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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed
in Taiwan, TW 111115765 on April 26, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers
required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 08/14/2026 in response to the Office Action mailed on 05/15/2026 is being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Non-Final rejection is made by taking into
fully consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10 of the remarks, filed on 08/14/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of 103 rejection is made in view of previously applied prior references of Wang et al. and Meng et al. The combination of Wang et al. and Meng et al. teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined in the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13 of the remarks, filed on 08/14/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 14, 15 22 and 23 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of 103 rejection is made in view of previously applied prior references of Wang et al. and Meng et al. in combination with the other cited references. The combination teaches the limitations of all Claims dependent on independent Claim 1, as outlined in the rejection below.
On page 13 of the remarks, filed on 08/14/2026, with respect to the new Claim 24, Applicant argues that Meng does not disclose the claimed arrangement in which the metal oxide layer is devoid of directly contacting both the semiconductor contact layer and the metal contact structure. This argument is fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, Meng is no longer relied upon to teach the limitations of new Claim 24. However, the combination of Wang in view of Meng teaches the limitations of Claim 254-26 as outlined in the rejection below.
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.
Rejection note: Italicized claim limitations are limitations not explicitly disclosed in the primary
reference but disclosed either in a different embodiment of the primary reference or in the secondary
references.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13, 18-21 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190386174 A1), in view of Meng et al. (US 20240203956 A1) claiming priority to PCT CN2021/143830.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang et al. discloses a semiconductor device, comprising:
a semiconductor epitaxial structure 10 comprising an active structure 2, 3, 5, 6 and a semiconductor contact layer 7 located on the active structure 2, 3, 5, 6 along a vertical direction Y (annotated Fig. 3: 10, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Y, paragraph 0013-0030, 0053);
a metal contact structure 12 overlapped with the semiconductor contact layer 7 in the vertical direction Y (annotated Fig. 3: 12, 7, Y, paragraph 0054);
and a metal oxide layer 8 overlapped with the metal contact structure 12 in a horizontal direction X perpendicular to the vertical direction Y and being devoid of directly contacting the semiconductor contact layer 7 (annotated Fig. 3: 8, 12, 7, X, Y, paragraph 0054);
an insulation layer 9 contacting the metal contact structure 12 and separating the metal oxide layer 8 and the metal contact structure 12 in the horizontal direction X (annotated Fig. 3: 8, 9, 12, X, paragraph 0063);
wherein the semiconductor epitaxial structure 10 has a surface and the vertical direction Y is perpendicular to the surface (see annotated Fig. 3).
Meng et al. discloses a semiconductor device, comprising the following limitation not disclosed in Wang et al.:
a metal oxide layer 103b being devoid of directly contacting the semiconductor contact layer 105 (Fig. 7: 103b, 104, 105, paragraph 0033, 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Meng et al. in order to have the metal oxide layer being devoid of directly contacting the semiconductor contact layer. Doing so would mitigate the interface states at the metal oxide-semiconductor interface.
PNG
media_image1.png
709
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Wang et al. (US 20190386174 A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Wang et al. fails to teach the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the metal contact structure comprises a plurality of metal pillars separated with each other, one of the plurality of metal pillars comprises a first surface, a second surface and a side surface, in which the first surface directly contacts the semiconductor contact layer, the second surface is opposite to the first surface, and the side surface connects the first surface and the second surface.
However, Meng et al. teaches wherein the metal contact structure 104 comprises a plurality of metal pillars 104 separated with each other, one of the plurality of metal pillars 104 comprises a first surface A1, a second surface A2 and a side surface A3, in which the first surface A1 directly contacts the semiconductor contact layer 105, the second surface A2 is opposite to the first surface A1, and the side surface A3 connects the first surface A1 and the second surface A3 (see annotated Fig. 7: 104, A1, A2, A3).
PNG
media_image2.png
751
1114
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 7 of Meng et al. (US 20240203956 A1)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Meng et al. in order to have the metal contact structure comprise a plurality of metal pillars separated with each other, one of the plurality of metal pillars comprises a first surface, a second surface and a side surface, in which the first surface directly contacts the semiconductor contact layer, the second surface is opposite to the first surface, and the side surface connects the first surface and the second surface. Doing so would further minimize the overlap in the vertical direction between the metal contact structure and the top electrode, thereby reducing the absorption of radiation by the electrode, as recognized by Wang et al. (paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang et al. fails to explicitly teach the semiconductor device of claim 6, wherein the insulation layer has a first refractive index, the semiconductor contact layer has a second refractive index, the metal oxide layer has a third refractive index, and the first refractive index is less than the second refractive index and the first refractive index is less than the third refractive index.
However, Wang et al. does teach the insulation layer 9 is formed of SiO2 (see paragraph 0063), which has first refractive index of [Symbol font/0x7E]1.4 (see nk database. Datasheet [online]. RefractiveIndex.info, 2014 [retrieved on 2025-09-27]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: www. refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=SiO2&page=Malitson>), the semiconductor contact layer 7 is formed of GaP (see paragraph 0062), which has a second refractive index of [Symbol font/0x7E]3 (see nk database. Datasheet [online]. RefractiveIndex.info, 2014 [retrieved on 2025-09-27]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: www.refractiveindex.info/?shelf=main&book=GaP&page=Aspnes>), and the metal oxide layer 8 is formed of ITO (see paragraph 0062), which has a third refractive index of [Symbol font/0x7E]1.8 (see nk database. Datasheet [online]. RefractiveIndex.info, 2015 [retrieved on 2025-09-27]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: www. refractiveindex.info/?shelf=other&book=In2O3-SnO2&page=Konig>).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the insulation layer 9 has a first refractive index, the semiconductor contact layer 7 has a second refractive index, the metal oxide layer 8 has a third refractive index, and the first refractive index is less than the second refractive index and the first refractive index is less than the third refractive index.
Regarding Claim 11, Wang et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a portion of the insulation layer 9 covers on the metal contact structure 12 (see annotated Fig. 3: 9, 12).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising a first electrode 11 located on the semiconductor epitaxial structure 10 (See annotated Fig. 3: 11, 10, paragraph 0054 ), but fails to teach wherein the first electrode 11 does not overlap with the metal contact structure 12 in the vertical direction Y.
However, Meng et al. teaches wherein the first electrode 109 does not overlap with the metal contact structure 104 in the vertical direction Y (see annotated Fig. 7: 109, 104, Y).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Meng et al. in order to have the first electrode not overlap with the metal contact structure in the vertical direction. Doing so would reduce the absorption of radiation by the electrode, as recognized by Wang et al. (paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 18, Wang et al. discloses the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor contact layer 7 comprises a plurality of parts separated from each other (see annotated Fig. 3: 7).
Regarding Claim 19, Wang et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 18, wherein each of the plurality of parts 7 is overlapped with the metal contact structure 12 (see annotated Fig. 3: 7, 12), but fails to teach each of the plurality of parts 7 directly contacts the metal contact structure 12 in the vertical direction Y.
However, Meng et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of parts 105 directly contacts the metal contact structure 104 in the vertical direction (see Fig. 7: 105, 104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Meng et al. in order to have each of the plurality of parts of the semiconductor contact layer directly contact the metal contact structure in the vertical direction. Doing so would enable the formation of low resistance ohmic contact between the semiconductor contact layer and the metal contact structure.
Regarding Claim 20, Wang et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 19, wherein the metal oxide layer 8 directly contacts the insulation layer 9 (see annotated Fig. 3: 8, 9).
PNG
media_image3.png
1100
1066
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Yamamoto et al. (US 20200381589 A1)
Regarding Claim 21, Wang et al. fails to teach the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the insulating layer separates the metal oxide layer and the semiconductor contact layer.
However, Meng et al. teaches wherein the insulating layer 103a separates the metal oxide layer 103b and the semiconductor contact layer 105 (Fig. 7: 103a, 105, 103b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Meng et al. in order to have the insulating layer separate the metal oxide layer and the semiconductor contact layer. Doing so would mitigate the interface states at the metal oxide-semiconductor interface.
Regarding Claim 24, Wang et al. discloses a semiconductor device, comprising:
a semiconductor epitaxial structure 10 comprising an active structure 2, 3, 5, 6 and a semiconductor contact layer 7 located on the active structure 2, 3, 5, 6 along a vertical direction Y (annotated Fig. 3: 10, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Y, paragraph 0013-0030, 0053);
a metal contact structure 12 overlapped with the semiconductor contact layer 7 in the vertical direction Y (annotated Fig. 3: 12, 7, Y, paragraph 0054);
and a metal oxide layer 8 overlapped with the metal contact structure 12 in a horizontal direction X perpendicular to the vertical direction Y and being devoid of directly contacting the semiconductor contact layer 7 and the metal contact structure 12 (annotated Fig. 3: 8, 12, 7, X, Y, paragraph 0054);
an insulation layer 9 contacting the metal structure 12 (annotated Fig. 3: 8, 9, 12, X, paragraph 0063);
wherein the semiconductor epitaxial structure 10 has a surface and the vertical direction Y is perpendicular to the surface (see annotated Fig. 3).
Meng et al. discloses a semiconductor device, comprising the following limitation not disclosed in Wang et al.:
a metal oxide layer 103b being devoid of directly contacting the semiconductor contact layer 105 (Fig. 7: 103b, 104, 105, paragraph 0033, 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Meng et al. in order to have the metal oxide layer being devoid of directly contacting the semiconductor contact layer. Doing so would mitigate the interface states at the metal oxide-semiconductor interface.
Regarding Claim 25, Wang et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 24, wherein the insulating layer is disposed between the metal oxide layer and the semiconductor epitaxial structure, and the insulating layer 9 comprises a width W1 in the horizontal direction larger than that (i.e., W2) of the metal oxide layer 8 (see annotated Fig. 3: W1, W2).
Meng et al. discloses wherein the insulating layer 103a is disposed between the metal oxide layer 103b and the semiconductor epitaxial structure 106, 107, 108 (see Fig. 7: 103b, 103a, 106, 107, 108),
However, Wang et al. teaches a semiconductor device, wherein the insulating layer 9 comprises a width W1 in the horizontal direction larger than that (i.e., W2) of the metal oxide layer 8 (see annotated Fig. 3: W1, W2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Meng et al. in order to have the insulating layer the insulating layer disposed between the metal oxide layer and the semiconductor epitaxial structure. Doing so would prevent direct electrical conduction between the semiconductor epitaxial structure and the metal oxide layer.
Regarding Claim 26, Wang et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 24, wherein the insulating layer 9 comprises a third surface S3 contacting the semiconductor epitaxial structure 10 and a fourth surface S4 contacting the metal oxide layer 8, and the third surface S3 comprises a width W3 in the horizontal direction larger than that (i.e., W4) of the fourth surface S4 (see annotated Fig. 3: S3, S4, W3, W4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190386174 A1), in view of Meng et al. (US 20240203956 A1), as applied to Claim 2 above, further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20200381589 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wang et al. and Meng et al. fails to teach the semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein the first surface and the side surface form an acute angle in a sectional view of the semiconductor device.
However, Yamamoto et al. teaches a semiconductor device comprising a metal contact structure 43 comprising a first surface S1, a second surface and a side surface S3, wherein the first surface S1 and the side surface S3 form an acute angle [Symbol font/0x71] in a sectional view of the semiconductor device (See annotated (see annotated Fig. 5: 43, S1, S2, [Symbol font/0x71], S3, paragraph 0082, 0084, 0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al., Meng et al. and Yamamoto et al. in order to have the first surface and the side surface form an acute angle in a sectional view of the semiconductor device. Doing so would further minimize the overlap in the vertical direction between the metal contact structure and the top electrode, thereby reducing the absorption of radiation by the electrode, as recognized by Wang et al. (paragraph 0041).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190386174 A1), in view of Meng et al. (US 20240203956 A1), as applied to Claim 2 above, further in view of Lin et al. (TW M520990 U).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Wang et al. and Meng et al. fails to teach the semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein one of the plurality of metal pillars comprises a protrusion extended from the second surface.
However, Lin et al. teaches a metal contact structure 10, comprising a protrusion 13 extended from the second surface 11 (see Fig. 2: 10, 11, 13, page 3, lines 19-20).
Therefore, to a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Wang et al., Meng et al. and Lin et al. in order for the plurality of metal pillars to comprise a protrusion extended from the second surface. Doing so would increase the contact area and therefore the adhesion between the metal contact structure and the adjacent layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190386174 A1), in view of Meng et al. (US 20240203956 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Chang et al. (US 20200365769 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang et al. fails to explicitly teach the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising a reflective layer directly contacts the metal oxide layer, the insulation layer and the metal contact structure.
Meng et al. teaches the semiconductor device further comprising a reflective layer 102 directly contacts the insulating layer 103a, 103c and the metal contact structure 104 (Fig. 7: 102, 103a, 103c, paragraph 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Meng et al. in order to have a reflective layer directly contact the insulating layer and the metal contact structure. Doing so would reflect the light emitted by the active structure toward the light-exiting surface of the epitaxial structure so as to facilitate the exit of light.
Furthermore, Chang et al. teaches a semiconductor device, comprising a reflective layer 108b directly contacts the metal oxide layer 106 (Fig. 1H: 108b, 106, paragraph 0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Chang et al. in order to have a reflective layer directly contact the metal oxide layer. Doing so would reflect the light emitted by the active structure toward the light-exiting surface of the epitaxial structure so as to facilitate the exit of light.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190386174 A1), in view of Meng et al. (US 20240203956 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, in view of Huang et al. (CN 112420891 A).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Wang et al. and Meng et al. fails to teach the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein the metal contact structure comprises a main contact layer and a barrier layer connecting the main contact layer.
However, Huang et al. teaches a semiconductor device, comprising a metal contact structure 134, 135, wherein the metal contact structure 134, 135 comprises a main contact layer 134 and a barrier layer 135 connecting the main contact layer 134 (Fig. 1: 134, 135, page 9, lines 15-16 in English Translation of Huang et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al. and Huang et al. in order to have the metal contact structure comprise a main contact layer and a barrier layer connecting the main contact layer. Doing so would prevent the diffusion of unwanted material into the semiconductor contact layer, as recognized by Huang et al. (page 9, lines 15-16 in English Translation of Huang et al.).
Regarding Claim 15, Huang et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14, wherein the barrier layer comprises Ta, Ti, Pt or TiW (page 13, lines 17-18 in English Translation of Huang et al.).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20190386174 A1), in view of Meng et al. (US 20240203956 A1), as applied to Claim 18 above, further in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20200381589 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Wang et al. and Meng et al. fails to teach the semiconductor device of claim 18, wherein one of the plurality of parts of the semiconductor contact layer comprises an inclined side surface.
However, Yamamoto et al. teaches a semiconductor device comprising a semiconductor contact layer 41a comprising a plurality of parts 41a separated from each other, wherein one of the plurality of parts 41a of the semiconductor contact layer 41a comprises an inclined side surface (see annotated fig. 5: 41a, paragraph 0081, 0085).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Wang et al., Meng et al. and Yamamoto et al. in order to have one of the plurality of parts of the semiconductor contact layer comprises an inclined side surface. By doing so, a wider interface with the semiconductor active layer can promote uniform current injection.
Regarding Claim 23, Yamamoto et al. teaches the semiconductor device of claim 22, wherein the one of the plurality of parts 41a of the semiconductor contact 41a comprises a first surface facing the semiconductor epitaxial structure 30 and a second surface away from the semiconductor epitaxial structure 30, the first surface comprises a width greater than that of the second surface (see above annotated Fig. 5: 41a, 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 08/20/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights