Attorney Docket Number: 6774-0521PUS1
Filing Date: 8/16/2023
Claimed Foreign Priority Date: 9/06/2022 (KR10-2022-0112694)
Inventors: Yang et al.
Examiner: Thomas McCoy
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed 4/06/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the
application as to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis
(i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of
rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the
same under either status.
Acknowledgement
The Amendment filed on 4/06/2026, responding to the Office action mailed 1/05/2026, has
been entered. Applicant amended claims 1, 6 and 18, and cancelled claims 19-34. The
present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the respective claim objections and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 1/05/2026. Accordingly, the claim rejections of 35 U.S.C. 103 are hereby withdrawn. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-18. New grounds of rejection are presented below, however, upon further search/consideration and as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3, 5, 7, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 20190189846 A1) in view of Bernhardt (US 20140346553 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a light-emitting device (e.g., ultraviolet light emitting device 20) comprising:
A nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”) including a first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22), an active layer (e.g., active layer 25) disposed on the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22), and a second semiconductor layer (e.g., second semiconductor layer 27) disposed on the active layer (e.g., active layer 25);
A first electrode (e.g., first electrode 29a) electrically connected to the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22);
A second electrode (e.g., second electrode 29b) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer (e.g., second semiconductor layer 27);
Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A), however, fails to show a passivation pattern disposed along opposing lateral outer sides of the nitride semiconductor structure in plan view, wherein an upper surface of the passivation pattern is substantially coplanar with an upper surface of the second semiconductor layer.
Bernhardt (see, e.g., fig. 2H), in a similar device to Park, teaches a passivation pattern (e.g., passivation material 114) disposed on opposing side surfaces of a nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., second semiconductor material 108 + active region 106 + first semiconductor material 104), wherein an upper surface of the passivation pattern (e.g., passivation material 114) is substantially coplanar (see, e.g., fig. 2H, note passivation pattern 114 extends to same plane as first semiconductor material 104, see annotated fig. 1 below, also see paragraph 20) with an upper surface of a second semiconductor layer (e.g., p-type semiconducting layer 36).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the passivation layer of Bernhardt on the opposing lateral sides of the nitride semiconductor structure and coplanar with the upper surface of the second semiconductor layer of Park, in order to achieve the expected result of protecting the light-emitting area from external electrical interference or contamination, while simultaneously leaving the second semiconductor layer exposed for additional electrodes/contacts as desired (hence, the coplanar configuration).
Regarding claim 3, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows wherein one side surface (e.g., left-side of fig. 2A) of the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”) is aligned in a line, and wherein another side surface (e.g., right-side surface) opposite to the one side surface of the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”) has a step so that a portion of an upper surface of the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22) is exposed.
Regarding claim 5, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows wherein each of the second semiconductor layer (e.g., second semiconductor layer 27) and the active layer (e.g., active layer 25) has a first width, wherein the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22) includes an upper portion (e.g., upper portion of annotated fig. 2) having a width equal to the first width, and a lower portion (e.g., lower portion of annotated fig. 2) having a second width larger than the first width (e.g., lower portion of annotated fig. 2), and wherein the lower portion (e.g., lower portion of annotated fig. 2) of the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22) has a protruding portion extending outwardly beyond an opposing sidewall of the upper portion (e.g., upper portion of annotated fig. 1) of the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22), wherein the protruding portion has an exposed upper surface (e.g., exposed upper surface of first semiconductor layer 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
247
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1
Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) does not explicitly show the other side of the first semiconductor layer also extends outwardly beyond the opposing sidewall of the upper portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify shape the first semiconductor layer to expand the layer outward away from the upper portion/active layer, keeping a low amount of space required to make contact between the semiconductor layer and active area, while simultaneously increasing the efficiency and performance of the device as the area is expanded on the opposite side. Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). One having ordinary skill in the art would have had success in making this modification because Park further teaches that the conception and specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures or processes for carrying out the same purposes of the present disclosure (see paragraph 61 of Park).
Regarding claim 7, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows wherein side surfaces of the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22), the active layer (e.g., active layer 25), and the second semiconductor layer (e.g., second semiconductor layer 27) in the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”) are aligned to each other.
Regarding claim 14, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows the smallest width at a median vertical level of the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”).
Park in view of Bernhardt, however, fails to explicitly teach the nitride semiconductor structure has a substantially hourglass shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the of shape the second semiconductor layer and active layer to expand outward in the vertical direction away from the first semiconductor layer, keeping a low amount of space required to make contact between the first semiconductor layer and active area, while simultaneously increasing the efficiency and performance of the device as the area is expanded on the opposite side, in addition to modifying the shape of the first semiconductor layer to expand the layer outward to match the protrusion profile of the opposite side, keeping a low amount of space required to make contact between the first semiconductor layer and active area (note that with both semiconductor layers expanding outward, the result is an hourglass-like shape). Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). One having ordinary skill in the art would have had success in making this modification because Park further teaches that the conception and specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures or processes for carrying out the same purposes of the present disclosure (see paragraph 61 of Park).
Regarding claim 16, Bernhardt (see, e.g., fig. 10) teaches the passivation pattern (e.g., passivation pattern 114) includes a non-conductive material (see, e.g., paragraph 18 “The passivation material 114 can include at least one of silicon oxide…silicon nitride…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the insulating material of Bernhardt within the passivation layer of Park in view of Bernhardt, as silicon dioxide/silicon nitride was well-known in the art at the time of filing the invention to be included within a passivation layer, as taught by Bernhardt.
Regarding claim 17, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows wherein each of at least one of the first electrode (e.g., first electrode 29a) and the second electrode (e.g., second electrode 29b) has at least one of an exposed upper surface (see, e.g., exposed upper surface of first and second electrodes) and an exposed side surface (see, e.g., exposed side surface of first and second electrodes).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka (US 20190305187 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”) further includes a base/buffer layer (e.g., base layer 21) disposed under the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22).
Park in view of Bernhardt, however, fails to explicitly teach this base/buffer layer under the first semiconductor layer is undoped.
Otsuka (fig. 1), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt, teaches a nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., p-side clad layer 8 + paragraph 17 “The p-side nitride semiconductor layers include a p-side clad layer 8…” + active layer 7 + n-side contact layer 5 + undoped layer 4) further includes an undoped semiconductor layer (e.g., undoped layer 4) disposed under a first semiconductor layer (e.g., n-side contact layer 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the undoped configuration of Otsuka within the base layer of Park in view of Bernhardt, in order to provide a neutral base for the doped layer, modulating the electrical and structural properties within the doped configuration, optimizing the consistency of the device’s performance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka and Sung (US 20220077348 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”) further includes a base/buffer layer (e.g., base layer 21) disposed under the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22), and wherein this base layer (e.g., base layer 21) has a portion extending outwardly beyond an outer side surface of at least one of the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22), the active layer (e.g., active layer 25), and the second semiconductor layer (e.g., second semiconductor layer 27).
Park in view of Bernhardt, however, fails to explicitly teach this base/buffer layer under the first semiconductor layer is undoped, while it also fails to teach a protruding portion of this undoped semiconductor layer has an exposed upper surface, and wherein the passivation pattern is disposed on the exposed upper surface of the protruding portion of the undoped semiconductor layer.
Otsuka (fig. 1), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt, teaches a nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., p-side clad layer 8 + paragraph 17 “The p-side nitride semiconductor layers include a p-side clad layer 8…” + active layer 7 + n-side contact layer 5 + undoped layer 4) further includes an undoped semiconductor layer (e.g., undoped layer 4) disposed under a first semiconductor layer (e.g., n-side contact layer 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the undoped configuration of Otsuka within the base layer of Park in view of Bernhardt, in order to provide a neutral base for the doped layer, modulating the electrical and structural properties within the doped configuration, which optimizing the consistency of the device’s performance.
Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, however, fails to teach a protruding portion of this undoped semiconductor layer has an exposed upper surface, and wherein the passivation pattern is disposed on the exposed upper surface of the protruding portion of the undoped semiconductor layer.
Sung (see, e.g., fig. 13), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, teaches a protruding portion of an undoped layer (e.g., buffer layer 211 + paragraph 123 “…the buffer layer 211 may include a dopant, but it is not limited thereto…”) has an exposed upper surface (see, e.g., exposed upper surface of buffer layer 211 in fig. 13), and a protective layer (e.g., insulating layer 252) is disposed on the exposed upper surface (see, e.g., exposed upper surface of buffer layer 211 in fig. 13) .
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the protrusion configuration and protective layer covering of Sung on the undoped layer of Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, in order to achieve the expected result of providing additional performance modulation and protection within the device.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka and Son (US 20070210319 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows the wherein each of the second semiconductor layer (e.g., second semiconductor layer 27) and the active layer (e.g., active layer 25) have a first width, wherein the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22) includes an upper portion (see, e.g., annotated fig. 1 above) having a width equal to the first width with a step on an opposing side surface, and the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”) further includes a base/buffer layer (e.g., base layer 21) disposed under the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22).
Park in view of Bernhardt, however, fails to explicitly teach this base/buffer layer under the first semiconductor layer is undoped, while it also fails to teach the first semiconductor layer has a lower portion having a second width smaller than the first width.
Otsuka (fig. 1), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt, teaches a nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., p-side clad layer 8 + paragraph 17 “The p-side nitride semiconductor layers include a p-side clad layer 8…” + active layer 7 + n-side contact layer 5 + undoped layer 4) further includes an undoped semiconductor layer (e.g., undoped layer 4) disposed under a first semiconductor layer (e.g., n-side contact layer 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the undoped configuration of Otsuka within the base layer of Park in view of Bernhardt, in order to provide a neutral base for the doped layer, modulating the electrical and structural properties within the doped configuration, which optimizing the consistency of the device’s performance.
Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, however, fails to teach the first semiconductor layer has a lower portion that has a second width smaller than the first width.
Son (see, e.g., fig. 6), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, teaches a first semiconductor layer (e.g., conduction type semiconductor layer 240) having a smaller width than a second semiconductor layer (e.g., conduction type semiconductor layer 240).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the decreasing width configuration of Son within the lower portion of the first semiconductor layer of Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, in order to achieve the expected result of reducing the cost of manufacturing the necessary materials during fabrication of the device.
Regarding claim 10, Bernhardt (see, e.g., fig. 10) teaches the passivation pattern (e.g., passivation material 114) covering opposing sidewalls of each of a second semiconductor layer (e.g., p-type semiconductor layer 23) and an active layer (e.g., active layer 22), and all opposing sidewalls of a first semiconductor layer (e.g., n-type semiconductor layer 21).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the passivation pattern configuration of Bernhardt around the sidewalls of the second semiconductor layer, active layer, first semiconductor layer, and undoped semiconductor layer of Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka and Son, in order to provide additional protection from external damage and contamination (see paragraph 30 of Bernhardt).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Watanabe (US 20080210957 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Park (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”) has an inverse T-shape (see, e.g., ) in a cross-section view of the light-emitting device.
Park in view of Bernhardt, however, fails to explicitly teach the nitride semiconductor has an inverse T-shape (protrusion in both directions) in a cross-section in view of the light-emitting device.
Watanabe (see, e.g., fig. 7B), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt, teaches a nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., n-type nitride III-V compound semiconductor layer 2 + active layer 3 + p-type nitride III-V compound semiconductor layer 4) has an inverse T-shape in a cross-section view (see, e.g., fig. 7B).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the inverse T-shape of Watanabe within the nitride semiconductor structure of Park in view of Bernhardt, in order to achieve the expected result of expanding the lower semiconductor layer within the nitride structure, increasing the size and capabilities of the device. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the shape of the first semiconductor layer to expand the layer outward to match the protrusion profile of the opposite side, keeping a low amount of space required to make contact between the first semiconductor layer and active area, while simultaneously increasing the efficiency and performance of the device as the area is expanded on the opposite side. Furthermore, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). One having ordinary skill in the art would have had success in making this modification because Park further teaches that the conception and specific embodiment disclosed may be readily utilized as a basis for modifying or designing other structures or processes for carrying out the same purposes of the present disclosure (see paragraph 61 of Park).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka and König (US 20190348568 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Park shows the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22 + active layer 25 + second semiconductor layer 27 + paragraph 29 “…semiconductor layer 22 may be an n-type nitride…semiconductor layer 27…may be a p-type nitride…”) further includes a base/buffer layer (e.g., base layer 21) disposed under the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first semiconductor layer 22).
Park, however, fails to show a passivation pattern includes a first pattern portion surrounding an outer side surface of the nitride semiconductor structure, and a second pattern portion including a plurality of column portions spaced apart from each other, wherein each of the plurality of column portions extends through the undoped semiconductor layer to be disposed in the first semiconductor layer.
Bernhardt (see, e.g., fig. 10) teaches the passivation pattern (e.g., passivation pattern 114) includes a first portion surrounding an outer side surface of the nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., paragraph 21 “…n-type semiconductor layer 21 + the active layer 22 + p-type semiconductor layer 23…selected from group III nitride semiconductor material”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the passivation pattern of Bernhardt onto the nitride semiconductor structure of Park, in order to protect the side area from external interference or contamination (see paragraph 30 of Bernhardt).
Park in view of Bernhardt, however, fails to explicitly teach this base/buffer layer under the first semiconductor layer is undoped, and fails to teach a second pattern portion including a plurality of column portions spaced apart from each other, wherein each of the plurality of column portions extends through the undoped semiconductor layer to be disposed in the first semiconductor layer.
Otsuka (fig. 1), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt, teaches a nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., p-side clad layer 8 + paragraph 17 “The p-side nitride semiconductor layers include a p-side clad layer 8…” + active layer 7 + n-side contact layer 5 + undoped layer 4) further includes an undoped semiconductor layer (e.g., undoped layer 4) disposed under a first semiconductor layer (e.g., n-side contact layer 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the undoped configuration of Otsuka within the base layer of Park in view of Bernhardt, in order to provide a neutral base for the doped layer, modulating the electrical and structural properties within the doped configuration, which optimizing the consistency of the device’s performance.
Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, however, fails to teach the passivation pattern has a second pattern portion including a plurality of column portions spaced apart from each other, wherein each of the plurality of column portions extends through the undoped semiconductor layer to be disposed in the first semiconductor layer.
König (see, e.g., fig. 5B), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, teaches a passivation portion (e.g., passivation 60) including a plurality of column portions (see, e.g., passivation 60 columns in trenches) spaced apart from each other, wherein each of the plurality of column portions (see, e.g., passivation 60 columns in trenches) is disposed in the first semiconductor layer (e.g., first region 101).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to dispose the passivation portion of König within through the undoped layer within the first semiconductor layer of Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, in order to provide protection from environmental damage/material (see paragraph 64 of König).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka and Nemoto (US 20180010246 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Park in view of Bernhardt fails to teach the first electrode, an undoped semiconductor layer, the second electrode, and the second semiconductor layer are disposed in a concentric configuration.
Otsuka (fig. 1), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt, teaches a nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., p-side clad layer 8 + paragraph 17 “The p-side nitride semiconductor layers include a p-side clad layer 8…” + active layer 7 + n-side contact layer 5 + undoped layer 4) further includes an undoped semiconductor layer (e.g., undoped layer 4) disposed under a first semiconductor layer (e.g., n-side contact layer 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the undoped configuration of Otsuka within the base layer of Park in view of Bernhardt, in order to provide a neutral base for the doped layer, modulating the electrical and structural properties within the doped configuration, optimizing the consistency of the device’s performance.
Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, however, fails to teach the first electrode, the undoped semiconductor layer, the second electrode, and the second semiconductor layer are disposed in a concentric configuration.
Nemoto (see, e.g., fig. 3B), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, teaches a nitride semiconductor structure (e.g., nitride semiconductor layer 15/nitride semiconductor template 10) disposed in a concentric configuration (see, e.g., paragraphs 71-72 “…nitride semiconductor layer 15 is a substantially concentric circle...nitride semiconductor template 10 is in a concentric circular shape…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the semiconductor layer configuration of Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka to the concentric configuration of Nemoto, in order to minimize the potential warpage effects of the crystal quality (see paragraph 72 of Nemoto).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, König, and Hua (US 20140131876 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka fails to teach the passivation has a head portion having a taper shape and a column portion extending from the head portion and having a reverse taper shape.
König (see, e.g., fig. 5B), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, teaches a passivation portion (e.g., passivation 60) has a column portion (see passivation 60 columns in trenches).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to dispose the passivation portion of König within through the undoped layer within the first semiconductor layer of Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, in order to provide protection from environmental damage/material (see paragraph 64 of König).
Park in view of Otsuka and König, however, fails to teach the passivation portion has a head portion having a taper shape.
Hua (see, e.g., fig. 2), in a similar device to Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka and König, teaches a passivation pattern (e.g., passivation layer 12) has a tapered portion (see, e.g., paragraph 22 “…a lateral surface of the passivation layer 12 has a tapered shape…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include the tapered portion of Hua onto the top column portion of Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka and König, in order to achieve the expected result of providing additional protection from environmental damage/material as necessary.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4: the primary art of record, Park in view of Bernhardt, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the passivation pattern has a contact hole exposing a portion of the exposed portion of the upper surface of the first semiconductor layer, wherein the first electrode includes: a column portion filling the contact hole to be connected to the first semiconductor layer; and a head portion extending from the column portion and disposed on an upper surface of the passivation pattern, and wherein at least a partial area of the second electrode overlaps the upper surface of the passivation pattern. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6: the primary art of record, Park in view of Bernhardt, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the passivation pattern has a contact hole exposing a portion of the exposed upper surface of the protruding portion of the lower portion of the first semiconductor layer at one side of the lower portion, wherein the first electrode includes: a column portion filling the contact hole to be connected to the first semiconductor layer; and a head portion extending from the column portion and disposed on the upper surface of the passivation pattern, and wherein at least a partial area of the second electrode overlaps the upper surface of the passivation pattern. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13: the primary art of record, Park in view of Bernhardt further in view of Otsuka, neither anticipates nor renders obvious wherein the nitride semiconductor structure has: a first slanted side wall surface having a first slope in a first direction so that a width of the nitride semiconductor structure decreases from the second semiconductor layer toward the first semiconductor layer in the first direction; and a second slanted side wall surface extending from the first slanted side wall surface and having a second slope in a second direction being different from the first direction, so that the width of the nitride semiconductor structure increases from the first semiconductor layer toward the undoped semiconductor layer in the second direction. These features in combination with other elements in the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Thomas McCoy at (571) 272-0282 and between the hours of 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM
(Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Thomas.McCoy@uspto.gov. If attempts
to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be
reached on (571) 272-1705. 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.
/THOMAS WILSON MCCOY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2814 /WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights