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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, species I-A, claims 1-3 and 10-13, in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden on the Examiner to collectively examine the different claim Groups and Species of the subject application. This is not found persuasive because the standard for U.S. national stage applications under 35 U.S.C. 371 is the requirement for unity of invention, the basis of which is determining a special technical feature between the groups. It is noted the existence of the common technical feature in groups I and II, however, there is no contribution of this feature over the prior art, as discussed in the Requirement for Restriction. Examiner notes that while Applicant argues that there is no search burden on the examiner, serious search burden is a requirement for US applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), not for the national stage entry applications.
Claims 4-9 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/14/2025. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 1-3 and 10-13 are currently examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “A method of providing one or more epitaxial lateral overgrowth …growing one or more epitaxial lateral overgrowth...” which should read “A method of providing one or more epitaxial lateral overgrowth … growing the one or more epitaxial lateral overgrowth...”
Claim 3 recites “… one or more epitaxial lateral overgrowth...” which should read “… the one or more epitaxial lateral overgrowth...”
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 12 and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The recited in claim 12 “…the semiconducting substrate is independent of crystal orientations …” constitutes an indefinite subject matter. It is not clear what “the semiconducting substrate is independent of crystal orientations” means. Therefore, the metes and bounds of claim 12 are not readily ascertainable. Clarification and/or correction are/is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the growth restrict mask". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Takehiro Yoshida (WO 2020096045 A1, US 20210391427 A1 used as corresponding English translation, “Yoshida”).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida teaches a method of providing one or more epitaxial lateral overgrowth (ELO) layers, comprising preparing a substrate 1/10 (host substrate) (figs 2-7, abstract, 0005-0009, 0049-0056, 0090, 0199, 0200), wherein valleys/peaks/ mountains (one or more patterns) are formed on the host substrate (0019, 0020, 0096-0100, 0115-0120, 0143-0146, 0151-0154); and growing one or more epitaxial lateral overgrowth (ELO) layers on the host substrate (figs 3-7, abstract, 0009, 0010, 0066, 0081, 0090, 0109, 0114, 0142, 0172, 0175, 0197-0199, 0226, 0245, 0476, 0477 and claim 1), wherein the ELO layers include maintaining (copies) of the patterns (valleys/ peaks/ mountains) (figs 4-6, abstract, 0118, 0140, 0160-0168, 0178, 0199).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida teaches the patterns result in structures with different/variable light emission intensity (light controlling structures) at an interface between the ELO layers and the host substrate (0042, 0043, 0230, 0232, 0239, 0401).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida teaches the patterns comprise one or more random valley-hill (valley/mountain/peak) patterns (0096-0100, 0284, 0400).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida teaches the host substrate has valleys with lengths (trenches) (fig 10(a), 0398, 0399).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshida teaches the host substrate is a semiconducting substrate (0055, 0352, 0364, 0402, 0403).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida teaches that the patterns (valley/mountain/peak) of the semiconducting substrate are randomly formed as addressed, similar to the patterns of the substrate comprising random valley-hill patterns. Therefore, “the semiconducting substrate being independent of crystal orientations” is reasonably expected because a similar process/method is expected to produce similar results/effects.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamikawa et al (WO 2018204916 A1, “Kamikawa”).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshida does not explicitly teach that the growth restrict mask is comprised of one or more layers. However, Kamikawa teaches a method, wherein a growth restrict mask is comprised of one or more layers (page 9 lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have modified Yoshida per teachings of Kamikawa in order to provide high quality layer for manufacturing semiconductor device (Kamikawa abstract, page 4 line 25 to page 5 line 2, page 21 line 21 to page 22 line 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Qi whose telephone number is (571)272-3193. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/HUA QI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights