DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 5/6/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 5-7 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 3-12, 14, and 18-19 have been amended.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 18 reciting “a barrier layer … includes a first barrier layer region and a second barrier layer region” and “the first barrier layer region and the second barrier layer region have equivalent energy band gaps” lacks adequate support in the original disclosure. Applicant’s specification does not describe the first barrier layer region and the second barrier layer region as having “equivalent energy band gaps”. Rather, according to Applicant’s disclosure, e.g. as depicted in FIG. 6B of the elected Species, the first barrier layer region 60b1 and the second barrier layer region 60b2 have In contents that change in opposite directions. E.g. the first barrier layer region 60b1 has a In content that decreases from layer 23 toward 33, while the second barrier layer region 60b2 has a In content that increases from layer 23 toward 33. The differing changes of In content would suggest different energy band gap structures. There is no explicit or implicit support for the first and second barrier layer regions to have “equivalent energy band gaps” given the different In content profiles in these regions.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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 1-4 and 8-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 18 reciting “a barrier layer … includes a first barrier layer region and a second barrier layer region”, “the first barrier layer region and the second barrier layer region have equivalent energy band gaps” and “a valley of an In concentration in the barrier layer” render the claims indefinite. As detailed in the 35 USC 112 (a) rejection above, Applicant’s disclosure does not describe the first and second barrier layer regions as having “equivalent energy band gaps”. The regions are disclosed to have opposite changing In contents and having “a valley of In concentration” in the barrier layer as claimed. It is unclear how would the barrier layer regions with different In contents result in “equivalent energy band gaps”. It is thus unclear what is referred to by “the first barrier layer region” and “the second barrier layer region” and how are the “equivalent energy band gaps” achieved given the different In content profiles. Furthermore, it is unclear how does the valley of In concentration in the barrier layer correspond to the first and second barrier regions having equivalent energy band gaps as claimed.
Claims 1 and 18 reciting “a peak of an n-type impurity doping concentration in the barrier layer is spaced apart from a valley of an In concentration in the barrier layer” render the claims indefinite. The limitation seemingly describes physical spacing between doping concentration and In concentration without specifying their respective locations. The “peak of an n-type impurity doping concentration” and the “valley of an In concentration” are just numerical values that do not have physical locations. It is unclear how can the values of the peak doping concentration and the valley In concentration be “spaced apart”. If the physical locations of these concentration values in the barrier layer are intended, the claims should be amended to recite, e.g. “a location/position” thereof.
Claim 4 reciting “all of the plurality of barrier layers include the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the claimed limitation is intended to recite the totally of “all of the plurality of barrier layers” include the first barrier layer region and the second barrier layer region, i.e. only one first barrier layer region and one second barrier layer region are required in “all of the plurality of barrier layers”. This would not be further limiting claim 1 which already requires “a plurality of barrier layers”. Or is the limitation intended to recite each of the plurality of barrier layers includes a first barrier layer region and a second barrier layer region?
Claims 11 and 19 reciting “the n-type impurity doping concentration in the upper active layer” lack antecedent basis. While claims 1 and 18 previously recite “n-type impurity doping concentration in the barrier layer”, there is no antecedent basis for “the n-type impurity doping concentration” in the upper active layer overall. Furthermore, claims 11 and 19 reciting “the peak points of the doping profile of the n-type impurity doping concentration are each disposed away from the valley points of the In content profile” render the claims indefinite. Firstly, it is unclear what constitutes “disposed away”. In the instance that it refers to separate physical disposition, it is unclear how do the peak points and valley points, referring to impurity doping concentration values, are considered to be physically separate in disposition.
Claim 12 reciting “each of the peak points of the doping profile of the n-type impurity is disposed between corresponding ones of the peak point and the valley point of the In content profile” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “corresponding ones of the peak point and the valley point of the In content profile”. How is the correspondence defined? What is required for the peak point and valley point of In content profile to be considered the “corresponding ones”?
Claim 14 reciting “the doping profile of the n-type impurity is left and right asymmetric with respect to the peak points of the doping profile of the n-type impurity” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the asymmetric doping profile is with respect to the entire collection of “peak points” or with respect to one of the “peak points” or with respect to each of the “peak points”.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 8-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM 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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights