a buffer layer (120) made of GZO. GZO is an oxide of gallium (Ga2O3) and an oxide of zinc (ZnO) {see, e.g., Yoo et al. (US20180323399A1) [0176]; Shinohara et al. (US20110068349A1) [0058]; Fudeta (US20090072249A1) [0028]}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body based on the teachings of Shin – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc (e.g., GZO) – so as to have high conductivity. Shin ¶0038. The Office further notes that Shin’s teaching of using GZO for a buffer layer to increase conductivity is the same motivation identified by Applicants for using GZO as the buffer layer. See, e.g., fourth paragraph of page 6 of Applicants’ Arguments.
Applicants argue in the paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 and with respect to claim 1 that “[i]t is impossible to find a reason to combine Shin’s buffer layer – formed for the purpose of GaN crystal growth – with Yoo’s disclosure, which only provides examples of transparent electrodes; such a combination would only be conceivable with knowledge of the present application.” Claim 1 recites the buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc. Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Shin teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0038] a buffer layer (120) made of GZO. GZO is an oxide of gallium (Ga2O3) and an oxide of zinc (ZnO) {see, e.g., Yoo et al. (US20180323399A1) [0176]; Shinohara et al. (US20110068349A1) [0058]; Fudeta (US20090072249A1) [0028]}. The motivation for this modification is cited in the preceding paragraph and down below with respect to the rejection of claim 1. More simply stated, the Office does not cite Yoo for modifying the teachings of Shin; instead, the Office cites Shin for modifying the teachings of Yamamoto. Yoo, Shinohara, and Fudeta are cited for disclosing that GZO is an oxide of gallium (Ga2O3) and an oxide of zinc (ZnO).
Applicants argue in the second and third paragraphs of page 6 and with respect to claim 1 that:
Shin discloses a GaN layer as a buffer layer formed for the purpose of GaN crystal growth, which is unrelated to the solar cells of Ihn. Therefore, there is no motivation to combine Ihn with Shin. Additionally, Shin and Ihn belong to completely different technical fields which further shows a lack of teaching to combine.
Claim 1 recites “a Ga/(Ga+Zn) molar ratio, of Ga to a sum of Ga and Zn in the buffer layer, is in a range of from 0.001 to 0.2.” Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. MPEP §2143.01. As this principle applies to the present circumstance, in an analogous art to Yamamoto’s art, Ihn teaches in paragraphs [0048, 0079] a layer of GaxZn1−xO (i.e., GZO), where 0.005≦x≦0.1 is selected to control the electrical conductivity of the GZO layer {[0056]}}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin based on the teachings of Ihn for discovering an optimum or workable range of electrical conductivity – such that a Ga/(Ga+Zn) molar ratio, of Ga to a sum of Ga and Zn in Yamamoto’s modified buffer layer, is in a range of from 0.001 to 0.2 – because where 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. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). The Office further notes that Ihn’s teaching of varying the molar ratio of Ga to (Ga +Zn) to increase its conductivity is the same motivation identified by Applicants for using GZO as the buffer layer. See, e.g., fourth paragraph of page 6 of Applicants’ Arguments.
Regarding Applicants argument(s), in the second and third paragraphs of page 6, that references cited by the Office in the rejection of claim 1 are directed to different technical-fields/arts, the Office notes that:
[i]n order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. … A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). MPEP §2141.01(a)(I).
Applicants have not cited an authoritative legal source supporting their contention that each reference applied in a claim rejection must be directed to the same technical-field/art as all of the other references applied in the rejection.
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, 3, 5, 9, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US20130146916A1) in view of Shin et al. (KR20130078983A) (English translation enclosed), Ihn et al. (US20110272029A1), and Sonawane et al. (Effect of magnesium incorporation in zinc oxide films for optical waveguide applications; Physica B: Condensed Matter, Volume 405, Issue 6, 15 March 2010, Pages 1603-1607).
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Yamamoto teaches in Fig. 7 a stacked body, comprising, in this order,
a support (107-110) {¶0036};
a buffer layer (106) {¶0036}; and
an electrode layer (301) {¶0052};
wherein the electrode layer (301) comprises an oxide of magnesium and an oxide of zinc {¶0052}, and
wherein the buffer layer (106) is in direct contact with the electrode layer (301) {Fig. 7; ¶0058},
wherein the support (107-110) comprises a semiconductor layer (109) {¶0036}, and
wherein the semiconductor layer (109) comprises a Group IIl-V nitride semiconductor {¶0036; AlGaN}.
Yamamoto does not teach wherein the buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc.
In an analogous art, Shin teaches in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0038] a buffer layer (120) made of GZO. GZO is an oxide of gallium (Ga2O3) and an oxide of zinc (ZnO) {see, e.g., Yoo et al. (US20180323399A1) [0176]; Shinohara et al. (US20110068349A1) [0058]; Fudeta (US20090072249A1) [0028]}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body based on the teachings of Shin – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer comprises an oxide of gallium and an oxide of zinc (e.g., GZO) – so as to have high conductivity. Shin ¶0038. Moreover, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Yamamoto does not teach a Ga/(Ga+Zn) molar ratio, of Ga to a sum of Ga and Zn in the buffer layer, is in a range of from 0.001 to 0.2.
In an analogous art, Ihn teaches in paragraphs [0048, 0079] a layer of GaxZn1−xO (i.e., GZO), where 0.005≦x≦0.1 is selected to control the electrical conductivity of the GZO layer {[0056]}}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin based on the teachings of Ihn for discovering an optimum or workable range of electrical conductivity – such that a Ga/(Ga+Zn) molar ratio, of Ga to a sum of Ga and Zn in Yamamoto’s modified buffer layer, is in a range of from 0.001 to 0.2 – because where 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. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Yamamoto does not teach the electrode layer has a half width of a diffraction peak observed at 2θ=34.8±0.5 deg in X-ray diffraction measurement of 0.43 deg or smaller.
In an analogous art, Sonawane teaches in Fig. 3 and the second paragraph of Section 3 that a full width half maximum (FWHM) is estimated to be 0.25° for a (101)-plane peak observed at 2θ=34.8±0.5 deg. in an X-ray diffraction measurement for an MgxZn1-xO film (e.g., corresponding to Yamamoto’s MgZnO electrode film). And as may be determined from inspection of Sonawane’s Fig. 3, the (002)-plane peak has a narrower profile than does the (101)-plane peak. Additionally: (1) a half width (as recited in claim 1) is half of a full width and (2) a width at half maximum is much broader than a width at the peak (as recited in claim 1). Accordingly, Sonawane teaches a half width of a diffraction peak observed at 2θ=34.8±0.5 deg in X-ray diffraction measurement of 0.43 deg or smaller for an MgxZn1-xO film. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin and Ihn based on the teachings of Sonawane – such that Yamamoto’s electrode layer (comprising MgZnO) has a half width of a diffraction peak observed at 2θ=34.8±0.5 deg in X-ray diffraction measurement of 0.43 deg or smaller – for the purpose of tailoring a refractive index of MgZnO films to a desired extent (e.g., from 1.44 to 1.11) based on a molar amount of Mg. Sonawane Abstract.
Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein an Mg/(Mg+Zn) molar ratio of Mg to a sum of Mg and Zn in the electrode layer (301), is in a range of from 0.25 to 0.75 {¶0080, Mg0.55Zn0.45O}.
Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein the electrode layer (301) has a degree of c-axis orientation of 40% or more {¶0056, the MgZnO film is oriented along the c-axis (e.g., degree of c-axis orientation of 100%}.
Regarding claim 9, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches wherein the support (107-110) further comprises an ultraviolet transmitting member (107) {¶0044}.
Regarding claim 12, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further wherein the semiconductor layer (109) comprises AlN, GaN, InN, or a mixed crystal thereof {¶0036; AlGaN}.
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches a semiconductor device, comprising: the stacked body (106-110, 301) of claim 1 {see analysis of claim 1}.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Vertical MgZnO Schottky ultraviolet photodetector with Al doped MgZnO transparent electrode; Thin Solid Films, Volume 548, 2 December 2013, Pages 456-459) and Desieres (US20170005230A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, and Yamamoto further teaches a stacked unit (106, 301) comprising the electrode layer (301) and the buffer layer (106) {see Fig. 7}.
Yamamoto does not teach the electrode layer and the buffer layer has a conductivity of 0.5 S/cm or larger.
In an analogous art, Li teaches in the third paragraph of Section 3 an MgZnO film having a resistivity of 4.7x10-3 Ω-cm {i.e., (4.7x10-3 Ω-cm)-1 = 212 S/cm}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane based on the teachings of Li – such that Yamamoto’s electrode layer has a conductivity of 0.5 S/cm or larger – for the purpose of improving the conductivity of the electrode layer (i.e., giving the electrode a higher current-carrying capacity). Moreover, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Yamamoto does not teach the buffer layer has a conductivity of 0.5 S/cm or larger. However, Yamamoto teaches the buffer layer has ohmic contact with the electrode layer (301) {¶0069}.
In an analogous art, Desieres teaches in paragraphs [0023]-[0025] a buffer layer of indium-tin oxide, aluminum-doped zinc oxide ZnO, indium-doped zinc oxide ZnO, or gallium-doped zinc oxide ZnO having a conductivity from 103 to 104 S/cm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Ihn, Sonawane, and Li based on the teachings of Desieres – such that Yamamoto’s buffer layer has a conductivity of 0.5 S/cm or larger – for the purpose of improving the conductivity of the ohmic contact with the electrode layer and thereby improving the current-carrying capacity of the buffer layer (e.g., between the electrode layer and the light-emitting layer). Moreover, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Optical and structural properties of sol–gel prepared MgZnO alloy thin films; Thin Solid Films 516 (2008), 1124-1129) and Liu et al. (CN111477382A).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto as modified by Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane teaches the stacked body of claim 1, but Yamamoto does not expressly teach wherein a stacked unit comprising the electrode layer and the buffer layer has a light transmittance at a wavelength of 260 nm of 4% or more.
However, Yamamoto teaches in paragraph [0075] the electrode layer of MgZnO has a high light transmittance of 86% for ultraviolet light of 254 nm.
In an analogous art, Wang teaches in Fig. 5 that an Mg0.5Zn0.5O alloy film annealed at a temperature of 600 °C has a light transmittance at a wavelength of 260 nm of 4% or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Ihn, and Sonawane based on the teachings of Wang – such that Yamamoto’s electrode layer is doped to have a light transmittance at a wavelength of 260 nm of 4% or more – for the purpose of improving the light transmittance of smaller-wavelength ultraviolet light, such as that emitted by Yamamoto’s 254 nm ultraviolet light. Moreover, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Additionally, in an analogous art, Liu teaches in paragraph [0019] that the thickness of a GZO layer is a result-effective parameter for varying its light transmittance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamamoto’s stacked body as modified by Shin, Ihn, Sonawane, and Wang based on the teachings of Liu for discovering an optimum or workable range of GZO-layer thickness – such that Yamamoto’s modified buffer layer has a light transmittance at a wavelength of 260 nm of 4% or more – because where 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. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Additionally, this modification would improve the light transmittance of smaller-wavelength ultraviolet light, such as that emitted by Yamamoto’s 254 nm ultraviolet light.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shinohara et al. (US20110068349A1) teaches a semiconductor light-emitting device (1) includes a substrate (101); a laminate semiconductor layer (20) formed by sequentially laminating an n-type semiconductor layer (104), a light-emitting layer (105), and a p-type semiconductor layer (106) on the substrate (101); and a translucent electrode layer (109) formed on a top surface (106 a) of the p-type semiconductor layer (106), wherein the translucent electrode layer (109) contains a dopant element, a content of the dopant element within the translucent electrode layer (109) decreases gradually toward the interface (109 a) between the p-type semiconductor layer (106) and the translucent electrode layer (109), and in the translucent electrode layer (109) is formed a diffusion region in which an element constituting the p-type semiconductor layer (106) is diffused from the interface (109 a) toward the inside of the translucent electrode layer (109).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights