DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MI et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2016/0365480 A1, hereinafter, “MI”) in view of Wang et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2016/0126381 A1, hereinafter, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1 MI discloses a method of fabricating a nanowire (see MI, FIG. 6A) comprising:
forming a first semiconductor nanowire region (n-GaN, FIG. 6A) with a first type of doping (n-type);
forming a quantum structure (AlInGaN, FIG. 6A) on the first semiconductor nanowire region (n-GaN), the quantum structure (AlInGaN) including one or more quantum core structures (FIG. 6A) and a quantum shell structure (FIG. 6A and ¶ [0009]) disposed about a periphery of the one or more quantum core structures (FIG. 6A); and
forming a second semiconductor nanowire region (p-GaN, FIG. 6A) with a second type of doping (p-type) on the quantum structure (AlInGaN, FIG. 6A).
MI is silent regarding that the nanowire is formed by Selective Area Growth (SAG) method.
Wang, however, discloses that SAG is a method to grow nanowire (¶ [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form MI’s nanowire by SAG method, as taught by Wang, since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, MI in view of Wang discloses the method of fabricating the nanowire of Claim 1, wherein: forming by SAG the first semiconductor nanowire region (MI’s n-GaN, FIG. 6A) with the first type of doping includes epitaxially depositing n-type doped Gallium Nitride (GaN); and forming by SAG the second semiconductor nanowire region (MI’s p-GaN, FIG. 6A) with the second type of doping includes epitaxially depositing p-type doped Gallium Nitride (GaN).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MI et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2016/0365480 A1, hereinafter, “MI”) in view of Wang et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2016/0126381 A1, hereinafter, “Wang”), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of MI et al. (US PG-Pub No.: 2013/0240348 A1, hereinafter, “MI2”).
Regarding claim 2, MI in view of Wang discloses the method of fabricating the nanowire of Claim 1.
MI in view of Wang is silent regarding forming by SAG a quantum structure comprises: forming a quantum active region; and forming by SAG a quantum barrier region on the quantum active region.
MI2, however, discloses a method of fabricating nanowire (see MI2, FIG. 10), comprising forming a quantum active region (1040, FIG. 10); and forming a quantum barrier region (1030, FIG. 10) on the quantum active region (1040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to form a quantum active region; and forming a quantum barrier region on the quantum active region for MI’s device, as taught by MI2, since it is an alternative design.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-13 are allowed.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the claimed subject of claim 3, in particular, the quantum core structure is formed from layers of the Indium Gallium Nitride (InGaN) and the Aluminum Gallium Nitride (AlGaN) and the quantum shell structure is formed from the Aluminum Gallium Nitride (AlGaN).
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious all the claimed subject of base claim 5, in particular, forming a nano-pattern layer including one or more cluster of openings; forming a first semiconductor region with a first type of doping disposed in the one or more cluster of openings in the nano-pattern layer. Claims 6-13 depend upon claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIA L. CROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-3273. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am-5:30 pm.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/XIA L. CROSS/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2892
/XIA L CROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights