DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed September 8, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 14 and 15 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 claims contain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Regarding claims 1 and 8, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer are composed of gallium nitride (GaN)” as recited on lines 14-15 of the amended claim 1, and on lines 18-19 of the amended claim 8, because (a) Applicants argue on page 8 of the REMARKS filed September 8, 2026 that “Specifically, claim 1 now recites that the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer are composed of gallium nitride (GaN)”, that “Amended Claim 1 requires that the first nitride layer (consisting of GaN) and the second nitride layer (consisting of GaN) are in direct contact with each other (emphases added)”, (b) however, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0024] of current application that “Step S08: form a first nitride layer 40 above the buffer layer 30, wherein the first nitride layer 40 is in contact with the buffer layer 30; the first nitride layer 40 could be formed on the buffer layer 30 by metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD); the first nitride layer 40 is a gallium nitride (GaN) layer (emphasis added)”, and in paragraph [0025] of current application that “Step S10: form a second nitride layer 50 above the first nitride layer 40, wherein the second nitride layer 50 is in contact with the first nitride layer 40; the second nitride layer 50 could be formed on the first nitride layer 40 by metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD); the second nitride layer 50 is a gallium nitride (GaN) layer (emphasis added)”, (c) in other words, while Applicants originally disclosed that the first and second nitride layer is a gallium nitride (GaN) layer, which does not specify whether there are elements other than Ga and N, rather than that the first and second nitride layer consists of GaN, the amended claims 1 and 8 reciting that “the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer are composed of gallium nitride (GaN)” requires that the first and second nitride layer each consists of gallium nitride (GaN) as Applicants argue in the REMARKS, where there should be no elements other than Ga and N, (d) however, for example, as Fig. 3(a) of Ganguly et al. (“Plasma MBE growth conditions of AlGaN/GaN high-electron-mobility transistors on silicon and their device characteristics with epitaxially regrown ohmic contacts,” Applied Physics Express 7 (2014) 105501) shows as illustrated below, atoms constituting neighboring GaN-based semiconductor layers diffuse toward into neighboring GaN-based semiconductor layers,
PNG
media_image1.png
258
282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(e) therefore, even if Applicants may have intended to form the first and second nitride layer composed of or consisting of gallium nitride (GaN) as currently claimed according to Applicants’ arguments in the REMARKS, the first and second nitride layer in the final structure of the claimed light-emitting element would include other elements such as Al from the neighboring buffer layer and the first semiconductor layer since, for example, as recited in claims 4 and 11, the buffer layer comprises Al atoms, some of which would diffuse into the first nitride layer, rendering the bottommost portion of the first nitride layer an AlGaN layer rather than a GaN layer as disclosed by Ganguly et al., and (f) furthermore, if “Amended Claim 1 requires that the first nitride layer (consisting of GaN) and the second nitride layer (consisting of GaN) are in direct contact with each other (emphases added)” as Applicants argue in the REMARKS, the actual first nitride layer would not be Applicants’ intended first nitride layer 40 and the actual second nitride layer would not be Applicants’ intended second nitride layer 50, but rather would at best be a portion of the first and second nitride layer as illustrated below as a rectangular area since the bottommost portion of Applicants’ intended first nitride layer 40 would not be a GaN layer, and the topmost portion of Applicants’ intended second nitride layer 50 would not be another GaN layer depending on the material composition of the first semiconductor layer, in which case, the claimed ratio of the film thickness recited on lines 16-17 of the amended claim 1, the claimed sum of the film thickness recited on lines 18-19 of the amended claim 1, and the claimed relative dislocation defect density recited on liens 13-14 of the amended claim 8 may not be derived from the actual first and second nitride layer in the rectangular area illustrated below.
PNG
media_image2.png
496
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-6 depend on claim 1, and claims 10-12, 14 and 15 depend on claim 8, and therefore, claims 4-6, 10-12, 14 and 15 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
(2) Regarding claims 14 and 15, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraphs [0019] and [0031] of current application that “Through X-ray diffraction analysis, a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of face (102) of the light-emitting element structure is smaller than 550 arcsec, and a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of face (002) of the light-emitting element structure is smaller than 450 arcsec”, Applicants did not originally disclose that “a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of face (10-12) of the light-emitting element structure is smaller than 550 arcsec” as recited in the amended claim 14, and “a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of face (0002) of the light-emitting element structure is smaller than 450 arcsec” as recited in the amended claim 15.
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, 4-6, 8, 10-12, 14 and 15 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.
(1) Regarding claims 1 and 8, it is not clear what the limitation “the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer are composed of gallium nitride (GaN)” recited on lines 14-15 of the amended claim 1, and on lines 18-19 of the amended claim 8 suggests, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants argue on page 8 of the REMARKS filed September 8, 2026 that “Specifically, claim 1 now recites that the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer are composed of gallium nitride (GaN)”, that “Amended Claim 1 requires that the first nitride layer (consisting of GaN) and the second nitride layer (consisting of GaN) are in direct contact with each other (emphases added)”, (b) however, as also discussed above, Applicants originally disclosed that “the first nitride layer 40 is a gallium nitride (GaN) layer”, and that “the second nitride layer 50 is a gallium nitride (GaN) layer (emphasis added)”, (c) therefore, it is not clear (i) what the claimed first and second nitride layer composed of gallium nitride (GaN), which Applicants argue to be consisting of GaN, suggests, and (ii) whether the claimed first and second nitride layer each consists of GaN and does not comprise other elements such as dopants and/or elements diffused from the neighboring layers such as the claimed buffer layer, and (d) for example, it is not clear whether the limitation cited above suggests that the first and second nitride layer do not comprise aluminum (Al) diffused from the claimed buffer layer.
(2) Regarding claims 6 and 8, it is not clear how “the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer is smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer” as recited on lines 2-3 of claim 6 and on lines 13-14 of claim 8, because (a) even though the “dislocation defect” recited on line 8 of claim 1 and on line 13 of claim 8 may be broadly interpreted, “the dislocation defect density” would depend on the type of a dislocation defect, (b) for example, a dislocation defect density of a threading dislocation would not decrease from the first nitride layer to the second nitride layer without any mechanism to block propagation of the threading dislocation as shown in Fig. 1 of Kang et al. (US 8,129,711), (c) however, a density of other types of dislocations may or may not be reduced without any mechanism between the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer, and (d) therefore, it is not clear what the limitation “dislocation defect” recited in claims 6 and 8 refers to since, depending on the type(s) of the dislocation defect, the claim limitation of claims 6 and 8 may or may not be satisfied.
Claims 4-6 depend on claim 1, and claims 10-12, 14 and 15 depend on claim 8, and therefore, claims 4-6, 10-12, 14 and 15 are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Stauss et al. (US 9,184,051)
In the below prior art rejections, the claim limitations “nucleation” and “buffer” specify intended uses or fields of use, and are treated as non-limiting, especially because the terms “nucleation layer” and “buffer layer” have been commonly employed interchangeably with a nucleation layer functioning as a buffer layer and a buffer layer functioning as a nucleation layer, since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Stauss et al. disclose a light-emitting element structure (Fig. 9), because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim a fully-formed light-emitting device, and (b) therefore, any structure that satisfies all the claim limitations of claim 1 can be referred to as “a light-emitting element structure”, comprising: a substrate (1) (col. 5, line 40); a nucleation layer (2) (col. 5, lines 52-57) located above the substrate, because (a) the limitation “nucleation” is directed to an intended use of the AlN layer 2 as discussed above, and (b) an AlN layer has been commonly employed as a nucleation layer in depositing GaN-based semiconductor material layers on dissimilar substrate materials; a buffer layer (3) (col. 6, lines 15-24) located above the nucleation layer, because (a) Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “buffer” as “any of various devices or pieces of material for reducing shock or damage due to contact”, (b) therefore, the transition layer 3 can be referred to as “a buffer layer” since it functions as a piece of material for reducing shock or damage due to contact between the growth substrate 1 or the nucleation layer 2 and the first sublayer 4a to a certain degree, and (c) as discussed above, the limitation “buffer” is directed to an intended use of a material layer disposed between two different material layers; a first nitride layer (4a) (col. 6, lines 25-29) located above the buffer layer and being in contact with the buffer layer; a second nitride layer (4b) (col. 6 lines 42-43) located above the first nitride layer and being in contact with the first nitride layer (4a); a first semiconductor layer (6, 7 and/or 8) (col. 6, lines 60-64, and col. 8, line 4) located above the second nitride layer (4b); a light-emitting layer (9) (col. 7, lines 57-58) located above the first semiconductor layer and adapted to emit light when electrons and holes recombine, which is an inherent property of the “radiation-emitting layer” 9 disclosed by Stauss et al.; and a second semiconductor layer (10) (col. 8, lines 4-5) located above the light-emitting layer; wherein a dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer (4b) is inherently smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer (4a), because Stauss et al. further disclose that “Embedding the masking layer 5 into the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 has the advantage that crystal quality is improved and in particular density of the dislocations in the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 is reduced” on lines 46-50 of column 6; wherein a growth temperature of the first nitride layer is smaller than a growth temperature of the second nitride layer, wherein a growth pressure of the first nitride layer is smaller than a growth pressure of the second nitride layer, which are directed to product by process limitations, especially when (i) the claimed invention is directed to a light-emitting element structure, and (ii) Applicants do not specifically claim what other growth parameters such as source materials, material composition of the substrate, surface orientation of the substrate, growth rate, etc. are; wherein the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer comprise gallium nitride (GaN).
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 10-12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauss et al. (US 9,184,051)
In the below prior art rejections, the claim limitations “nucleation” and “buffer” specify intended uses or fields of use, and are treated as non-limiting, especially because the terms “nucleation layer” and “buffer layer” have been commonly employed interchangeably with a nucleation layer functioning as a buffer layer and a buffer layer functioning as a nucleation layer, since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Please refer to the explanations of the corresponding limitations above.
Regarding claim 1, Stauss et al. disclose a light-emitting element structure (Fig. 9), because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim a fully-formed light-emitting device, and (b) therefore, any structure that satisfies all the claim limitations of claim 1 can be referred to as “a light-emitting element structure”, comprising: a substrate (1) (col. 5, line 40); a nucleation layer (2) (col. 5, line 52) located above the substrate, because the limitation “nucleation” is directed to a product by process limitation as discussed above; a buffer layer (3) (col. 6, lines 15-16) located above the nucleation layer, because (a) Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “buffer” as “any of various devices or pieces of material for reducing shock or damage due to contact”, (b) therefore, the transition layer 3 can be referred to as “a buffer layer” since it functions as a piece of material for reducing shock or damage due to contact between the growth substrate 1 or the nucleation layer 2 and the first sublayer 4a to a certain degree, and (c) as discussed above, the limitation “buffer” is directed to an intended use of a material layer disposed between two different material layers; a first nitride layer (4a) (col. 6, lines 25-29) located above the buffer layer and being in contact with the buffer layer; a second nitride layer (4b) (col. 6 lines 42-43) located above the first nitride layer and being in contact with the first nitride layer (4a), wherein a film thickness of the first nitride layer (4a) is less than a film thick of the second nitride layer (4b), because (a) Stauss et al. disclose that “The first sublayer 4a is preferably about 100 nm to 300 nm thick” on lines 28-29 of column 6, and “When the total thickness of the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 is preferably more than 500 nm, e.g., about 1300 nm, growth of the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 is terminated and, subsequently, as illustrated in FIG. 6, an intermediate layer consisting of AlN or AlGaN is grown” on lines 51-55 of column 6, (b) therefore, when the total thickness of the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 is preferably more than 500 nm, e.g., about 1300 nm, and the thickness of the first sublayer 4a is preferably about 100 nm to 300 nm thick, the thickness of the second sublayer 4b should be more than about 200-400 nm, i.e. more than 500 nm - (about 100 nm to 300 nm), e.g. about 1000 nm to 1200 nm, i.e. about 1300 nm - (about 100 nm to 300 nm), and (c) in this case, Stauss et al. disclose that the thickness of the first nitride layer 4a is about 100 nm to 300 nm, and the thickness of the second nitride layer 4b is about 1000 nm to 1200 nm, satisfying the claim limitation “a film thickness of the first nitride layer is less than a film thick of the second nitride layer”; a first semiconductor layer (6, 7 and/or 8) (col. 6, lines 60-64, and col. 8, line 4) located above the second nitride layer (4b); a light-emitting layer (9) (col. 7, lines 57-58) located above the first semiconductor layer and adapted to emit light when electrons and holes recombine, which is an inherent property of the “radiation-emitting layer” 9 disclosed by Stauss et al.; and a second semiconductor layer (10) (col. 8, lines 4-5) located above the light-emitting layer; wherein the first nitride layer (4a) and the second nitride layer (4b) are composed of gallium nitride (GaN); wherein a sum of the film thickness of the first nitride layer and the film thickness of the second nitride layer is greater than or equal to 0.5 um and is smaller than or equal to 1.5 um (about 1300 nm or 1.3 um).
Stauss et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that a dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer is smaller than or equal to 3×109cm-2, and wherein a ratio of the film thickness of the second nitride layer to the film thickness of the first nitride layer is greater than 1 and is smaller than or equal to 6.
Stauss et al. further disclose that “Preferably, in the stress layer structure 11 and/or in the subsequent functional semiconductor layer sequence of an optoelectronic component a dislocation density of less than 1×109 cm-2 is achieved”, and that “Particularly preferably, the dislocation density is even less than 5×108 cm-2” on lines 40-44 of column 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer 4b can be smaller than or equal to 3×109cm-2 when “the dislocation density is even less than 5×108 cm-2” as disclosed by Stauss et al., because (a) as implied by Stauss et al., one of ordinary skill in the art has been striving to reduce a dislocation defect density in GaN-based semiconductor materials since a lower dislocation defect density would improve performance of the GaN-based semiconductor materials such as a light-emitting efficiency and a carrier mobility, (b) when the dislocation defect density is less than 1×109 cm-2 or even less than 5×108 cm-2 in the stress layer structure 11 of Stauss et al., the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer 4b can be in the claimed range, (c) in addition, the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer 4b would also be determined by the area covered by the masking layer 5 since threading dislocations present inside the first nitride layer 4a would be prevented from penetrating into the second nitride layer 4b if they are blocked by the masking layer 5, and (d) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range of the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Further regarding claim 1, Stauss et al. differ from the claimed invention that a ratio of the film thickness of the second nitride layer to the film thickness of the first nitride layer is greater than 1 and is smaller than or equal to 6.
As discussed above, Stauss et al. further disclose that “The first sublayer 4a is preferably about 100 nm to 300 nm thick”, and “the total thickness of the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 is preferably … about 1300 nm”, which leads to the thickness of the second sublayer 4b being about 1000 nm to 1200 nm, which in turn leads to the claimed ratio of about 3.3 or 1000/300 to 12 or 1200/100.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the claimed ratio of the film thickness of the second nitride layer to the film thickness of the first nitride layer can be greater than 1 and is smaller than or equal to 6 as claimed, because (a) the claimed ratio overlaps with the ratio disclosed by Stauss et al., and (b) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range of the ratio achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 4, Stauss et al. further disclose that the buffer layer (3) is made of or comprise AlGaN (col. 6, lines 15-24).
Drechsel et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the buffer layer has a surface aluminum (Al) concentration of 25±10%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the surface aluminum (Al) concentration of the AlGaN transition layer 3 can be 25±10%, because (a) the Al concentration of the AlGaN transition layer 3 would control the compressive stress applied to the claimed first and second nitride layer, which would also control the defect density in the light-emitting layer 9 including the dislocation defect density, which thus should be controlled and optimized, (b) Stauss et al. further disclose that the Al content of the AlGaN transition layer 3 varies along the thickness direction, and therefore, the claimed surface Al concentration can be satisfied by optimizing the gradient of the Al content of the AlGaN transition layer 3, and (c) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range of the Al concentration achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 5, Stauss et al. further disclose for the light-emitting element as claimed in claim 1 that the first semiconductor layer (composite layer of 7 and 8 or composite layer of 6-8) comprises n-type semiconductor material (col. 8, lines 5-6), and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to 1 um, because Stauss et al. further disclose that “the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 can have a thickness of 1000 nm or more, e.g., about 1400 nm” on lines 27-29 of column 7.
Stauss et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the first semiconductor layer comprises gallium nitride; and an electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to 1×1018cm-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first semiconductor region 8 can comprise gallium nitride or n-type dopants initially contained in the first semiconductor region 8 can diffuse into the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 to render the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 n-type, and an electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer can be greater than or equal to 1×1018cm-3, because (a) gallium nitride has been one of the most commonly employed semiconductor materials as a barrier layer or a quantum well layer in manufacturing nitride semiconductor light-emitting elements disclosed by Stauss et al. due to its well-known bandgap and band structure, (b) it would have been obvious, if not inherent, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that at least one n-type dopant initially contained in the first semiconductor region 8 can diffuse into the neighboring second GaN semiconductor layer 7 since n-type dopants such as Si have been commonly mobile during the growth of the GaN-based semiconductor layers, and (c) an electron concentration of the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 and/or the first semiconductor region 8 an be greater than or equal to 1×1018cm-3 since the electron concentration of the first semiconductor region 8 should be controlled and optimized to improve performance of the light-emitting element by increasing the conductivity of the second GaN semiconductor layer and/or the first semiconductor region 8.
Regarding claim 6, Stauss et al. further disclose for the light-emitting element structure as claimed in claim 1 that the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer (4b) is inherently smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer (4a), because Stauss et al. further disclose that “Embedding the masking layer 5 into the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 has the advantage that crystal quality is improved and in particular density of the dislocations in the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 is reduced” on lines 46-50 of column 6; wherein a growth temperature of the first nitride layer is smaller than a growth temperature of the second nitride layer, wherein a growth pressure of the first nitride layer is smaller than a growth pressure of the second nitride layer, which are directed to product by process limitations, especially when (i) the claimed invention is directed to a light-emitting element structure, and (ii) Applicants do not specifically claim what other growth parameters such as source materials, material composition of the substrate, surface orientation of the substrate, growth rate, etc. are.
Regarding claim 10, Stauss et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that a length of a longest crack extending inward from an outer peripheral edge of the second semiconductor layer is smaller than or equal to 2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a length of a longest crack extending inward from an outer peripheral edge of the second semiconductor layer can be less than or equal to 2 mm, because this limitation would be automatically satisfied when the claimed light-emitting element structure has a lateral length less than or equal to 2 mm, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since, the smaller the light-emitting element structure is, the higher the density of the light-emitting element structure would be, resulting in a lower manufacturing cost.
Regarding claim 11, Stauss et al. further disclose that the buffer layer (3) is made of or comprise AlGaN (col. 6, lines 15-24).
Drechsel et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the buffer layer has a surface aluminum (Al) concentration of 25±10%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the surface aluminum (Al) concentration of the AlGaN transition layer 3 can be 25±10%, because (a) the Al concentration of the AlGaN transition layer 5 would control the compressive stress applied to the claimed first and second nitride layer, which would also control the defect density in the light-emitting layer 9 including the dislocation defect density, which thus should be controlled and optimized, (b) Stauss et al. further disclose that the Al content of the AlGaN transition layer 3 varies along the thickness direction, and therefore, the claimed surface Al concentration can be satisfied by optimizing the gradient of the Al content of the AlGaN transition layer 3, and (c) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range of the Al concentration achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding claim 12, Stauss et al. further disclose for the light-emitting element as claimed in claim 1 that the first semiconductor layer (composite layer of 7 and 8 or composite layer of 6-8) comprises n-type semiconductor material (col. 8, lines 5-6), and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to 1 um, because Stauss et al. further disclose that “the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 can have a thickness of 1000 nm or more, e.g., about 1400 nm” on lines 27-29 of column 7.
Stauss et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the first semiconductor layer comprises gallium nitride; and an electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to 1×1018cm-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the first semiconductor region 8 can comprise gallium nitride or n-type dopants initially contained in the first semiconductor region 8 can diffuse into the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 to render the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 n-type, and an electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer can be greater than or equal to 1×1018cm-3, because (a) gallium nitride has been one of the most commonly employed semiconductor materials as a barrier layer or a quantum well layer in manufacturing nitride semiconductor light-emitting elements disclosed by Stauss et al. due to its well-known bandgap and band structure, (b) it would have been obvious, if not inherent, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that at least one n-type dopant initially contained in the first semiconductor region 8 into the neighboring second GaN semiconductor layer 7 since n-type dopants such as Si have been commonly mobile during the growth of the GaN-based semiconductor layers, and (c) an electron concentration of the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 and/or first semiconductor region 8 an be greater than or equal to 1×1018cm-3 since the electron concentration of the first semiconductor region 8 should be controlled and optimized to improve performance of the light-emitting element by increasing the conductivity of the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 and/or the first semiconductor region 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 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.
The Examiner notes that, while Applicants argued in the REMARKS that they made amendments to claims 9, 14 and 15 to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants had not made any amendments to claims 14 and 15.
The Examiner also notes that Applicants’ arguments regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 6 and 13, which became the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 6 and 8 in the current Office Action due to Applicants’ incorporation of the limitation at issue into the amended claim 8, are not persuasive, because (a) Applicants’ simply made allegations without providing any evidence, (b) Applicants do not specify what the type(s) of the dislocation defect(s) is/are, (c) for example, a threading dislocation does not simply disappear by changing the growth conditions of the second nitride layer, while another type or other types of dislocation defects may or may not be affected by the changing growth conditions of the second nitride layer, and (d) however, while Applicants claim “a dislocation defect density of the second nitride”, Applicants did not originally disclose what the type(s) of the dislocation defect(s) is/are, and Applicants could not explain what the type(s) of the dislocation defect(s) is/are in the REMARKS filed September 8, 2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ohno et al. (US 7,825,012)
Hatano et al. (US 5,740,192)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 October 5, 2026
