DETAILED ACTION
This correspondence is in response to the communications received December 2, 2025. Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The previous 112 rejection has been maintained. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but do not address the issue with the lack of physical structural specifics needed to arrive at the image contrast ratio value with only a general requirement of indium content ratio as amended. Seemingly the process described on page 7 of the remarks explains that the drop in indium content in the interface treatment layer contributes to the image contrast ratio generally, but it is not clear how the newly amended claim language would allow one to arrive at the specific image contrast ratio value. Further it is acknowledged that a method of forming the structure allows one to arrive generally speaking to the specified value of image contrast ratio, but the direct understanding of just which specific indium content ratios is lacking in the claims and in the disclosure. This is assuming that the indium content is the only aspect contributing to the specific image contrast ratio value.
It is suggested that as the current examination process is focused on structure claims in conjunction with the issues surrounding the image contrast ratio, Applicant may find that claims directed still at the structural make up, but without claim limitations of the image contrast ratio, could lead to overcoming the 112 rejections. As the structure is what contributes to the image contrast ratio relationship, the structure would still carry the some of the aspects characterized by the image contrast ratio analysis.
Further, if Applicant could clarify just what makes up the “interface treatment” aspect of the “interface treatment layer”, this understanding can aid in the examination process. Does this label actually only mean that this layer is merely of lower indium content? Or does the label actually capture more than that previous meaning?
As it is unclear how to treat the disconnect between 1.) the specific value of image contrast ratio with the 2.) general inputs of claim limitations of indium content ratio relationship, it is unclear how to examine the claims. However, some prior art has been identified as being related to the 2.) general inputs of claim limitations of indium content ratio relationship, see below.
Eichler et al. (US 2017/0373220), for example discloses several instances of material layer stacks with varying indium content, which are disclosed in Fig. 9, shown below, where paragraph 0064 states,
“The first quantum film 3 comprises indium gallium nitride, wherein the indium content lies at 30%”
“The second barrier layer 4 comprises indium gallium nitride, wherein the indium content lies at 5%.”
“The second quantum film 5 comprises indium gallium nitride, wherein the indium content lies at 30%.”
PNG
media_image1.png
356
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The prior art would also support the understanding that the indium based compound semiconductors can be formed by epitaxy as the Kwon et al. (US 2022/0393088) reference in paragraphs 0102, “second and third active layers 205b and 205c may have an MQW structure of indium gallium nitride (InGaN)/gallium nitride (GaN)”, and 0116, “second and third active layers 205b and 205c through an epitaxial growth”.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on August 7, 2025 is acknowledged.
Abstract
The objection is withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1 and the claims that depend therefrom 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.
The newly amended claim language of claim 1, on line 10, which is the figure of “greater than [[1.005]] 1”, is considered “new matter”. The specification only supports “an image contrast ratio of a TEM of the interface treatment layer to the second epitaxial layer are both greater than 1.005”, ¶ 0006-0008, 0042 and 0045.
The previous 112a written description rejection is maintained. The recitation of “an image contrast ratio of a transmission electron microscope (TEM) of the interface treatment layer to the first epitaxial layer and an image contrast ratio of a transmission electron microscope (TEM) of the interface treatment layer to the second epitaxial layer are both greater than 1.005.”, sets forth a value (image contrast ratio) that is generated as a result of comparing measured characteristics of several material layers (e.g. the first epitaxial layer, second epitaxial layer and the interface treatment layer) of a structure, where the measurement is carried out with a transmission electron microscope.
From applicant’s paragraph 0041, it appears that the characteristics that are measured, are reliant upon the amount or concentration of indium content in the noted several material layers of a structure. So in order to gain a contrast ratio as claimed, one would need to arrange a stack of three material layers, then dope them (or vary the amount of indium within several compound semiconductor material layers) with varying concentrations of indium to generate the configuration resulting in the measured contrast ratio. The problem arises when a measured outcome of a physical orientation is claimed (i.e. the TEM contrast ratio in claim 1), but then the disclosure lacks the ability to convey to at least a basic extent, how to achieve said physical orientation that would result in the outcome as measured by TEM.
It is noted that paragraph 0037 (or ¶ 0038 in the US publication of this application) attempts to disclose this indium content variation between the several material layers, but they merely states the relative values in a unspecified general manner such as “lower than” as the most specific indium content variation between the material layers.
A search of the disclosure yields no concrete information on indium doping concentrations or content within a compound semiconductor device with regard to all of the claimed three layers in the comparison in claim 1 (e.g. the first epitaxial layer, second epitaxial layer and the interface treatment layer). How can any one of ordinary skill in the art and the public in general, understand from this disclosure how to achieve the specific image contrast ratio, without the basic relevant indium content ratio creating inputs? Even with the claim amendment from December 2, 2025, the lack of specificity in the amended claim language and previously the specification, does not allow one to achieve a specific image contrast ratio, without knowing which specific inputs would get to that outcome. The lack of specificity in “wherein the material of the first epitaxial layer, the second epitaxial layer, and the interface treatment layer comprises an indium, an indium concentration of the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer is greater than an indium concentration of the interface treatment layer.” would not allow one at how to arrive at the specific contrast ratio of 1.005.
The disclosure discusses in many variables in achieving the outcome, however the discussion details are only generalities at best, and unfortunately cannot achieve a understanding that can generate such a precise relationship as claimed in the contrast ratio of claim 1. It is just plainly unclear from the disclosure how to orient each layer’s thickness, indium doping or composition in compound semiconductor, processing temperature sequence and/or times, all of which would seemingly be necessary to achieve the contrast ratio value. In response to Applicant’s arguments about the method inputs to arrive at the contrast ratio value, the understanding of what structural difference would be necessary to arrive at determination in a “structure” claim setting. Some specific structural difference must be communicated in the claim to differentiate between the prior art and the instant application.
For purposes of examination, if the TEM contrast ratio is indicative of some doping relationship between the first epitaxial layer, second epitaxial layer and the interface treatment layer, then examiner must need to know what that dopant dosage was in order to be able to understand how to form the structure. Otherwise a 112a lack of written description scenario prevents one from being able to examine the claims.
How does examiner then search for prior art with regard to the image contrast ratio, if the image contrast ratio is dependent on indium content, and the disclosure lacks any teaching of precise indium content per each of the first epitaxial layer, second epitaxial layer and the interface treatment layer?
It should be noted that the image contrast ratio itself is not grounds for allowability in the absence of the indium content information. In actuality, one could achieve said relationship in the absence of the TEM measurements, if one knew the dopant dosages or indium compositional material ratios for each of the first epitaxial layer, second epitaxial layer and the interface treatment layer (among layer thicknesses and other aspects as well). The disconnect is furthered by a likely scenario where this indium content ratio in a stack of compound semiconductor layers of an LED, is actually present in the prior, and when that prior art makes and creates this structure, they don’t use any TEM measured data, to get the structural results. Without knowing the indium content specifics, it could be this is a common and typical structure that has been present in the prior art for some time.
So in essence the TEM step is irrelevant to the inventive concept of the relationship of indium content variation in the structure of the first epitaxial layer, second epitaxial layer and the interface treatment layer. How does “looking at” (i.e. the TEM step) the structure impact the final or resulting structure as is necessary to determine in a structure claim? If the TEM potentially “product-by-process” step is merely looking at the structure which confirms, what is already set forth by the doping dosages, what impact does looking at the structure have on the resulting structure? Seemingly it does not change the structure in any way.
Applicant’s Claim to Figure Comparison
It is noted that this comparison is merely for the benefit of reviewers of this office action during prosecution, to allow for an understanding of the examiner’s interpretation of the Applicant’s independent claims as compared to disclosed embodiments in Applicant’s Figures. No response or comments are necessary from Applicant.
PNG
media_image2.png
550
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant discloses in Fig. 1, an epitaxial structure, comprising:
a first epitaxial layer (70);
a second epitaxial layer (50), disposed on the first epitaxial layer (50 on 70); and
an interface treatment layer (60, ¶ 0191), located between the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer and in contact with the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer (60 between and in contact with 70 and 50),
wherein the first epitaxial layer, the second epitaxial layer, and the interface treatment layer comprise the same material (both discussed as being III-V type materials as discussed in ¶ 0022), and
an image contrast ratio of a transmission electron microscope (TEM) of the interface treatment layer to the first epitaxial layer and an image contrast ratio of a transmission electron microscope (TEM) of the interface treatment layer to the second epitaxial layer are both greater than 1 (Only the figure of “an image contrast ratio of a TEM of the interface treatment layer to the second epitaxial layer are both greater than 1.005”, ¶ 0006-0008, 0042 and 0045, is disclosed. Not the “new matter” figure of “greater than 1”),
wherein the material of the first epitaxial layer, the second epitaxial layer, and the interface treatment layer comprises an indium, an indium concentration of the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer is greater than an indium concentration of the interface treatment layer (material composition supported by ¶ 0022, of the indium concentration variation by layer).
Material layer label and composition (top to bottom)
Indium concentration
3. “second epitaxial layer” comprises indium
Content greater than 2.
2. “interface treatment layer” comprises indium
Content less that 3. or 1.
1. “first epitaxial layer” comprises indium
Content greater than 2.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eduardo A Rodela whose telephone number is (571)272-8797. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5:00pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yara B Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/EDUARDO A RODELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893