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
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 09, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I (claims 1-7) and species I (Ga1-xInxP) in the reply filed on September 09, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that where x is 0 to 1.0 (claim 1), then “1-x” and “x” between the primary and secondary elements are equivalent in an alloy.
Examiner notes that “about” in claims 6 and 7 is definite in light of the specification ([0013]).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Specifically, “Described herein”, “the present disclosure relates to” and “the present disclosure describes” is all language that can be implied.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “threading locations” should read “threading dislocations”. 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The preamble recites “A composition”, but the compilation of limitations in the claim are to a CGB or otherwise state a plurality of layers on a substrate, the preamble as presently recited does not definitely align with the claim limitations and creates confusion and is indefinite
Applicant claims “a first Group III element” but a review of the specification and dependent claims (specifically claim 3) indicate that applicant means Group III and IIIa (now known as Group 13), therefore it is indefinite if it is indeed limited to Group III (which would preclude the compositions of claim 3 meeting the limitations of claim 1). For purposes of examination it shall be considered to read Group III and Group IIIa.
The last three lines of the claim are indefinite as to what a “improved” (how much and what type of improvement is needed) property or metric is, and how the claimed CGB is produced so as to be different from a non-HVPE or and HVPE method using a single chamber
Regarding claims 2 and 3, claims 2 and 3 are rejected for their incorporation of the above due to their dependencies on claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, it is indefinite if applicant intends “Group III” to mean only group III or groups III and IIIa, similar to claim 1. Claim 4 is further indefinite if a group V element can be the fourth element where the first the alloy previously comprises A1A2 and B1, and similarly if a group III element can be the fourth element where the first alloy comprises B1B2 and A1, for the purposes of examination either a group III or group V element shall be considered to meet this limitation (regardless of the alloy has A1A2 or B1B2). Claim 4 is further rejected for its incorporation of the above due to its dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, it is indefinite as to what a “improved” (how much and what type of improvement is needed) property or metric is and further rejected for its incorporation of the above due to its dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “greater than about 80%”, and the claim also recites "greater than about 90%" and "greater than about 95%" which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, meeting any of these ranges shall be considered to meet the limitation of claim 6. Claim 6 is further rejected for its incorporation of the above due to its dependencies on claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “”< 3x108/cm2”, and the claim also recites”< 3x106/cm2”, “< 3x107/cm2” and ”< 3x103/cm2”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, meeting any of these ranges shall be considered to meet the limitation of claim 7. Claim 7 is further rejected for its incorporation of the above due to its dependencies on claims 1 and 5.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte et al. ("Reduced dislocation density in GaxIn1-xP compositionally graded buffer layers through engineered glide plane switch"), hereinafter Schulte (copy provided herewith).
Regarding claims 1-3, Schulte teaches GaxIn1-xP compositionally graded buffer layers (Abstract; Ga is a group IIIa element (A1) , In is a second Group IIIa element (A2) and P is a Group V (B1) element and GaxIn1-xP is a ternary alloy as evidenced by Pg. 2 Left [1]) and it is on a GaS substrate (Pg. 1 Right [1]; Pg. 2 Left [1]). Schulte further teaches in GaxIn1-xP CGBs on GaS from GaxIn1-xP to InP, where the order parameter necessarily decreases during growth (Pg. 2 Left [2]; each subsequent layer of the CGB relative to the substrate has a value of x that is different than a value of x for the previously deposited layer from x=0.5 to 0 (decreases for each subsequent layer)). Further, Schulte teaches there is an improvement in threading dislocation density of sample B of 3-5 x 10 6/cm2 compared to a control of 1.0-1.2 x 107/cm2 (less threading dislocation; a physical metric) (Table 1), CGB layers grown using MOVPE (non-HVPE methods) and TDD measured at the InP surface of sample B (Pg. 7 [4]) of 3-5x106/cm2 (Table 1) and InP is shown to be the cap layer in Fig. 6 (Fig. 6; InP is GaxIn1-xP where X=0). 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 I).
Regarding claim 4, Schulte teaches each limitation of claims 1-3, as discussed above, and further teaches Sb is commonly known to be added as a surfactant in the growth of III-V materials by MOVPE and doping is possible with the surfactant (Pg. 4 Right [1]; group V).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Schulte teaches each limitation of claims 1-4, as discussed above, and further teaches in compositionally graded buffer layers relaxation in the final capping layer is usually close to 100% (Pg. 2 Right [2]-[3]; percent strain relaxation). 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 I).
Regarding claim 7, Schulte teaches each limitation of claims 1-6, as discussed above, and further teaches TDD measured at the InP surface of sample B (Pg. 7 [4]) of 3-5x106/cm2 (Table 1) and InP is shown to be the cap layer in Fig. 6 (Fig. 6). 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 I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE CHRISTY whose telephone number is (303)297-4363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-4pm MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video coninferencing 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KATHERINE A CHRISTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784