DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed May 12, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “number of defects with a diameter greater than 0.5 um per square centimeter of a surface of the second semiconductor layer is smaller than 10, wherein the defects are pit defects” recited in the amended claim 9 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim, because (a) as discussed below under 35 USC 112(a) rejections, Applicants did not originally disclose that the claimed number of defects is solely based on observation of the number of pit defects, and (b) the newly claimed number of defects based on pit defects and a number of defects based on, for example, hexagonal defects, stacking faults or other common defects would have distinct configurations on the surface of the second semiconductor layer. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 9, 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 claim 9, Applicants originally disclosed in paragraph [0019] of current application that “A number of defects with a diameter greater than 0.5 um per square centimeter of a surface of the second semiconductor layer 80 is less than 10, wherein the defects could be, for example, hexagonal defects, stacking faults, pit defects, or other common defects occurred in the epitaxial process, but the defects do not include defects formed by an external force, such as particles or scratches (emphasis added).” However, Applicants did not originally disclose that “number of defects with a diameter greater than 0.5 um per square centimeter of a surface of the second semiconductor layer is smaller than 10, wherein the defects are pit defects” as recited in claim 9, because (a) Applicants do not claim a number of defects or pit defects per se in the amended claim 9, but rather claim a number of pit defects, (b) the related sentence in paragraph [0019] of current application cited above is based on a conjecture rather than an actual observation of pit defects by Applicants, and (c) in other words, Applicants did not originally disclose any specific number of defects of any specific type of defects, but rather disclosed some possibilities of what the defects may be, and therefore, Applicants did not originally disclose that the claimed number of defects can be solely a number of pit defects.
(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 6 and 8-15 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 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” or “a 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 8 of claim 1 may be broadly interpreted, “the dislocation defect” recited in claim 6 and “a dislocation defect” recited in claim 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.
(2) Regarding claim 8, it is not clear what the term “BOW” recited on line 12 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 12 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 9-15 depend on claim 8, and therefore, claims 9-15 are also indefinite.
(3) Regarding claim 9 it is not clear what the limitation “number of defects with a diameter” recited on line 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, (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, and (d) it is not clear how the claimed pit defects can be “defects with a diameter” since pit defects should be formed along certain directions or orientations rather than omnidirectionally.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Drechsel et al. (US 2020/0335658)
In the below prior art rejections, the claim limitation “buffer” specifies an intended use or field of use, and is 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 claims 1 and 6, Drechsel et al. disclose a light-emitting element structure (Fig. 1), comprising: a substrate (1) ([0041]); a nucleation layer (2) ([0042]) located above the substrate; a buffer layer (5 or composite layer of 4 and 5) ([0043]-[0044]) 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 composite layer of the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 and the AlN or AlGaN interlayer 5 can be referred to as “a buffer layer” as well as the individual layers of the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 and the AlN or AlGaN interlayer 5 since they function 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 second GaN semiconductor layer 7 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 (6) ([0045]) located above the buffer layer and being in contact with the buffer layer, because Applicants do not specifically claim any characteristics of the first nitride layer such as its thickness, surface roughness, etc.; a second nitride layer (7 or composite layer of 7 and 8) ([0047]-[0048]) located above the first nitride layer and being in (electrical) contact with the first nitride layer (6), wherein a film thickness of the first nitride layer (6) is less than a film thick of the second nitride layer as shown in Fig. 1 of Drechsel et al., because the bottommost part of the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 begins at the same position of the bottommost part of the 3D AlGaN layer 6; a dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer (7, 8 or composite layer of 7 and 8) is smaller than or equal to 3×109cm-2 ([0051]); a first semiconductor layer (11) ([0054]) located above the second nitride layer; a light-emitting layer (12) ([0053]) located above the first semiconductor layer and adapted to emit light when electrons and holes recombine, because “a pn junction,” “a double heterostructure,” “a simple quantum well structure” or “multiple quantum well structure” disclosed by Dreschel et al. inherently emits light by recombination of electrons and holes with electrons supplied from the n-type semiconductor layer 11 and holes supplied from the p-type semiconductor layer 13; and a second semiconductor layer (13) located above the light-emitting layer; wherein the first nitride layer (6) and the second nitride layer (7 or composite layer of 7 and 8) comprise gallium nitride (GaN), because (a) the 3D AlGaN layer 6 comprises GaN since AlGaN is a solid solution of AlN and GaN, which thus comprises GaN, and (b) the layer 7 is a second GaN semiconductor layer and the layer 8 is a third GaN semiconductor layer (claim 1), wherein the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer (7 or composite layer of 7 and 8) is inherently smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer (6), because (a) the function of the 3D AlGaN layer 6 is to reduce the dislocation defect density from the interlayer 5 to the second GaN semiconductor layer 7, and (b) Drechsel et al. further disclose that “The 3D AlGaN layer 6 disposed atop the Al(Ga)N interlayer 5 thus leads advantageously to a reduction in the dislocation density in the tension layer structure 10 and especially in the functional semiconductor layer sequence 14 grown on subsequently in an electronic or optoelectronic component (emphasis added)” ([0047]), 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, (ii) Applicants do not specifically claim what the first and second nitride layer are formed of, and (iii) 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 (claim 6).
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 2-5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drechsel et al. (US 2020/0335658) The teachings of Drechsel et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, Drechsel et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing 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.
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 to the film thickness of the first nitride layer can be greater than 1 and smaller than or equal to 6, because (a) the ratio of the film thickness of the second nitride layer to the film thickness of the first nitride layer disclosed by Drechsel et al. should be controlled and optimized to improve quality of the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 and the third GaN semiconductor layer 8 by independently controlling and optimizing the thickness of the first nitride layer 6 and the second nitride layer 7/8, (b) the ratio of the film thickness of the second nitride layer to the film thickness of the first nitride layer disclosed by Drechsel et al. should also be controlled and optimized to control the overall thickness of the claimed light-emitting element structure, and (c) 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 3, Drechsel et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that 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.
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 and the film thickness of the second nitride layer can be greater than or equal to 0.5 um and is smaller than or equal to 1.5 um, because (a) the sum of the film thickness of the first nitride layer and the film thickness of the second nitride layer disclosed by Drechsel et al. should be controlled and optimized to improve quality of the second GaN semiconductor layer 7 and the third GaN semiconductor layer 8 by collectively controlling and optimizing the thickness of the first nitride layer 6 and the second nitride layer 7/8, (b) the sum of the film thickness of the first nitride layer and the film thickness of the second nitride layer disclosed by Drechsel et al. should be controlled and optimized to control the overall thickness of the claimed light-emitting element structure, and (c) the claim is prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed range of the sum 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, Drechsel et al. further disclose for the light-emitting element structure as claimed in claim 1 that that the buffer layer (5 or composite layer of 4 and 5) is made of or comprise AlGaN.
Drechsel et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the buffer layer has a surface aluminum (Al) concentration of 25±10%.
Drechsel et al. further disclose in paragraph [0044] that “The Al(Ga)N interlayer 5 is therefore suitable for generating a compressive stress in a second GaN semiconductor layer grown on subsequently.”
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 surface aluminum (Al) concentration of the AlGaN interlayer 5 can be 25±10%, because (a) as disclosed by Drechsel et al., the Al concentration of the AlGaN interlayer 5 would control the compressive stress applied to the second GaN semiconductor layer 7, which would also control the defect density in the second and third GaN semiconductor layer 7/8 including the dislocation defect density in the second and third GaN semiconductor layer 7/8, which thus should be controlled and optimized, and (b) 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, Drechsel et al. further disclose for the light-emitting element as claimed in claim 1 that the first semiconductor layer comprises n-type semiconductor material ([0054]).
Drechsel et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the first semiconductor layer comprises gallium nitride, and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to 1 um; 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 layer 11 can comprise gallium nitride, and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer can be greater than or equal to 1 um; 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 Drechsel et al. due to its well-known bandgap and band structure, (b) the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 11 can be greater than or equal to 1 um since (i) the first semiconductor layer 11 functions as a contact layer and an optical guide layer, and therefore, the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 11 should be controlled and optimized to achieve the desired functions of the first semiconductor layer 11, (ii) the thicker the first semiconductor layer 11 is, the higher quality the semiconductor layers deposited on the first semiconductor layer 11 would be, and (iii) therefore, the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 11 can be relatively larger to improve quality of the semiconductor layers such as the active layer or the light-emitting layer 12, which would improve performance of the light-emitting element, and (c) an electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer 11 can be greater than or equal to 1×1018cm-3 since the electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer 11 should be controlled and optimized to improve performance of the light-emitting element by increasing the conductivity of the first semiconductor layer 11.
Please refer to the explanations of the corresponding limitations above.
Regarding claim 8, Drechsel et al. disclose a light-emitting element structure (Fig. 1), comprising: a substrate (1) ([0041]); a nucleation layer (2) ([0042]) located above the substrate; a buffer layer (5 or composite layer of 4 and 5) ([0043]-[0044]) 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 composite layer of the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 and the AlN or AlGaN interlayer 5 can be referred to as “a buffer layer” as well as the individual layers of the first GaN semiconductor layer 4 and the AlN or AlGaN interlayer 5 since they function 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 second GaN semiconductor layer 7 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 (6) ([0045]) located above the buffer layer and being in contact with the buffer layer, because Applicants do not specifically claim any characteristics of the first nitride layer such as its thickness, surface roughness, etc.; a second nitride layer (7 or composite layer of 7 and 8) ([0047]-[0048]) located above the first nitride layer and being in (electrical) contact with the first nitride layer (6); a first semiconductor layer (11) ([0054]) located above the second nitride layer; a light-emitting layer (12) ([0053]) located above the first semiconductor layer and adapted to emit light when electrons and holes recombine, because “a pn junction,” “a double heterostructure,” “a simple quantum well structure” or “multiple quantum well structure” disclosed by Dreschel et al. inherently emits light by recombination of electrons and holes with electrons supplied from the n-type semiconductor layer 11 and holes supplied from the p-type semiconductor layer 13; and a second semiconductor layer (13) located above the light-emitting layer; wherein the first nitride layer and the second nitride layer comprise gallium nitride (GaN).
Drechsel 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 um 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 um and greater than or equal to -10 um, because (a) 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, (b) 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, (c) 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 (d) 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, Drechsel 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, wherein the defects are pit defects.
Regarding claim 10, Drechsel 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, Drechsel et al. further disclose for the light-emitting element structure as claimed in claim 8 that that the buffer layer (5 or composite layer of 4 and 5) is made of or comprise AlGaN.
Drechsel et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the buffer layer has a surface aluminum (Al) concentration of 25±10%.
Drechsel et al. further disclose in paragraph [0044] that “The Al(Ga)N interlayer 5 is therefore suitable for generating a compressive stress in a second GaN semiconductor layer grown on subsequently.”
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 surface aluminum (Al) concentration of the AlGaN interlayer 5 can be 25±10%, because (a) as disclosed by Drechsel et al., the Al concentration of the AlGaN interlayer 5 would control the compressive stress applied to the second GaN semiconductor layer 7, which would also control the defect density in the second and third GaN semiconductor layer including the dislocation defect density in the second and third GaN semiconductor layer, which thus should be controlled and optimized, and (b) 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, Drechsel et al. further disclose for the light-emitting element as claimed in claim 8 that the first semiconductor layer comprises n-type semiconductor material ([0054]).
Drechsel et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the first semiconductor layer comprises gallium nitride, and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer is greater than or equal to 1 um; 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 layer 11 can comprise gallium nitride, and a thickness of the first semiconductor layer can be greater than or equal to 1 um; 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 in manufacturing nitride semiconductor light-emitting elements disclosed by Drechsel et al. due to its well-known bandgap and band structure, (b) the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 11 can be greater than or equal to 1 um since (i) the first semiconductor layer 11 functions as a contact layer and an optical guide layer, and therefore, the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 11 should be controlled and optimized to achieve the desired functions of the first semiconductor layer 11, (ii) the thicker the first semiconductor layer 11 is, the higher quality the semiconductor layers deposited on the first semiconductor layer 11 would be, and (iii) therefore, the thickness of the first semiconductor layer 11 can be relatively larger to improve quality of the semiconductor layers such as the active layer or the light-emitting layer 12, which would improve performance of the light-emitting element, and (c) an electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer 11 can be greater than or equal to 1×1018cm-3 since the electron concentration of the first semiconductor layer 11 should be controlled and optimized to improve performance of the light-emitting element by increasing the conductivity of the first semiconductor layer 11.
Regarding claim 13, Drechsel et al. further disclose for the light-emitting device as claimed in claim 8 that the dislocation defect density of the second nitride layer (7, 8 or composite layer of 7 and 8) is inherently smaller than a dislocation defect density of the first nitride layer (6), because (a) the function of the 3D AlGaN layer 6 is to reduce the dislocation defect density from the interlayer 5 to the second GaN semiconductor layer 7, and (b) Drechsel et al. further disclose that “The 3D AlGaN layer 6 disposed atop the Al(Ga)N interlayer 5 thus leads advantageously to a reduction in the dislocation density in the tension layer structure 10 and especially in the functional semiconductor layer sequence 14 grown on subsequently in an electronic or optoelectronic component (emphasis added)” ([0047]), 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, (ii) Applicants do not specifically claim what the first and second nitride layer are formed of, and (iii) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Humphreys et al. (US 2013/0270575)
Kappers et al. (US 9,705,031)
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 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights