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 Status
Applicants May 20, 2026 response to the February 20, 2026 Non Final Rejection is acknowledged. Claims 1-7 are pending; claim 1 is independent. Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 because 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 2-4, claims 2-4 each recite the limitation ""The composition"" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Further, claims 2-4 are rejected for their incorporation of the above due to their dependencies 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 claims 6 and 7, claims 6 and 7 each recite the limitation ""The composition"" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Further, claims 6 and 7 are rejected for their incorporation of the above due to their dependencies on claims 1 and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 (of record).
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).
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that applicant has not addressed the February 20, 2026 objections and therefore they are maintained herein.
Applicant's arguments filed May 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically that examples and dependent claims render “improved” metric is and how the claimed product is different is not persuasive. Specifically, “it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim” MPEP 211.01 II), and this is what applicant appears to be proposing. Examples are not a definition and do not make a term or scenario definite. Applicant alleges that the present application is directed towards “dynamic” HVPE, but this is not a claim limitation as presently recited and is therefore not persuasive.
As applicants’ arguments to the obviousness rejections rely on their indefiniteness arguments, they are further not persuasive for the reasons noted above.
For these reasons, and for those reasons as advanced in the rejections above, the present claims are not found to distinguish over the prior art and this action is made FINAL.
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 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 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, 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
Prosecution Insights