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 without traverse of Group II, claims 7-20 in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/08/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 7-20 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardwell et al (US 2021/0246571).
Cardwell et al teaches a crystal, comprising a group Ill metal and nitrogen, wherein the crystal is free-standing and comprises: a wurtzite crystal structure ([0009]-[0022], [0087], [0121], [0146]-[0147]); a first surface having a maximum dimension greater than 5 millimeters in a first direction ([0017]-[0018]), the first surface having a crystallographic orientation within 5 degrees of one of (0001) and (000-1) and the first direction being aligned within ±3° of a crystallographic orientation selected from <10-10> and <11-20> ([0079], [0087] teaches (0001) or (000-1) surface and opening in patterned masks layers parallel to the <11-20> or <10-10> directions) ); an average concentration of stacking faults below 103 cm−1 ([0117], [0135]) and an average concentration of threading dislocations between 101 cm−2 and 106 cm−2([0117]) wherein the average concentration of threading dislocations on the first surface comprises periods of variation that vary periodically by at least a factor of two in each of the first direction, a second direction aligned at an angle of 60 degrees from the first direction, and third direction aligned at an angle of 120 degrees from the first direction, the periods of variation in the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction being equal, to within a factor of two, and each being between 5 micrometers and 20 millimeters; wherein the first surface comprises a plurality of first regions (window regions 215), each of the plurality of first regions having a locally-approximately-linear array of threading dislocations 419 with a concentration between 5 cm−1 and 105 cm−1,(Fig 5A, 6C, 6E, 6F, 13 and [0133]-[0153] teaches pattern of linear arrays 419 may be 2D hexagonal or an irregular pattern that is formed due to pattern of exposed regions), the first surface further comprises a plurality of second regions (wing regions 417 formed on portions that are not above exposed regions 120), each of the plurality of second regions being at least partially disposed between an adjacent pair of the plurality of first regions and having a concentration of threading dislocations below 105 cm−2 and a concentration of stacking faults below 103 cm−1(Fig 5A, 6C, 6E, 6F, 13 and [0133]-[0153]), and the first surface further comprises a plurality of third regions, each of the plurality of third regions being disposed within one of the plurality of second regions or at least partially disposed between an adjacent pair of second regions and having a minimum dimension between 3 micrometers and 5 millimeters and threading dislocations with a concentration between 103 cm−2 and 108 cm−2.( Fig 5A, 6C, 6E, 6F, 13 and [0119], [0135] teaches sharp boundary regions with a width of less than 25 micrometer or extended boundaries with a width between 25 micrometers and 1000 micrometers between adjacent wing regions 417 having dislocations between 5 cm-1and 105 cm-1). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Cardwell et al does not explicitly teach between 5% and 75% of intersections between neighboring locally-approximately-linear arrays of threading dislocations comprising three and only three locally-approximately-linear arrays of threading dislocations meeting at intersection angles of 120°±3°.
Cardwell et al teaches openings 112, and thus exposed regions 120, may be arranged in a 2D hexagonal array and the array of exposed regions by be linear or irregularly shaped, hexagonal patterns, a mix of hexagonal and pentagonal, a mix of hexagonal and rhombohedral, and other patterns are possible (Fig 6C, 17C, 6E, 17E, 6F, 17F [0087], [0093], [0133], [0138]). The interior angle for a regular hexagon is 120° (see below) and applicant teaches using a hexagonal pattern to obtain the between 5% and 75% of intersections between neighboring locally-approximately-linear arrays of threading dislocations comprising three and only three locally-approximately-linear arrays of threading dislocations meeting at intersection angles of 120°±3°. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Cardwell et al by using a regular hexagonal pattern, which would be expected to produce between 5% and 75% of intersections between neighboring locally-approximately-linear arrays of threading dislocations comprising three and only three locally-approximately-linear arrays of threading dislocations meeting at intersection angles of 120°±3 because a similar method would be expected to produce similar results.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
296
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 8-10, Cardwell et al teaches atomic impurity concentrations of at least one of oxygen (O), and hydrogen (H) above about 1×1016 cm−3, above about 1×1017 cm−3, or above about 1×1018 cm−3; impurity concentrations of at least one of lithium (Li), sodium (Na), potassium (K), fluorine (F), chlorine (CI), bromine (Br), or iodine (I) above about 1×1015 cm−3, above about 1×1016 cm−3, or above about 1×1017 cm−3, above about 1×1018 cm−3 ([0146]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 11, Cardwell et al teaches a period of the variation in the first direction being between 5 micrometers and 20 millimeters ([0010], [0022]), Cardwell et al does not explicitly teach the period of the variation in the second and third direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Cardwell et al using a period of the variation in the second and third direction being between 5 micrometers and 20 millimeters, which is within the range taught by Cardwell for the first direction. Changes in size and shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04).
Referring to claim 12-20, as discussed above Cardwell et al teaches a similar pattern of hexagon, as taught by applicant; and the size and shape of the pattern overlapping the claimed dimension; therefore, the claimed regions of claims 12-20 would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because Cardwell et al teaches using hexagonal patterns and/or other patterns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights