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 .
Specification
The substitute specification filed 06/05/2026 has been entered. See Applicant’s Arguments filed 06/05/2025 on page 9 concerning “gate elimination layer” term.
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 5, 17 is 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 5 recites “a lattice constant of each sub-shallow well layer increases along the first direction, and a lattice constant of an adjacent sub-shallow layer that is adjacent to the active layer is smaller than a lattice constant of the active layer”.
The Examiner notes that “adjacent sub-shallow layer”, this term drops “well” and is never introduced in Claim 1 and it is unclear if the Applicant is trying to refer to one of the previously claimed sub-shallow well layer or some other, unclaimed structure.
Further, claim 5’s use of “each sub-shallow well layer” (without the definite article and the “of the plurality” qualifier used in parent Claim 1 parallel recitation, “each of the plurality of sub-shallow well layers”) together with the shift to “sub-shallow layer” (without “well” entirely) within the same claim reflects an inconsistent set of terms for what appears to be intended as a single, common referent. This inconsistency leaves metes and bounds of Claim 5 unclear as to which layer or layers (all of the sub-shallow well layers, a subset, or an additional previously unclaimed layer) are the subject to the recited lattice constant and energy band relationship.
For the purposes of examination the Examiner will interpret Claim 5 to be consistent with terminology of “a lattice constant of each of the plurality of sub-shallow well layers”…”a lattice constant of an an adjacent sub-shallow well layer of the plurality of sub-shallow well layers that is adjacent to the active layer” with parallel interpretation applied to the energy band clause.
Claim 17 recites “a number a plurality of sub-shallow well layers”.
The Examiner notes that it is unclear if the Applicant is trying to refer to the previously claimed plurality of sub-shallow well layers or some other, unclaimed structure.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret Claim 17 to refer back to a plurality of sub-shallow well layers of Claim 1.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Sokol et al. (US 2020/0075798 A1) and as evidenced by Ferhat et al. (“First-principles calculations of gap bowing in InxGa1ÀxN and InxAl1ÀxN alloys: Relation to structural and thermodynamic properties” PHYSICAL REVIEW B, VOLUME 65, 075213: Published on 02/2002)
Regarding Claim 1, Sokol (Fig. 1) discloses a semiconductor epitaxial structure, comprising:
a substrate (10), an N-type semiconductor layer (“a second nitride layer 14 which may include Si—GaN), a N-type doped semiconductor layer (15,”n-type doped GaN”), an active layer (17), and a P-type semiconductor layer (30, 32); [0061] and
a plurality of sub-shallow well layers (“the superlattice structure 16 may include alternating layers of In.sub.xGa.sub.1-xN and In.sub.yGa.sub.1-yN,”), sequentially stacked along a first direction (vertical) and sandwiched between the N-type doped semiconductor layer (15) and the active layer (17) [0073], wherein
the N-type semiconductor layer (11), the N-type doped semiconductor layer (15), the active layer (17), and the P-type semiconductor layer (30, 32) are sequentially stacked on the substrate (10) (Fig. 1), wherein
each of the plurality of sub-shallow well layers comprises a potential barrier layer and a potential well layer (“the superlattice structure 16 includes alternating layers of GaN and InGaN”), potential barrier layers (GaN) and potential well layers (InGaN) are arranged in an alternating manner along the first direction (vertical), [0073] and wherein,
along the first direction (vertical), the N-type doped semiconductor layer (15, GaN) has a lattice constant smaller than that of a potential well layer (InGaN) in a first sub-shallow well layer, (first GaN and InGaN)
or
an energy band greater than that of the potential well layer in the first sub-shallow well layer.
The Examiner notes that GaN has smaller lattice constant than InGaN since introduction of Indium to GaN increases the material’s lattice constant.
The Examiner provides evidentiary reference of Ferhat et al. (Fig. 3a) disclosing relationship between In content in GaN and lattice constant of the material. See Lattice Constant (Y) increases as composition of In increases (X).
Regarding Claim 2, Sokol (Fig. 1) discloses the semiconductor epitaxial structure according to claim 1, wherein
N-type doped semiconductor layer (15) comprises a non-uniform N-type doped semiconductor layer. (the LED further comprises a spacer layer arranged between the n-type GaN layer and the first barrier-well unit, wherein the spacer layer comprises a first sublayer and a second sublayer and the first sublayer has a higher n-type doping concentration than the second sublayer.”) [0009, 0018, 0069].
Regarding Claim 15, Sokol (Fig. 1) discloses the semiconductor epitaxial structure according to claim 1, wherein
an N-type doping concentration in N-type doped semiconductor layer (15) is between 1×10.sup.17 to 1×10.sup.20 cm.sup.−3. [0009, 0018, 0069, 0074].
Regarding Claim 16, Sokol (Fig. 1) discloses the semiconductor epitaxial structure according to claim 1, wherein
N-type doped semiconductor layer (15) comprises an N-type doped GaN layer, an N-type doped AlGaN layer, an N-type doped AlGaInN layer, an N-type doped GaInN layer, or an N-type doped AlInN layer. [0009, 0018, 0069, 0074].
Regarding Claim 17, Sokol (Fig. 1) discloses the semiconductor epitaxial structure according to claim 1, wherein
a number a plurality of sub-shallow well layers is between 1 to 20, including endpoint values. (Fig. 1) [0072, 0073]
Regarding Claim 19, Sokol (Fig. 1) discloses a Light-emitting diode (LED) chip, comprising: a semiconductor epitaxial structure, comprising:
a substrate (10), an N-type semiconductor layer (“a second nitride layer 14 which may include Si—GaN), a N-type doped semiconductor layer (15,”n-type doped GaN”), an active layer (17),
a plurality of sub-shallow well layers (“the superlattice structure 16 may include alternating layers of In.sub.xGa.sub.1-xN and In.sub.yGa.sub.1-yN,”), sequentially stacked along a first direction (vertical) and sandwiched between the N-type doped semiconductor layer (15) and the active layer (17) [0073],
wherein
the N-type semiconductor layer (11), the N-type doped semiconductor layer (15), the active layer (17), and the P-type semiconductor layer (30, 32) are sequentially stacked on the substrate (10) (Fig. 1), wherein
each of the plurality of sub-shallow well layers comprises a potential barrier layer and a potential well layer (“the superlattice structure 16 includes alternating layers of GaN and InGaN”), potential barrier layers (GaN) and potential well layers (InGaN) are arranged in an alternating manner along the first direction (vertical), [0073] and wherein,
along the first direction (vertical), the N-type doped semiconductor layer (15, GaN) has a lattice constant smaller than that of a potential well layer (InGaN) in a first sub-shallow well layer, (first GaN and InGaN)
or
an energy band greater than that of the potential well layer in the first sub-shallow well layer.
The Examiner notes that GaN has smaller lattice constant than InGaN since introduction of Indium to GaN increases the material’s lattice constant.
The Examiner provides evidentiary reference of Ferhat et al. (Fig. 3a) disclosing relationship between In content in GaN and lattice constant of the material. See Lattice Constant (Y) increases as composition of In increases (X).
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) 3 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokol et al. (US 2020/0075798 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Sokol (Fig. 1) discloses the semiconductor epitaxial structure according to claim 1, wherein
an N-type doping concentration in the N-type doped semiconductor layer (15) varies in one of following manners:
gradually increasing along a first direction;
gradually decreasing along the first direction; or
varying in a gradient, wherein
(the LED further comprises a spacer layer arranged between the n-type GaN layer and the first barrier-well unit, wherein the spacer layer comprises a first sublayer and a second sublayer and the first sublayer has a higher n-type doping concentration than the second sublayer.”) [0009, 0018, 0069].
a highest N-type doping concentration of the N-type doped semiconductor layer (15) along the first direction (vertical) [0009, 0018, 0069, 0074]
(“The spacer layer 15 may have a thickness in a range of about 100 Å to about 1200 Å and an n-type doping concentration of from about 2×10.sup.18 cm.sup.−3 to 1×10.sup.19 cm.sup.−3. “)
and an N-type doping concentration of the N-type semiconductor layer (14, second nitride layer 14 may be doped with Si at a concentration of less than about 5×10.sup.19 cm.sup.−3.) and (“the second nitride layer 14 may include a region with a higher n-type doping concentration and a region with a lower n-type doping concentration”) [0068], and wherein
the first direction (vertical) is perpendicular to the substrate (10) and from the substrate to the N-type semiconductor layer (14).
Sokol does not explicitly disclose a highest N-type doping concentration of the gate elimination layer along the first direction is greater than an N-type doping concentration of the N-type semiconductor layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor epitaxial structure in Sokol such that doping concentration of N-type semiconductor layer N-type doped semiconductor layer are optimized and a highest N-type doping concentration of the gate elimination layer along the first direction is greater than an N-type doping concentration of the N-type semiconductor layer since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and in order to have LED structures may have improved tolerance to electrostatic discharge (ESD). [0069].
Regarding Claim 18, Sokol (Fig. 1) discloses the semiconductor epitaxial structure according to claim 1, wherein
a thickness of the N-type doped semiconductor layer. (“The spacer layer 15 may have a thickness in a range of about 100 Å to about 1200 Å”) [0069]
Sokol does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the N-type doped semiconductor layer is no greater than 100 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor epitaxial structure in Sokol such that a thickness of the N-type doped semiconductor layer is no greater than 100 nm since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and in order to have LED structures may have improved tolerance to electrostatic discharge (ESD). [0069]
Specification
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokol et al. (US 2020/0075798 A1) in view of Shim (US 2012/026168 7 A1) and LU et al. (CN 110635004 A; Published 12/31/2019).
Regarding Claim 5, Sokol (Fig. 1) discloses the semiconductor epitaxial structure according to claim 1, wherein
and energy band of the adjacent sub-shallow layer that is adjacent to the active layer (17) is greater than energy band of the active layer (17) [0078].
Sokol does not explicitly disclose that energy band of each sub-shallow well layer decreases along the first direction, a lattice constant of each sub-shallow well layer increases along the first direction, and a lattice constant of an adjacent sub-shallow layer that is adjacent to the active layer is smaller than a lattice constant of the active layer.
Shim (Fig. 1-4) discloses energy band of each sub-shallow well layer (14a, 14b, 14c) decreases along a first direction (vertical). [0054-0055]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor epitaxial structure in Sokol in view of Shim such that energy band of each sub-shallow well layer decreases along the first direction in order to have to facilitate electron flow into the active layer, improve electron injection efficiency, relieve stress, and shield dislocation defects, and thus enhance crystal quality [0054]
Sokol in view of Shim does not explicitly disclose a lattice constant of each sub-shallow well layer increases along the first direction, and a lattice constant of an adjacent sub-shallow layer that is adjacent to the active layer is smaller than a lattice constant of the active layer.
Lu (Fig. 1) discloses a lattice constant of each sub-shallow well layer (130) increases along a first direction, and a lattice constant of an adjacent sub-shallow layer that is adjacent to an active layer (140) is smaller than a lattice constant of the active layer (140), (“to further reduce the N-type epitaxial layer 120 and the luminescent layer has a lattice 140 mismatch between the need to adjust the lattice parameter of the stress adjusting layer 130. direction lattice parameter to make the first periodic structure layer close to the lattice parameter of the N-type epitaxial layer 120, the lattice parameter of the M-th periodic structure layer close to the lattice parameter of the luminous layer 140, and from the N-type epitaxial layer 120 to the light emitting layer 140, and the lattice parameter of the stress adjusting layer gradually approaches the lattice parameter of the luminous layer 140, polarization effect so as to reduce the light emitting layer 140 due to lattice mismatch,”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the semiconductor epitaxial structure in Sokol in view of Shim and Lu such that a lattice constant of each sub-shallow well layer increases along the first direction, and a lattice constant of an adjacent sub-shallow layer that is adjacent to the active layer is smaller than a lattice constant of the active layer in order reduce the light emitting layer due to lattice mismatch [Lu]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s Arguments on Page 11 concerning Claim 1,
“Thus, unlike Sokol, which does not specify any lattice constant or energy band relationship between the optional spacer layer 15 and the nitride superlattice structure 16, amended claim 1's N-type doped semiconductor layer has a lattice constant smaller than that of a potential well layer in a first sub-shallow well layer along the first direction, or has an energy band greater than that of the potential well layer in the first sub-shallow well layer. Thus, Sokol does not meet the requirements of the claimed N-type doped semiconductor layer and the first sub- shallow well layer.”
The Examiner notes that Sokol discloses Claim 1 as amended specifically along the first direction (vertical), the N-type doped semiconductor layer (15, GaN) has a lattice constant smaller than that of a potential well layer (InGaN) in a first sub-shallow well layer, (first GaN and InGaN)
The Examiner notes that GaN has smaller lattice constant than InGaN since introduction of Indium to GaN increases the material’s lattice constant.
The Examiner provides evidentiary reference of Ferhat et al. (Fig. 3a) disclosing relationship between In content in GaN and lattice constant of the material. See Lattice Constant (Y) increases as composition of In increases (X).
Further, Applicant Arguments concerning prior art of Lu in regards to Claim 1. The Examine notes that prior art of Lu is not relied upon in rejection of Claim 1
Regarding Applicant’s Arguments concerning Claim 3, Specifically,
“This specific structural configuration, deliberately setting a doping concentration in an upper layer higher than that of an underlying layer, is not a conventional doping practice and thus cannot be considered a matter of routine skill.”
The specific claimed relative doping concentrations, absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" doping concentrations that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, improved tolerance to electrostatic discharge (ESD). [0069]., etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
Accordingly, since the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the stated doping concentrations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Sokol et al.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative doping concentrations or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Examiner further notes that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c).
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 DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/ Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights