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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
“an undoped AlN layer” and “an undoped AlGaN layer” of claims 17 and 34;
“alternately growing AlGaN quantum well layers and AlGaN quantum barrier layers” as found in claim 23;
“alternately growing AlGaN with same or different Al contents” as found in claim 27; and
“a growth reaction chamber” as found in claim 36;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance
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 34-36 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 34) A P-type nanopillar was not distinguished from the other P-type nanopillars, and so “on the P-type nanopillar” lacks antecedence.
During examination, “on the P-type nanopillar” was read as “on the P-type nanopillars”.
Claims 35-36 inherit this rejection for lack of antecedence.
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.
Claims 17-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2016/0268477), Yi et al. (US 2008/0315229), and Schowalter et al. (US 2007/0101932).
(Re Claim 17) Fujita teaches an ultraviolet (UV) light-emitting diode (LED) structure, comprising: a substrate (11; Fig. 2), and an AIN layer (21; Fig. 2, ¶38), an undoped AlGaN layer (22; Fig. 1, ¶94), an N-type doped AlGaN layer (32; Fig. 2, ¶94), an AlGaN quantum well structure (40; Fig. 2, ¶41), and an AlGaN electron barrier layer (150, electron blocking function due to 51+152; Fig. 2, ¶¶42-43) that are sequentially grown on one surface of the substrate (Fig. 1); and an N-electrode (60; Fig. 2) and a P-electrode (70; Fig. 2).
Fujita has not been shown to explicitly teach an ultraviolet (UV) light-emitting diode (LED) structure, comprising:
an undoped AlN layer; and
P-type nanopillars vertically grown on the AlGaN electron barrier layer;
wherein the N-electrode and the P-electrode are evaporated on the P-type nanopillar.
Yi teaches P-type nanopillars (108; Fig. 2, ¶24) vertically grown between a semiconductor layer (106; Fig. 2) and a P-electrode (110; Fig. 2).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to vertically grow the P-type nanopillars 108 of Yi, with the insulating layer fill (¶17), on the electron barrier layer 150 of Fujita, as the nanopillars 108 are meant to serve as a contact electrode (Yi: ¶19) underneath a P-electrode 110 (Yi: Fig. 2); and the high aspect ratio and small contact area of the nanopillars allows for easy tunneling, increasing current injection (Yi: ¶19).
This results in modified Fujita teaching an ultraviolet (UV) light-emitting diode (LED) structure comprising:
P-type nanopillars (Yi: 108) vertically grown (Fujita: between P-electrode 70 and electron barrier layer 150) on the AlGaN electron barrier layer (Yi: Fig. 2; Fujita: Fig. 2).
Schowalter teaches forming an undoped AlN layer (42; Fig. 6).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the AlN layer 21 of modified Fujita as an undoped AlN layer 21, as an undoped AlN layer improves the surface on which it is deposited (Schowalter: ¶89).
Also, Fujita is silent about the dopant concentration of AlN layer 21, and Schowalter’s undoped AlN layer contributes to the formation of a UV LED (Schowalter: ¶26): an undoped layer teaches a concentration of 0%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 17 is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, the claimed AlN and AlGaN layers, the P-type nanopillars, and the N-electrode and P-electrode need not be respectively formed by the process of sequential growth, vertical growth, and evaporation. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
(Re Claim 18) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the P-type nanopillar is a P- type AlGaN nanopillar or a P-type GaN nanopillar (Yi: GaN; ¶27).
(Re Claim 19) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the undoped AlN layer and the undoped AlGaN layer each have a thickness of 10 to 5000 nm (Fujita: ¶41).
(Re Claim 20) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein an Al content in the undoped AlGaN layer is 15% to 95% (70%; ¶94).
(Re Claim 21) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 19, wherein an Al content in the undoped AlGaN layer is 15% to 95% (70%; ¶94).
(Re Claim 22) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the N-type doped AlGaN layer has a thickness of 10 to 5000 nm (2000 nm; ¶94); and an Al content in the N-type doped AlGaN layer is 15% to 95% (62%; ¶94).
(Re Claim 23) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the AlGaN quantum well structure is obtained by alternately growing AlGaN quantum well layers (first three 41 elements; Fig. 3) and AlGaN quantum barriers (First three 42 elements; Fig. 3, ¶95); and the number of the grown AlGaN quantum well layers is the same as that of the grown AlGaN quantum barriers, which is 2 to 20 (3; ¶95).
(Re Claim 24) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 23, wherein an Al content in the AlGaN quantum well layer and an Al content in the AlGaN quantum barrier are 15% to 85% (¶95).
(Re Claim 25) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 23, wherein the AlGaN quantum well layer has a thickness of 1 to 10 nm (¶95), and the AlGaN quantum barrier has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm (¶95).
(Re Claim 26) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 24, wherein the AlGaN quantum well layer has a thickness of 1 to 10 nm (¶95), and the AlGaN quantum barrier has a thickness of 1 to 20 nm (¶95).
(Re Claim 27) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the AlGaN electron barrier layer is obtained by alternately growing AlGaN with same or different Al contents.
Claim 27 is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, the claimed AlGaN electron barrier layer need not be formed by the process of alternately growing AlGaN with same or different Al contents. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
(Re Claim 28) Modified Fujita UV LED structure according to claim 27, wherein the AlGaN electron barrier layer has a thickness of 10 to 200 nm (¶43), and the Al content in the AlGaN electron barrier layer is 15% to 95% (¶43).
(Re Claim 29) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the P-type nanopillar has a diameter of 10 nm to 1000 nm (Yi: 2 nm to 1000 nm; ¶26).
(Re Claim 30) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein the N-electrode and the P-electrode are made of metal Au, Ag, Sn, Cu, Cr, Mn, Ni or Ti; or the N-electrode and the P-electrode is made of a compound of Au, a compound of Ag, a compound of Sn, a compound of Cu, a compound of Cr, a compound of Mn, a compound of Ni, or a compound of Ti.
(Re Claim 31) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 18, wherein the N-electrode and the P-electrode are made of metal Au, Ag, Sn, Cu, Cr, Mn, Ni (respectively, Ti and Ni; ¶¶58-59) or Ti; or the N-electrode and the P-electrode is made of a compound of Au, a compound of Ag, a compound of Sn, a compound of Cu, a compound of Cr, a compound of Mn, a compound of Ni, or a compound of Ti.
(Re Claim 32) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 19, wherein the N-electrode and the P-electrode are made of metal Au, Ag, Sn, Cu, Cr, Mn, Ni (respectively, Ti and Ni; ¶¶58-59) or Ti; or the N-electrode and the P-electrode is made of a compound of Au, a compound of Ag, a compound of Sn, a compound of Cu, a compound of Cr, a compound of Mn, a compound of Ni, or a compound of Ti.
(Re Claim 33) Modified Fujita teaches the UV LED structure according to claim 17, wherein an upper surface of the N-type doped AlGaN layer comprises a part covering the AlGaN quantum well structure and the AlGaN electron barrier layer (overlapping with the stack 40+50; Fig. 2) and a part not covering the AlGaN quantum well structure and the AlGaN electron barrier layer (to the right; Fig. 2);
the N-electrode is located in the part of the N-type AlGaN layer that does not cover the AlGaN quantum well structure and the AlGaN electron barrier layer (Fig. 2); and the P-electrode is located on an upper surface of the P-type nanopillar (P-type nanopillars are formed between the P-electrode and the electron barrier layer 150; see the rejection of claim 17).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (US 2016/0268477), Yi et al. (US 2008/0315229), Schowalter et al. (US 2007/0101932), and Iwaya et al. (US 2013/0330913).
(Re Claim 34) Fujita teaches a method for manufacturing the UV LED structure according to claim 17, comprising:
placing a substrate (11; Fig. 3) in a growth reaction chamber (¶65), and sequentially growing an AlN layer (21; Fig. 3), an undoped AlGaN layer (22; Fig. 3, ¶94), and an N-type doped AlGaN layer (32; Fig. 3, ¶94) on one surface (top; Fig. 3) of the substrate; and
sequentially growing an AlGaN quantum well structure (40; Fig. 3) and an AlGaN electron barrier layer (150, electron blocking function due to 51+152; Fig. 2, ¶¶42-43) on the N-type AlGaN layer (Fig. 3).
Fujita has not been shown to explicitly teach a UV LED structure according to claim 17, comprising:
growing an undoped AlN layer;
vertically growing P-type nanopillars on the AlGaN electron barrier; and
evaporating an N-electrode and a P-electrode on the P-type nanopillar.
Yi teaches P-type nanopillars (108; Fig. 2, ¶24) vertically grown between a semiconductor layer (106; Fig. 2) and a P-electrode (110; Fig. 2).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to vertically grow the P-type nanopillars 108 of Yi, with the insulating layer fill (¶17), on the electron barrier layer 150 of Fujita, as the nanopillars 108 are meant to serve as a contact electrode (Yi: ¶19) underneath a P-electrode 110 (Yi: Fig. 2); and the high aspect ratio and small contact area of the nanopillars allows for easy tunneling, increasing current injection (Yi: ¶19).
This results in modified Fujita teaching an ultraviolet (UV) light-emitting diode (LED) structure comprising:
vertically growing P-type nanopillars (Yi: 108) (Fujita: between P-electrode 70 and electron barrier layer 150) on the AlGaN electron barrier layer (Yi: Fig. 2; Fujita: Fig. 2).
Schowalter teaches forming an undoped AlN layer (42; Fig. 6).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the AlN layer 21 of modified Fujita as an undoped AlN layer 21, as an undoped AlN layer improves the surface on which it is deposited (Schowalter: ¶89).
Also, Fujita is silent about the dopant concentration of AlN layer 21, and Schowalter’s undoped AlN layer contributes to the formation of a UV LED (Schowalter: ¶26): an undoped layer teaches a concentration of 0%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Iwaya teaches forming an N-electrode (23; Fig. 1) and a P-electrode (22; Fig. 1) using evaporation (¶101).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to evaporate an N-electrode and a P-electrode on the P-type nanopillar of modified Fujita, as taught by Iwaya, as evaporation deposition provides high quality coatings and is relatively fast. See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
(Re Claim 35) The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “after the vertically growing P-type nanopillars on the AlGaN electron barrier layer, the method further comprises: filling space between the P-type nanopillars with an insulating layer, and then removing the insulating layer after the N-electrodes and the P-electrodes are evaporated on the P-type nanopillars”, as set forth in the claimed combination.
Claim 36 depends from claim 35 and is allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Munshi et al. (US 2022/0262978) teaches growing GaN or AlGaN nanopillars (¶172) using a layer of a group III metal (¶184), with or without a template (¶¶71-72, 185). Huang et al. (US 2020/0185567) teaches forming 2 to 50 sections of a multi-section LED structure (Fig. 2, ¶60). Liao et al. (US 2014/0103289) lists a thickness range (¶43) for an N-type doped AlGaN layer (30; Fig. 1). Han et al. (US 2013/0134475) teaches alternately growing AlGaN with different aluminum content to form an AlGaN electron barrier layer (Fig. 3, ¶38).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898