DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application filed August 1, 2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation cited on lines 13-14 should be amended, because (a) the number “10” does not accompany any unit, while the number “-10” has a unit of “um”, and (b) therefore, the number “10” should be accompanied with a unit of “um” or the number “-10” should not have a unit. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 6 and 8-16 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 claim 2, it is not clear how “a ratio of the film thickness of the second nitride layer to the film thickness of the first nitride layer is .. equal to 1” as recited in claim 2 when “a film thickness of the first nitride layer is less than a film thickness of the second nitride layer” as recited on line 8-9 of claim 1; in other words, the latter limitation clearly suggests that the claimed ratio cannot be equal to 1.
(2) Regarding claims 6 and 13, 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”, because (a) even though the “dislocation defect” recited on line 9 of claim 1 may be broadly interpreted, “the dislocation defect” recited in claims 6 and 13 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 13 refers to since, depending on the type(s) of the dislocation defect, the claim limitation of claims 6 and 13 may or may not be satisfied.
(3) Regarding claim 13, Applicants do not claim “a dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer” in claims 8 and 13 before claiming “the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer” in claim 13, and therefore, “the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer” lacks the antecedent basis.
(4) Regarding claim 8, it is not clear what the term “BOW” recited on line 13 refers to, because (a) Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0019] of current application that “In the current embodiment, an absolute value of a BOW of the light-emitting element structure 1 is less than or equal to 10 and greater than or equal to −10 um, wherein the light-emitting element structure 1 is an 8-inch wafer (emphasis added)”, (b) therefore, it appears that the claimed term “BOW” depends on the size of the substrate recited on line 2, which Applicants do not claim in claim 8, rendering claim 8 indefinite since (i) an identical light-emitting element structure formed on wafers having different diameters may have different values of “an absolute value of a BOW”, (ii) it is not clear whether the claimed “absolute value of a BOW of the light-emitting element structure” can be achieved regardless of the size of the substrate, or the material compositions and/or thicknesses of the claimed component layers should be varied depending on the size of the substrate, and (iii) it is not clear whether the claimed “absolute value of a BOW of the light-emitting element structure” can be achieved with a substrate whose diameter is not 8 inches, which Applicants did not originally disclose, (c) in addition, “an absolute value of a BOW of the light-emitting element structure” recited on line 13 would depend on numerous device and growth parameters, and growth conditions, none of which Applicant claims in claim 8, rendering claim 8 further indefinite, (d) in paragraph [0019] of current application, Applicant states that “a value of the BOW refers to a bowing degree of the wafer, and a sign of the value refers to a bowing direction of the wafer, wherein a positive BOW value is a degree of the wafer bowing upward, and a negative BOW value is a degree of the wafer bowing downward”, and (e) therefore, the claimed “absolute value of a BOW of the light-emitting element structure” depends on, for example, a certain temperature and a rate at which the certain temperature changes, neither of which Applicant claims in claim 8, rendering claim 8 further indefinite. Claims 9-16 depend on claim 8, and therefore, claims 9-16 are also indefinite.
(5) Regarding claim 9 it is not clear what the limitation “number of defects with a diameter” recited on lines 1-2 refers to, because (a) it is not clear what “a diameter” of the defects refers to, (b) in other words, it is not clear whether Applicant claims that the defects are spherical defects or planar defects with circular shapes, and (c) furthermore, it is not clear whether claim 9 would be automatically met if the claimed defects are not perfectly spherical or circular since when the claimed defects are not perfectly spherical or circular, there would be no diameters for the defects to begin with.
(6) Regarding claims 14 and 15, it is not clear what “a full width at half maximum of face (102) of the light-emitting element structure is smaller than 550 arcsec” recited in claim 14, and “a full width at half maximum of face (002) face of the light-emitting element structure is smaller than 450 arcsec” recited in claim 15 each refers to, because (a) the limitations cited above appear to be ungrammatical, (b) it appears that Applicants claim that the claimed light-emitting element structure has the claimed face (102) and face (002), and (c) however, Applicants’ claimed light-emitting element structure is formed of GaN-based semiconductor materials, see for example, claims 11, 12 and 16, which comprise hexagonal or wurtzite lattice structures expressed by four digits for their crystallographic orientations such as (1000), (0001), (1-100), etc. rather than three digits for their crystallographic orientations such as the claimed face (102) and face (002).
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 1-12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2015/0111369)
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 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).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. disclose a light-emitting element structure (Fig. 11), comprising: a substrate (110) ([0056]); a nucleation layer (120) ([0056]) located above the substrate; a buffer layer (131) ([0059]) located above the nucleation layer, because a sublayer of a composite buffer layer is also a buffer layer, and functions as a buffer layer to a certain degree; a first nitride layer (132) ([0059]-[0060]) located above the buffer layer and being in contact with the buffer layer; a second nitride layer (133) ([0059] and [0067]) located above the first nitride layer and being in contact with the first nitride layer (132), wherein a film thickness of the first nitride layer is 10 nm - 50 nm ([0060]) and a film thickness of the second nitride layer is 50 nm - 500 nm ([0061]); a dislocation defect density of a GaN film formed on the composite buffer layer 130 is 5×1018 cm-2 or less ([0070] and [0072]); a first semiconductor layer (150) ([0093]) located above the second nitride layer (133); a light-emitting layer (160) ([0093]) located above the first semiconductor layer and adapted to emit light when electrons and holes recombine, because the PN junction structure of the LED ([0089]) inherently emits light by recombination of electrons and holes with electrons supplied from the n-type semiconductor layer 150 ([0094]) and holes supplied from the p-type semiconductor layer 170 ([0095]); and a second semiconductor layer (170) located above the light-emitting layer.
Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that a film thickness of the first nitride layer is less than a film thickness of the second nitride layer, and a dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer is smaller than or equal to 3×109cm⁻².
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the film thickness of the first nitride layer 132, which is 10 nm - 50 nm, can be less than a film thickness of the second nitride layer 133, which is 50 nm - 500 nm, because as long as both the first and second nitride layer are not 50 nm thick, which would have been obvious since 50 nm is an upper limit of the thickness of the first nitride layer 132 and a lower limit of the thickness of the second nitride layer 133, the film thickness of the first nitride layer 132 would be less than the film thickness of the second nitride layer 133.
Further regarding claim 1, Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that a dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer 133 is smaller than or equal to 3×109cm⁻².
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 133 can be smaller than or equal to 3×109cm⁻², because (a) as discussed above, Kim et al. disclose that a dislocation defect density of a GaN film formed on the composite buffer layer 130 is 5×1018 cm-2 or less ([0070] and [0072]), (b) the second nitride layer 133 is the topmost layer of Kim et al.’s composite buffer layer 130, which is in direct contact with the first semiconductor layer 150, (c) the first semiconductor layer 150 can be formed of GaN, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since Kim et al. disclose that the first semiconductor layer 150 is formed of AlxGayInzN (0≤x<1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, and x+y+z=1) ([0094]), which would be GaN when x=0, y=1 and z=0, (d) when the second nitride layer 133 is in contact with the GaN layer 150, a dislocation density of the second nitride layer 133 near the interface of the second nitride layer 133 and the GaN layer 150 would be identical to or substantially identical to the dislocation density of the GaN layer 150, which would be 5×1018 cm-2 or less as disclosed by Kim et al., (e) furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art has been striving to reduce a dislocation density in a semiconductor layer since the semiconductor layer having a reduced dislocation density would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to form a higher quality semiconductor layer on the semiconductor layer having the reduced dislocation density, and (f) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range of the dislocation defect density 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 2, Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that a ratio of the film thickness of the second nitride layer 133 to the film thickness of the first nitride layer 132 is greater than or equal to 1 and is smaller than or equal to 6.
As discussed above, Kim et al. disclose that the film thickness of the first nitride layer 132 is 10 nm - 50 nm ([0060]) and the film thickness of the second nitride layer 133 is 50 nm - 500 nm ([0061]).
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 ratio of the film thickness of the second nitride layer 133 to the film thickness of the first nitride layer 132 can be greater than or equal to 1 and smaller than or equal to 6, because (a) the ratio of the film thickness of the second nitride layer 133 to the film thickness of the first nitride layer 132 disclosed by Kim et al. is between 50 nm/50 nm and 500 nm/10 nm or between 1 and 50, and (b) therefore, the ratio of the two thicknesses disclosed by Kim et al. overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that a sum of the film thickness of the first nitride layer 132 and the film thickness of the second nitride layer 133 is greater than or equal to 0.5 um and is smaller than or equal to 1.5 um.
As discussed above, Kim et al. disclose that the film thickness of the first nitride layer 132 is 10 nm - 50 nm ([0060]) and the film thickness of the second nitride layer 133 is 50 nm - 500 nm ([0061]).
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 sum of the film thickness of the first nitride layer 132 and the film thickness of the second nitride layer 133 can be greater than or equal to 0.5 um and smaller than or equal to 1.5 um, because (a) the sum of the two thicknesses disclosed by Kim et al. is 60 nm - 550 nm or 0.06 um - 0.55 um, and (b) therefore, the sum of the two thicknesses disclosed by Kim et al. overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the buffer layer 131 is made of AlGaN and has a surface aluminum (Al) concentration of 25±10%.
Kim et al. further disclose that “The buffer layer 130 may include a first layer 131 formed of BxAlyInzGa1-x-y-zN (0≤x<1, 0<y<1, 0≤z≤1, and 0≤x+y+z<1) having a uniform composition ratio” ([0059]), and that “Referring to FIG. 2, the first layer 131 and the third layer 133 contain Ga at a ratio of 0-1, and for example, a ratio of Ga may be between 0.2 and 0.7” ([0066]).
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 buffer layer 131 can be made of AlGaN and has a surface aluminum (Al) concentration of 25±10%, because (a) AlGaN is one of the material compositions that can be expressed by the formula BxAlyInzGa1-x-y-zN disclosed by Kim et al. with x=0 and z=0, and (b) in this case, the ratio of Ga being between 0.2 and 0.7 would imply the ratio of Al being 0.3 and 0.8 for AlGaN, which would overlap with the claimed surface Al concentration of 25±10%.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. further disclose for the light-emitting element structure as claimed in claim 1 that the first semiconductor layer 150 comprise n-type semiconductor ([0094]), because Si, Ge, Se and/or Te are n-type dopants for gallium nitride-based semiconductor materials, and an electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer (150) is greater than or equal to 1x10¹⁸cm⁻³, which is inherent because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim what the “electron concentration” refers to, (b) the first semiconductor layer 150 is formed of “AlxGayInzN (0≤x<1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, and x+y+z=1) doped with n-type impurity that may be Si, Ge, Se, or Te” ([0094]), and (c) the AlxGayInzN has an atomic concentration on the order of 1022 or 1023 cm-3, and each atom has a plurality of electrons.
Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the first semiconductor layer 150 comprises gallium nitride, and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to 1 um.
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 layer 150 can comprise gallium nitride, and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer can be greater than or equal to 1 um, because (a) as discussed above, the first semiconductor layer 150 is formed of AlxGayInzN, which would be gallium nitride when x=0 and z=0, which would have been obvious since 0≤x<1 and 0≤z≤1, and (b) the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 150 can be greater than or equal to 1 um since (i) the first semiconductor layer 150 functions as a contact layer and an optical guide layer, and therefore, the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 150 should be controlled and optimized to achieve the desired functions of the first semiconductor layer 150, (ii) the thicker the first semiconductor layer 150 is, the higher quality the semiconductor layers deposited on the first semiconductor layer 150 would be, and (iii) therefore, the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 150 can be relatively larger to improve quality of the semiconductor layers such as the active layer or the light-emitting layer 160, which would improve performance of the light-emitting element.
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer is smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer can be smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer, because (a) the number of dislocation defects tends to remain the same or decrease as more semiconductor layers are grown on the underlying structure, and (b) therefore, the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer can be smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer when at least one dislocation defect is bent or eliminated at the interface of the first and second nitride layer, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the number of dislocations can also be controlled by controlling and optimizing the growth conditions of the second nitride layer.
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer comprise gallium nitride (GaN).
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 nitride layer and the second nitride layer can comprise gallium nitride (GaN), because (a) Applicants do not claim that the first and second nitride layer essentially consist of gallium nitride, respectively, (b) therefore, as long as there is one gallium atom bonded to one nitrogen atom inside the first and second nitride layer, the first and second nitride layer would comprise gallium nitride, (c) for example, if the first and second nitride layer are formed of AlGaN, which would have been obvious since AlGaN has been one of the most commonly employed GaN-based semiconductor materials as a nucleation layer material, a buffer layer material and/or an underlying support structure material in manufacturing a GaN-based semiconductor device, the first and second nitride layer comprise gallium nitride since AlGaN is a solid solution of AlN and GaN, thus comprising GaN, and (d) for another example, if the first and second nitride layer is formed of AlN, which would have been obvious since AlN has been one of the commonly employed nitride-based semiconductor materials as a nucleation layer material, a buffer layer material and/or an underlying support structure material in manufacturing a GaN-based semiconductor device, doped with or incorporated with Ga atom(s) diffused from the neighboring semiconductor layers, which would also have been obvious since GaN and AlGaN have been commonly employed as semiconductor materials employed in conjunction with AlN in manufacturing a GaN-based semiconductor device, the first and second nitride layer still comprise gallium nitride.
Please refer to the explanations of the corresponding limitations above.
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. disclose a light-emitting element structure (Fig. 11), comprising: a substrate (110); a nucleation layer (120) located above the substrate; a buffer layer (131) located above the nucleation layer; a first nitride layer (132) located above the buffer layer and being in contact with the buffer layer; a second nitride layer (133) located above the first nitride layer and being in contact with the first nitride layer; a first semiconductor layer (150) located above the second nitride layer; a light-emitting layer (160) located above the first semiconductor layer and adapted to emit light when electrons and holes recombine; and a second semiconductor layer (170) located above the light-emitting layer.
Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that an absolute value of a BOW of the light-emitting element structure is less than or equal to 10 and greater than or equal to -10 um.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an absolute value of a BOW of the light-emitting element structure can be less than or equal to 10 and greater than or equal to -10 um, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, (b) the absolute value of the BOW of the light-emitting element structure should be controlled and optimized by (i) selecting a size of the substrate, which would determine the lateral size of the claimed nucleation layer, buffer layer, first and second nitride layer, first and second semiconductor layer, and light-emitting layer, and (ii) controlling the growth parameters and conditions of the claimed nucleation layer, buffer layer, first and second nitride layer, first and second semiconductor layer, and light-emitting layer, (c) the smaller the absolute value of the BOW of the light-emitting element structure is around 0, the more planarized the light-emitting element structure would be, which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture more light-emitting element structures on the substrate without causing difficulty in electrically contacting the plurality of light-emitting element structures, (d) the smaller the absolute value of the BOW of the light-emitting element structure is around 0, the more directional light emitted from the light-emitting element structure would be, which would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture a light-emitting device with a higher light intensity in a desired and intended direction, and (e) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range of the absolute value of the BOW of the light-emitting element structure 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 9, Kim et al. further disclose that number of defects with a diameter greater than 0.5 um per square centimeter of a surface of the second semiconductor layer 170 is smaller than 10, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and (b) no defects would be perfectly spherical or circular to have “a diameter” since there are always atomic-scale corrugations in any defects, rendering the limitation recited in claim 9 inherent since zero defects having the claimed feature is smaller than 10 defects having the claimed feature.
Regarding claim 10, Kim 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 nm, 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, Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the buffer layer 131 is made of AlGaN and has a surface aluminum (Al) concentration of 25±10%.
Kim et al. further disclose that “The buffer layer 130 may include a first layer 131 formed of BxAlyInzGa1-x-y-zN (0≤x<1, 0<y<1, 0≤z≤1, and 0≤x+y+z<1) having a uniform composition ratio” ([0059]), and that “Referring to FIG. 2, the first layer 131 and the third layer 133 contain Ga at a ratio of 0-1, and for example, a ratio of Ga may be between 0.2 and 0.7” ([0066]).
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 buffer layer 131 can be made of AlGaN and has a surface aluminum (Al) concentration of 25±10%, because (a) AlGaN is one of the material compositions that can be expressed by the formula BxAlyInzGa1-x-y-zN disclosed by Kim et al. with x=0 and z=0, and (b) in this case, the ratio of Ga being between 0.2 and 0.7 would imply the ratio of Al being 0.3 and 0.8, which would overlap with the claimed surface Al concentration of 25±10%.
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. further disclose for the light-emitting element structure as claimed in claim 8 that the first semiconductor layer 150 comprise n-type semiconductor ([0094]), because Si, Ge, Se and/or Te are n-type dopants for gallium nitride-based semiconductor materials, and an electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer (150) is greater than or equal to 1x10¹⁸cm⁻³, which is inherent because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim what the “electron concentration” refers to, (b) the first semiconductor layer 150 is formed of “AlxGayInzN (0≤x<1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, and x+y+z=1) doped with n-type impurity that may be Si, Ge, Se, or Te” ([0094]), and (c) the AlxGayInzN has an atomic concentration on the order of 1022 or 1023 cm-3, and each atom has a plurality of electrons.
Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the first semiconductor layer 150 comprises gallium nitride, and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to 1 um.
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 layer 150 can comprise gallium nitride, and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer can be greater than or equal to 1 um, because (a) as discussed above, the first semiconductor layer 150 is formed of AlxGayInzN, which would be gallium nitride when x=0 and z=0, which would have been obvious since 0≤x<1 and 0≤z≤1, and (b) the thickness of the first semiconductor layer can be greater than or equal to 1 um since (i) the first semiconductor layer 150 functions as a contact layer and an optical guide layer, and therefore, the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 150 should be controlled and optimized to achieve the desired functions of the first semiconductor layer 150, (ii) the thicker the first semiconductor layer 150 is, the higher quality the semiconductor layers deposited on the first semiconductor layer 150 would be, and (iii) therefore, the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 150 can be relatively larger to improve quality of the semiconductor layers such as the active layer or the light-emitting layer 160, which would improve performance of the light-emitting element.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer is smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer can be smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer, because (a) the number of dislocation defects tends to remain the same or decrease as more semiconductor layers are grown on the underlying structure, and (b) therefore, the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer can be smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer when at least one dislocation is bent or eliminated at the interface of the first and second nitride layer, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the number of dislocations can also be controlled by controlling and optimizing the growth conditions of the second nitride layer.
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer comprise gallium nitride (GaN).
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 nitride layer and the second nitride layer can comprise gallium nitride (GaN), because (a) Applicants do not claim that the first and second nitride layer essentially consist of gallium nitride, respectively, (b) therefore, as long as there is one gallium atom bonded to one nitrogen atom inside the first and second nitride layer, the first and second nitride layer comprise gallium nitride, (c) for example, if the first and second nitride layer are formed of AlGaN, which would have been obvious since AlGaN has been one of the most commonly employed GaN-based semiconductor materials as a nucleation layer material, a buffer layer material and/or an underlying support structure material in manufacturing a GaN-based semiconductor device, the first and second nitride layer comprise gallium nitride since AlGaN is a solid solution of AlN and GaN, thus comprising GaN, and (d) for another example, if the first and second nitride layer is formed of AlN, which would have been obvious since AlN has been one of the most commonly employed nitride-based semiconductor materials as a nucleation layer material, a buffer layer material and/or an underlying support structure material in manufacturing a GaN-based semiconductor device, doped with or incorporated with Ga atom(s) diffused from the neighboring semiconductor layers, which would also have been obvious since GaN and AlGaN have been commonly employed as semiconductor materials employed in conjunction with AlN in manufacturing a GaN-based semiconductor device, the first and second nitride layer still comprise gallium nitride.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 11,811,008)
Lee et al. (US 11,804,513)
Hung et al. (US 8,928,000)
Shatalov et al. (US 10,460,952)
Tak et al. (US 2015/0118800)
Chen et al., “Effect of Strains and V-Shaped Pit Structures on the Performance of GaN-Based Light-Emitting Diodes,” Crystals 10 (2020) 311.
Zhou et al., “High quality GaN buffer layer by isoelectronic doping and its application to 365nm InGaN/AlGaN ultraviolet light-emitting diodes,” Applied Surface Science 471 (2019) pp. 231-238.
Hu et al., “Effects of GaN/AlGaN/Sputtered AlN nucleation layers on performance of GaN-based ultraviolet light-emitting diodes,” Scientific Reports 7 (2017) 44627.
Zhang et al. (“High Brightness GaN-on-Si Based Blue LEDs Grown on 150 mm Si Substrates Using Thin Buffer Layer Technology,” Journal of the Electron Devices Society 3 (2015) pp. 457-462)
Khan et al., “13 mW operation of a 295–310 nm AlGaN UV-B LED with a p-AlGaN transparent contact layer for real world applications,” Journal of Materials Chemistry C 7 (2019) pp. 143-152.
Lin et al., “Performance improvement of GaN-based light emitting diodes grown on Si(111) substrates by controlling the reactor pressure for the GaN nucleation layer growth,” Journal of Materials Chemistry C 3 (2015) pp. 1484-1490.
Han et al., “Origins of hillock defects on GaN templates grown on Si(111),” Journal of Crystal Growth 434 (2016) 123-127.
Hsu et al., “Crack-Free High-Brightness InGaN ∕ GaN LEDs on Si ( 111 ) with Initial AlGaN Buffer and Two LT-Al Interlayers,” 2007 Journal of Electrochemistry Society H191 (2007) 154.
Haeberlen et al., “Dislocation reduction in MOVPE grown GaN layers on (111)Si using SiNx and AlGaN layers,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 209 (2010) 012017.
Liu et al., “Effects of AlN interlayer on growth of GaN-based LED on patterned silicon substrate,” Crystal Engineering Communication 15 (2013) pp. 3372–3376.
Lin et al. (“A low-temperature AlN interlayer to improve the quality of GaN epitaxial films grown on Si substrates,” Crystal Engineering Communication 18 (2016) pp. 8926–8932.)
Ma et al. (“Investigation on the relationship between dislocation type and the annihilation mechanism of GaN-on-Si,” Materials Letters 311 (2022) 131592)
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 February 20, 2026