DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. (US Pub. 2014/0159060) in view of Tanaka et al. (US Pub. 2005/0179130).
Regarding independent claim 1, Chiu teaches a composite substrate (Fig. 2A-3D; para. 0038+), comprising:
a base (21; para. 0038); and
a nano-diamond structure on the base, wherein the nano-diamond structure comprises a plurality of nano-diamond protrusions (22) spaced along a horizontal direction, and a gap is between two adjacent nano-diamond protrusions of the plurality of the nano- diamond protrusions (Fig. 2A, 2B; para. 0039+);
wherein the plurality of the nano-diamond protrusions are nanoscale diamond crystalline grains, and particle sizes of the nanoscale diamond crystalline grains are between 0.01 µm and 8 µm (para. 0048), such that when the composite substrate is used in a photoelectronic device, the nano-diamond structure is used to avoid absorbing light emitted by an active layer in the optoelectronic device (para. 0027-0028).
The disclosed particle sizes of the nanoscale diamond crystalline grains is between 0.01 µm and 8 µm in one preferred embodiment (para. 0048) which overlaps with the claimed range of “less than or equal to 200nm” (200nm = 0.2µm); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose values within the overlapping portions of the range for the purpose of providing sufficient reflecting such that electro-optical efficiency is enhanced (para. 0027-0028). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Chiu is silent with respect to wherein the active layer emits UV light specifically.
Tanaka teaches and an optoelectronic device including and active layer emitting UV light (para. 0124, 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the active layer of Chiu such that it emitted UV light as taught by Tanaka for the purpose of forming a UV LED known to have utilities such as sanitation/disinfection.
Re claim 4, Chiu teaches wherein a material of the nano-diamond structure comprises a non-doped material (para. 0038).
Re claim 5, Chui teaches a photoelectric device (Fig. 4; para. 0051+), comprising:
the composite substrate (31, 311; para. 0052) according to claim 1 (refer also to the rej. of claim 1); and
a first semiconductor layer (321), an active layer (323) and a second semiconductor layer (322) that are stacked on the composite substrate, wherein a conductive type of the first semiconductor layer is opposite to a conductive type of the second semiconductor layer (para. 0052), the first semiconductor layer comprises convex parts and a flat part that are sequentially stacked along a vertical direction, the convex parts are in gaps, and the convex parts corresponds to the gaps respectively, the flat part is on the convex parts and the nano-diamond structure, and a side of the flat part far from the nano-diamond structure is a plane (Fig. 4).
Chui is silent with respect to the conductive type of the first nano-diamond structure.
Tanaka teaches a photoelectric device wherein the substrate may be conductive (para. 0117-0118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a conductive substrate as taught by Tanaka for the device of Chiu for the purpose of; for example, improved current flow. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that in the case of using a conductive substrate - the conductive type of the first semiconductor layer must be the same as a conductive type of the nano-diamond structure for proper functioning of the device; that is, if they were opposite conductive types, a p-n junction between the substrate and the active layers would be formed resulting in inhibited current flow within the LED.
Re claim 6, Chiu is silent with respect to wherein materials of the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer are wide band gap semiconductor materials, and band gaps of the wide band gap semiconductor materials are greater than 2.0 eV.
Tanaka teaches a photoelectric device wherein materials of the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer are wide band gap semiconductor materials, and band gaps of the wide band gap semiconductor materials are greater than 2.0 eV (para. 0123, 0127 – the materials disclosed have band gaps greater than 2.0eV.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the materials disclosed by Tanaka for the first semiconductor layer and the second semiconductor layer of Chiu to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of; for example, provide an ultraviolet emitting LED (Tanaka para. 0124, 0174).
Re claim 7, Chiu teaches a first electrode (35) and a second electrode (34), wherein a groove is on the second semiconductor layer, which penetrates through the second semiconductor layer and the active layer, and at least a part of the first semiconductor layer is left below the groove, the first electrode is on a bottom of the groove, and the second electrode is on the second semiconductor layer (Fig. 4; para. 0054).
Re claims 8 and 9, Chiu teaches a first electrode (35) and a second electrode (34), wherein the first electrode is on the first semiconductor layer, and the second electrode is on the second semiconductor layer (Fig. 4; para. 0054).
Chiu does not teach wherein the first electrode is beneath the composite substrate.
Tanaka teaches a photoelectric device (Fig. 6) wherein the analogous first electrode (16) can be formed on the analogous first semiconductor layer (11) or wherein the first electrode is beneath the analogous composite substrate (10) (para. 0118), wherein the second electrode comprises a reflector material (para. 0136 – the materials disclosed are reflective).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the location of the first electrode layer of Chiu as taught by Tanaka for the purpose of; for example, forming a vertical LED.
Regarding independent claim 10, Chiu teaches a manufacturing method of a photoelectric device (Fig. 4; para. 0051+), comprising:
S1: forming a composite substrate (30, 311; para. 0052), comprising: providing a base (30) and forming a nano-diamond structure on the base, wherein the nano-diamond structure comprises a plurality of nano-diamond protrusions (311) spaced along a horizontal direction, and a gap is arranged between two adjacent nano-diamond protrusions of the plurality of the nano- diamond protrusions (Fig. 4; refer also to Fig. 2A, 2B; para. 0039+);
S2: forming a first semiconductor layer (321) on the composite substrate, by epitaxially growing the first semiconductor layer using the nano-diamond protrusions as a mask, wherein the first semiconductor layer comprises convex parts and a flat part that are sequentially stacked in a vertical direction, the convex parts are formed in gaps, the convex parts correspond to the gaps respectively, the flat part of the first semiconductor layer is formed on an upper surface of the nano-diamond structure and on the convex parts, a side of the flat part far from the nano-diamond structure is a plane (Fig. 4; para. 0053); and
S3: sequentially forming an active layer (323) and a second semiconductor layer (322) on the first semiconductor layer, wherein a conductive type of the second semiconductor layer is opposite to the conductive type of the first semiconductor layer (para. 0053);
wherein the plurality of the nano-diamond protrusions are nanoscale diamond crystalline grains, and particle sizes of the nanoscale diamond crystalline grains are between 0.01 µm and 8 µm (para. 0048), such that when the composite substrate is used in a photoelectronic device, the nano-diamond structure is used to avoid absorbing light emitted by an active layer in the optoelectronic device (para. 0027-0028).
The disclosed particle sizes of the nanoscale diamond crystalline grains is between 0.01 µm and 8 µm in one preferred embodiment (para. 0048) which overlaps with the claimed range of “less than or equal to 200nm” (200nm = 0.2µm); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose values within the overlapping portions of the range for the purpose of providing sufficient reflecting such that electro-optical efficiency is enhanced (para. 0027-0028). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Chiu is silent with respect to wherein the active layer emits UV light specifically.
Tanaka teaches and an optoelectronic device including and active layer emitting UV light (para. 0124, 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the active layer of Chiu such that it emitted UV light as taught by Tanaka for the purpose of forming a UV LED known to have utilities such as sanitation/disinfection.
Chui is silent with respect to the conductive type of the first nano-diamond structure.
Tanaka teaches a photoelectric device wherein the substrate may be conductive (para. 0117-0118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a conductive substrate as taught by Tanaka for the device of Chiu for the purpose of; for example, improved current flow. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that in the case of using a conductive substrate - the conductive type of the first semiconductor layer must be the same as a conductive type of the nano-diamond structure for proper functioning of the device; that is, if they were opposite conductive types, a p-n junction between the substrate and the active layers would be formed resulting in inhibited current flow within the LED.
Re claim 11, Chiu teaches further comprising:
S4: forming a groove on the second semiconductor layer, wherein the groove penetrates through the second semiconductor layer and the active layer, and at least a part of the first semiconductor layer is left below the groove; and
S5: forming a first electrode (35) on a bottom of the groove, and forming a second electrode (34) on the second semiconductor layer (para. 0054).
Chiu is silent with respect to forming the groove by etching.
Tanaka teaches a method of forming a photoelectric device including wherein the analogous groove formed by etching (Fig. 25A, 25B; para. 0149).
Because Chiu is silent with respect to a specific forming method of the groove, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to look elsewhere to find a suitable method. Tanaka discloses a suitable method; that is, etching. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to predictably form the groove of Chiu by etching as taught by Tanaka with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2142, I, A).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. (US Pub. 2014/0159060) in view of Tanaka et al. (US Pub. 2005/0179130) and further in view of Nishibayashi et al. (US Pub. 2004/0058539).
Re claim 3, Chiu is silent with respect to wherein a material of the nano-diamond structure comprises boron-doped diamond material.
Tanaka teaches a photoelectric device wherein the substrate may be conductive (para. 0117-0118). Nishibayashi teaches doping diamond substrates doped with boron provides conductivity to the diamond substrate (para. 0109).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a conductive diamond substrate as taught by Tanaka that was boron doped as taught by Nishibayashi for the device of Chiu for the purpose of; for example, improved current flow or for example, for providing a vertical device (Nishibayashi para. 0118).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. (US Pub. 2014/0159060) in view of Tanaka et al. (US Pub. 2005/0179130) and further in view of Kim et al. (US Pub. 2010/0120183).
Re claim 12, Chiu teaches forming a first electrode (35) on the first semiconductor layer and forming a second electrode (34) on the second semiconductor layer (Fig. 4; para. 0054).
Chiu does not teach forming first electrode is beneath the composite substrate.
Tanaka teaches a photoelectric device (Fig. 6) wherein the analogous first electrode (16) can be formed on the analogous first semiconductor layer (11) or wherein the first electrode is beneath the analogous composite substrate (10) (para. 0118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the location of the first electrode layer of Chiu as taught by Tanaka for the purpose of; for example, forming a vertical LED.
Chiu and Tanaka are silent with respect to thinning the composite substrate.
Kim teaches a manufacturing method of a photoelectric device (Fig. 5) including thinning of the substrate (Figs. 3-5; para. 0061-0063).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to thin the substrate of Chiu in view of Tanaka as taught by Kim for the purpose of reducing the probability of light being trapped in the substrate (Kim para. 0063).
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Chiu have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant argues that because Chiu teaches size variations that Chiu does not teach “wherein the plurality of the non-diamond protrusions are nanoscale diamond crystalline grains, and the particle sizes of the nanoscale diamond crystalline grains are less than or equal to 200 nm”.
The Examiner disagrees. Chiu discloses the sizing of the grains to overlap with the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of filing to choose grain sizes within the overlapping portion of the range (MPEP 2144.05, I). The claims do not require that each grain size be equal to each other; only that each grain size be within the claimed range. The claims currently allow for variations in individual grains; therefore, Chiu makes obvious this limitation.
Applicant argues that the present disclosure defines the grain size of the nanodiamond protrusions, which are composed of nanoscale diamond grains, belonging to the “material microstructure (particle/grain) scale”.
The Examiner disagrees because this definition is found nowhere in the specification. The term “grain” is only used broadly throughout the specification and thus it was examined under the guidelines of MPEP 2111. That is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term grain is “a minute portion”. When the term grain is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of “wherein the plurality of the nano-diamond protrusions are nanoscale diamond crystalline grains” is considered to be met by the disclosure of Chiu.
Applicant appears to argue that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would not be motivated to choose values within the claimed range of “less than or equal to 200nm”. The Examiner disagrees because the disclosed range of Chiu overlaps with the claimed range and it has long been established that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Chiu teaches values within the claimed range would provide sufficient reflecting such that electro-optical efficiency is enhanced (para. 0027-0028); therefore, it would have been obvious to use such values.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLY KAY REIDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00PM.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at (571)272-4237. 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.
/MOLLY K REIDA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights