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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-10 and 15) in the reply filed on 9/8/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2013/0069079) in view of Cheng et al (US 2010/0323506).
With respect to Claim 1, Kim discloses a substrate structure for light emitting diodes (Figure 1E) comprising: a substrate (Figure 1E, 2, sapphire) ; and an AlN template layer (Figure 1E, 3) formed on a surface of the substrate, wherein sealed depressions (Figure 1B, 6) are formed on the surface of the substrate and covered by the AlN template layer (Figure 1E, 3). See Figures 1A – 1E of Kim and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 60-67. Moreover, Kim et al disclose the use of different shaped depressions. See paragraphs 61-62.
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose the sealed depression contain discrete depressions and depression networks.
Cheng et al is also pertains to light emitting diodes comprising sapphire substrates, and is relied upon to disclose that etching sapphire substrates results in isolated holes and connected openings. See paragraph 34.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the claimed limitations, as the presence of discrete depressions and depression networks is obvious in view of Kim which discloses etching of sapphire substrates and the disclosure of Cheng et al which teaches a result of etching a sapphire substrate is the presence of discrete depressions and depression networks. The presence of a known physical characteristic which can result from a known process, etching sapphire, is prima facie obvious in view of the cited references.
With respect to Claim 2, the combined references make obvious the lateral size, vertical dimensions and density, as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, the density of the depressions, in the absence of unobvious results, would be prima facie obvious as it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136.
With respect to Claim 3, the limitations of Claim 3 are obvious as Claim 3 is a product by process claim which is limited by the structure, “forming the AlN template layer and turning the depressions into the sealed depressions”. See MPEP 2113.
With respect to Claim 4, Kim discloses the substrate is a sapphire substrate. See paragraphs 61-62.
With respect to Claim 5, Kim discloses comprising a layer of a first set of voids (Figure 1E, 11) in the AlN template layer (Figure 1E, 3 and 4). See paragraph 65. Moreover, with respect to the limitation “ at a distance of 100-300 nm from the surface of the substrate”, changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, the distance, in the absence of unobvious results, would be prima facie obvious as it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136.
With respect to Claim 6, the combined references make obvious “wherein the first set of voids have a lateral size in the range of 10-100 nm, a vertical size in the range of 10-300 nm, and a density in the range of 10(9) -10(10) cm (-2)”, as the combined references make obvious the lateral size, vertical dimensions and density, as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, the density, in the absence of unobvious results, would be prima facie obvious as it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136.
With respect to Claim 8, the combined references make obvious the lateral size, vertical dimensions and density, as changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, the density, in the absence of unobvious results, would be prima facie obvious as it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136.
With respect to Claim 15, Kim discloses a substrate structure (Figure 15, 101) a n-type structure (Figure 15, 104) formed on the AlN template layer (Figure 15, 102-103) of the substrate structure; an active region (Figure 15, 105 ) formed on the n-type structure, and a p-type structure (Figure 15, 107) formed on the active region. See Figure 15 and corresponding text, especially paragraph 3.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 requires a second set of voids, and is dependent on Claim 1, which does not require a first set of voids. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
November 14, 2025
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812