Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/001,823

LOW-DEFECT OPTOELECTRONIC DEVICES GROWN BY MBE AND OTHER TECHNIQUES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 14, 2022
Examiner
KOLAHDOUZAN, HAJAR
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Google LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
262 granted / 356 resolved
+5.6% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
370
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
57.8%
+17.8% vs TC avg
§102
32.1%
-7.9% vs TC avg
§112
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 356 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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) 25, 28, 30, 33-38, and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raring et al. (US 2009/0309127 A1; hereinafter Raring) Regarding Independent Claim 25. Raring (Fig.1-7) discloses an apparatus for growing an InGaN optoelectronic device that includes an n-doped layer, a p-doped layer, and a light-emitting layer between the n-doped layer and the p-doped layer, the light-emitting layer including a quantum well layer having an In% of greater than 25% ([0067]), the apparatus comprising: a reaction chamber ([0064]); a wafer holder in the reaction chamber ([0064]) configured to hold a wafer in place at a temperature at least 750 °C during growth of the light-emitting layer of the optoelectronic device ([0064]); a plurality of group III sources ([0010]) configured for providing an indium-containing metalorganic precursor and a gallium-containing metalorganic precursor to the wafer held by the wafer holder during growth of the light-emitting layer of the optoelectronic device; and a source of an N-containing species ([0054]) configured for providing the N-containing species to the wafer held by the wafer holder at a partial pressure of the N-containing species at the wafer during growth of the light-emitting layer of the optoelectronic device, wherein the group III sources and the source of N-containing species are configured for providing the indium-containing metalorganic precursor, the gallium-containing metalorganic precursor and the N-containing species at the wafer ([0010]). Raring does not particularly disclose a partial pressure of the N-containing species at the wafer of greater than 1.5 atmospheres during growth of the light-emitting layer. However, Raring teaches the apparatus capable of holding a wafer under pressure and processing atmosphere, is generally understood that changes in pressure result in changes of film quality, such that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have an apparatus having a partial pressure of the N-containing species at the wafer of greater than 1.5 atmospheres during growth of the light-emitting layer to advance the control of growth technology and film quality.. Regarding Independent Claim 28. Raring (Fig.1-7; [0066]-[0067]) discloses a method of growing in a reaction chamber, by MOCVD, an InGaN optoelectronic device that includes an n-doped layer, a p-doped layer, and a light-emitting layer between the n-doped layer and the p-doped layer, the light-emitting layer including an InGaN quantum well layer having an In% of greater than 25% ([0067]), the method comprising: controlling a temperature at a surface of a wafer on which the InGaN optoelectronic device is grown to be at least 750 0C during growth ([0064]) of the light-emitting layer of the optoelectronic device; providing an indium-containing metalorganic precursor and a gallium-containing metalorganic precursor ([0010]) into the reaction chamber and to the wafer during growth of the light- emitting layer of the optoelectronic device when the surface temperature of the wafer is greater than 750 °C ([0064]); and providing an N-containing species ([0054]) to the wafer at a rate with a partial pressure of the N-containing species at the surface of the wafer during growth of the light-emitting layer of the optoelectronic device when the surface temperature of the wafer is greater than 750 0C, wherein the indium-containing metalorganic precursor, the gallium-containing metalorganic precursor, and the N-containing species are provided at the wafer Raring does not particularly disclose a partial pressure of the N-containing species at the wafer of greater than 1.5 atmospheres during growth of the light-emitting layer. However, Raring teaches the apparatus capable of holding a wafer under pressure and processing atmosphere, is generally understood that changes in pressure result in changes of film quality, such that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have an apparatus having a partial pressure of the N-containing species at the wafer of greater than 1.5 atmospheres during growth of the light-emitting layer to advance the control of growth technology and film quality. Regarding Claim 33. The method of claim 28, Raring ([0060]) discloses wherein the grown light-emitting layer is configured to emit light at a wavelength longer than 600 nm with an internal quantum efficiency higher than 20% (the method is directed to the manufacturing method of an InGaN optoelectronic device such that where the method meets the claim, the produced device exhibits the same). Regarding Claim 34. The method of claim 28; Raring (Fig.1-7; [0060]; [0010]-[0011]) discloses wherein the grown light- emitting layer is configured to emit light at a wavelength longer than 600 nm with an internal quantum efficiency higher than 20% when driven with a current density higher than 1A/cm2 (the method is directed to the manufacturing method of an InGaN optoelectronic device such that where the method meets the claim, the produced device exhibits the same).) Regarding Claim 35. The method of claim 28, Raring (Fig.1-7; [0065]-[0066]) discloses wherein providing the N-containing species includes providing the N-containing species such that it forms a boundary layer over the wafer. Raring does not particularly disclose a partial pressure of the N-containing species in the boundary layer is greater than 1.5 atmospheres. However, Raring teaches the apparatus capable of holding a wafer under pressure and processing atmosphere, is generally understood that changes in pressure result in changes of film quality, such that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have an apparatus having a partial pressure of the N-containing species at the wafer of greater than 1.5 atmospheres during growth of the light-emitting layer to advance the control of growth technology and film quality. Regarding Claim 36. The method of claim28, Raring (Fig.1-7; [0065]-[0066]) discloses comprising providing at least two of the indium-containing precursor, the gallium-containing precursor, or the N-containing species at different times during the growth of the light- emitting layer of the optoelectronic device. Regarding Claim 37. The method of any of claim28, Raring (Fig.1-7; [0065]-[0066]) discloses comprising providing at least two of the indium-containing precursor, the gallium-containing precursor or the N-containing species are provided at separate locations in the reaction chamber. Regarding Claim 38. Raring (Fig.1-7; [0006]) discloses An optoelectronic device grown by any of the methods of the method of claim 28. Regarding Claim 43. The optoelectronic device of claim 38, Raring (Fig.1-7) discloses wherein the light-emitting layer is configured to emit light at a wavelength longer than 600 nm with an internal quantum efficiency higher than 20% ( (the method is directed to the manufacturing method of an InGaN optoelectronic device such that where the method meets the claim, the produced device exhibits the same). ). Regarding Claim 44. The optoelectronic device of claim 38, Raring (Fig.1-7; [0060]) discloses wherein the light-emitting layer is configured to emit light at a wavelength longer than 600 nm with an internal quantum efficiency higher than 20% when driven with a current density higher than 1 A/cm2 (the method is directed to the manufacturing method of an InGaN optoelectronic device such that where the method meets the claim, the produced device exhibits the same). Claims 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raring in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 20130126939 A1; hereinafter Ishikawa). Regarding Claim 26. The apparatus of claim 25, Raring does not particularly disclose an exhaust chamber coupled to the reaction chamber and configured maintain a total pressure in the reaction chamber above a predetermined value. Ishikawa (Fig.4; [0065]-[0066]) discloses a chamber with exhaust (311). Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing of the application to have an exhaust chamber since it makes it possible to depressurize the inside of the processing chamber to a certain vacuum level at high speed. Regarding Claim 29. The method of claim 28, Raring discloses the method of Claim 28 Raring does not particularly disclose an exhaust chamber. Ishikawa (Fig.4; [0065]-[0066]) discloses a chamber with exhaust (311). Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing of the application to have an exhaust chamber since it makes it possible to depressurize the inside of the processing chamber to a certain vacuum level at high speed. Raring and Ishikawa do not particularly disclose to maintain a total pressure in the reaction chamber above a predetermined value that is greater than 2.0 atmospheres. However, Raring teaches the apparatus capable of holding a wafer under pressure and processing atmosphere, is generally understood that changes in pressure result in changes of film quality, such that 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have an apparatus having a partial pressure of the N-containing species at the wafer of greater than 2 atmospheres during growth of the light-emitting layer to advance the control of growth technology and film quality. Claims 27, 30-32, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raring in view of D’Evelyn et al. (US 2015/0132926 A1; hereinafter D’Evelyn). Regarding Claim 27. The apparatus of claim 25, Raring (Fig.1-7) discloses wherein the source of N-containing species is configured to provide ammonia ([0027]) to the reaction chamber. Raring does not particularly disclose that the N-containing species is to provide liquid phase ammonia to the chamber. D’Evelyn ([0079]) in a related art discloses providing liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filling of the application to have liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species in order to absorb unwanted gases and purge them out the chamber. Regarding Claim 30, The method of claim28, Raring (Fig.1-7) discloses wherein providing the N-containing species to the reaction chamber includes providing the species to the reaction chamber at a temperature of less than 600 0C ([0050]). Raring does not particularly disclose providing ammonia as the N- containing species. D’Evelyn ([0079]) in a related art discloses providing ammonia as a N-containing species. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filling of the application to have ammonia as a N-containing species in order to absorb unwanted gases and purge them out the chamber. Regarding Claim 31. The method of any of claim 28, Raring (Fig.1-7) discloses providing the N-containing species to the reaction chamber. Raring does not particularly disclose that the N-containing species is to provide liquid phase ammonia to the chamber. D’Evelyn ([0079]) in a related art discloses providing liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filling of the application to have liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species in order to absorb unwanted gases and purge them out the chamber. Regarding Claim 32. The method of claim 31, Raring (Fig.1-7) discloses providing the N-containing species to the reaction chamber . Raring does not particularly disclose that the N-containing species is to provide liquid phase ammonia to the chamber at a temperature of less than 200 0C. D’Evelyn ([0079]) in a related art discloses providing liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species at a temperature of less than 200 0C. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filling of the application to have liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species in order to absorb unwanted gases and purge them out the chamber. Regarding Claim 41. The method of claim 29, Raring (Fig.1-7; [0027] and [0050]) discloses providing the N-containing species to the reaction chamber includes providing species to the reaction chamber at a temperature of less than 600 0C. Raring does not particularly disclose that the N-containing species is to provide liquid phase ammonia to the chamber at a temperature of less than 200 0C. D’Evelyn ([0079]) in a related art discloses providing liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species at a temperature of less than 600 0C. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filling of the application to have liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species in order to absorb unwanted gases and purge them out the chamber. Regarding Claim 42. The method of claim 29, Raring (Fig.1-7; [0027]) discloses providing the N-containing species to the reaction chamber . Raring does not particularly disclose that the N-containing species is to provide liquid phase ammonia to the chamber. D’Evelyn ([0079]) in a related art discloses providing liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species. Therefore, it would have been obvious in the art before the effective filling of the application to have liquid phase ammonia as a N-containing species in order to absorb unwanted gases and purge them out the chamber. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAJAR KOLAHDOUZAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5842. 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, Ajay Ojha can be reached on (571)272-8936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /HAJAR KOLAHDOUZAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /Leonard Chang/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588328
INFRARED LED ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575338
Phase Change Switch Fabricated with Front End of the Line Process
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563945
DISPLAY SUBSTRATES AND THEIR MANUFACTURING METHODS, AND DISPLAY DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557707
METHOD OF FABRICATING PACKAGE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12550590
DISPLAY PANEL AND MANUFACTURE METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+22.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 356 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month