DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed January 28, 2026.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 6, Applicants did not originally disclose that “the first surface is a stoichiometrically uniform surface” as recited on lines 1-2, because (a) Applicants did not originally disclose the term “stoichiometrically uniform surface” in the first place, (b) the “bulk region” “having a polycrystalline material” recited on lines 4-5 of claim 1 should include a plurality of crystal grains and grain boundaries, (c) therefore, the limitation cited above may also fail to comply with the Enablement requirement since, when a plurality of crystal grains and grain boundaries are present in the claimed polycrystalline material, the first surface would have a varying composition from one crystal grain to another crystal grain with a void in the form of a grain boundary disposed between adjacent crystal grains, (d) in other words, the limitation cited above suggests that even the void in the form of the grain boundary should also have the stoichiometrically uniform composition as the crystal grains adjacent to the grain boundary, and (e) finally, the limitation cited above also suggests that all the atomic bonding and arrangements at the first surface would be identical, which may also fail to comply with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
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 1-4, 6 and 7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the “linear coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” recited on line 5 refers to, because (a) Applicants claim “linear coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” of the claimed “polycrystalline material”, not a linear coefficient of thermal expansion of a single crystalline material, (b) even for a single crystalline material, there are a plurality of, if not an infinite number of, linear coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) such as a linear coefficient of thermal expansion along an x-direction, along a y-direction and along a z-direction, (c) in the case of a single crystalline GaN material layer having a hexagonal or wurtzite crystalline lattice structure, there are a plurality of distinct linear coefficients of thermal expansion along a c-direction, along an a-direction, along an m-direction, along an r-direction, along an s-direction, etc., (d) Applicants did not originally disclose the sizes, shapes and distribution of the crystal grains constituting the claimed “polycrystalline material”, (e) technically, no two polycrystalline materials deposited by the same method may be identical to each other since the crystal grains and grain boundaries that separate adjacent crystal grains may be different from each other even with the same deposition method, (f) for example, if the claimed “polycrystalline material” has crystal grains arranged as illustrated below, a linear coefficient of thermal expansion measured along a lateral direction, i.e. left to right or right to left, would be different from a linear coefficient of thermal expansion measured along a vertical direction, both of which would also be different from a linear coefficient of thermal expansion measured into or out of page direction,
PNG
media_image1.png
194
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and (f) therefore, it is not clear how the claimed “linear coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” is measured, and furthermore, it is not clear whether any gallium nitride growth layers having the claimed features would satisfy the claimed linear coefficient of thermal expansion regardless of the shapes, sizes and distribution of crystal grains and grain boundaries.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, Applicants argue that “Regarding (5), claim 1 does not require that every conceivable composition falling (5) within formula (I) inherently exhibit the claimed CTE”, that “Rather, claim 1 recites a gallium nitride growth layer having a bulk region with a polycrystalline material that exhibits a linear CTE of about 2-25 ppm/K above 800 K and includes one or more spinel compounds having formula (I)” on page 7 of the REMARKS filed January 28, 2026, which renders claim 1 further indefinite, because (a) Applicants should first have formed the gallium nitride growth layer, and then measured its linear coefficient of thermal expansion rather than Applicants first decided a value of a linear coefficient of thermal expansion and then formed the corresponding gallium nitride growth layer, (b) in other words, Applicants did not form all the possible gallium nitride growth layers that have linear coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) of about 2-25 ppm/K above 800 K such as a gallium nitride growth layer with a linear CTE of 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, …, 24.9 and 25 ppm/K, and then measured the corresponding material compositions of the gallium nitride growth layers, (c) therefore, it is not clear what the exact material compositions that Applicants formed out of every conceivable material composition expressed by the formula (ZnxCd1-x)(CryAl1-y)O4 that also satisfy the claimed linear coefficient of thermal expansion since (i) it appears that only a handful of material compositions that can be expressed by the formula (ZnxCd1-x)(CryAl1-y)O4 and that also satisfy the claimed linear coefficient of thermal expansion were formed by Applicants, and (ii) other material compositions that can be expressed by the formula (ZnxCd1-x)(CryAl1-y)O4, that also satisfy the claimed linear coefficient of thermal expansion, but that Applicants did not form may not be Applicants’ invention since Applicants may have not been aware of such material compositions, and (d) Applicants did not invent the expression (ZnxCd1-x)(CryAl1-y)O4 in conjunction with the claimed linear coefficient of thermal expansion, but rather it appears that Applicants formed only a handful of material compositions that can be expressed as (ZnxCd1-x)(CryAl1-y)O4 and that satisfy the claimed linear coefficient of thermal expansion as Applicants acknowledged that “claim 1 does not require that every conceivable composition falling within formula (I) inherently exhibit the claimed CTE”, which also appears to suggest at least indirectly that Applicants did not form all the conceivable compositions that can be expressed by the formula (I), and measure their linear coefficients of thermal expansion.
(3) Regarding claims 1 and 7, it is not whether the claimed invention has a linear coefficient of thermal expansion in the claimed range as long as the formula (I) is satisfied regardless of whether other materials can be added to the gallium nitride growth layer, because (a) Applicants argue on page 8 of the REMARKS filed January 28, 2026 that “In other words, Cr2O3 is not an example of formula (I); it can be an addition to the spinel of the independent claim”, and (b) therefore, it is not clear whether claim 1 does not include another material composition or other material compositions necessary for the claimed gallium nitride growth layer to have the claimed linear coefficient of thermal expansion, or any material that has the claimed polycrystalline material would exhibit the claimed linear coefficient of thermal expansion as Applicants may have alleged in the REMARKS.
(4) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear how the “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” recited on line 5 can be “about 2-25 ppm/K above 800 K” as recited on lines 5-6, because (a) Applicants do not claim the upper limit of the measurement temperature of “above 800 K”, (b) even for a single gallium nitride growth layer, when the temperature varies, its “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” would also vary accordingly since the bond strengths among the constituent atoms of the gallium nitride growth layer would be altered with increasing or decreasing of the temperature, (c) therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed gallium nitride growth layer should have a “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of about 2-25 ppm/K above 800K” regardless of the temperature, or the claimed gallium nitride growth layer should have “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of about 2-25 ppm/K above 800K” up to a certain temperature, and (d) for example, it is not clear whether a gallium nitride growth layer would read on claim 1 if its coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is about 25 ppm/K at 810 K, while its coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) is about 30 ppm/K at 2000 K or 3000 K.
(5) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear whether the formula (I) recited on line 7 is a correct formula, because (a) as discussed above, a material composition that can be derived from the formula (I) can be Cr2O3, ZnCr2O4 and CdCr2O4 as disclosed in paragraph [0005] of current application and as recited in claim 7, (b) however, Cr2O3 cannot be derived from the formula (I) since the formula (I) includes “O4”, (c) furthermore, to obtain the material composition of Cr2O3, the part (ZnxCd1-x) of the formula (I) should be zero, which is not possible mathematically or formulaically, and (d) therefore, it is not clear whether the formula (I) is a correct formula.
(6) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear how the polycrystalline material whose material composition is recited in formula (I) recited on line 7 can have the “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” in the claimed range, because (a) the polycrystalline material of Cr2O3, ZnCr2O4 and CdCr2O4 Applicants mentioned in paragraph [0005] and recite in claim 7, and a polycrystalline material including all of Zn, Cd, Cr, Al and O would have very distinct material compositions, and very distinct mechanical, physical and chemical properties, (b) therefore, it does not appear that not all the polycrystalline material that reads on the formula (I) would exhibit the claimed “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)”, and (c) furthermore, the claimed “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” would also depend on whether there are any impurities in the claimed gallium nitride growth layer, which Applicants do not claim, and therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed gallium nitride growth layer consists of atoms selected the group consisting of Zn, Cd, Cr, Al and O, or the claimed gallium nitride growth layer can additionally comprise an element or elements other than Zn, Cd, Cr, Al and O that can control or alter the “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)”.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 7 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-4, 6 and 7 are also indefinite.
(7) Regarding claim 3, it is not clear whether addition of the claimed material expressed by the formula (II) to the polycrystalline material recited on line 5 of claim 1 would maintain the “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” recited on line 5 of claim 1, or addition of the claimed material expressed by the formula (II) to the polycrystalline material recited on line 5 of claim 1 would alter the “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” recited on line 5 of claim 1, because (a) when the limitations of claim 1 and the limitations of claim 3 are combined, there would be implications that the polycrystalline material recited in claim 1 should have the claimed “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)”, and the polycrystalline material recited in claim 1 incorporated with the compound of formula (II) should also have the claimed “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” recited on line 5 of claim 1, (b) however, it does not appear that additional compound of formula (II) would maintain the “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” recited on line 5 of claim 1 since bond strengths and bond configurations among the constituent atoms would be altered in the presence of the additional compound of formula (II), (c) in this case, if the “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” recited on line 5 of claim 1 can only be achieved in the presence of the compound of formula (II), claim 1 is indefinite since claim 1 does not recite the essential and critical additional compound of formula (II), while on the other hand if the “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” recited on line 5 of claim 1 is altered with addition of the compound of formula (II), the “coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE)” recited on line 5 of claim 1 may not be measured when the compound of formula (II) is incorporated into the polycrystalline material recited in claim 1.
(8) Further regarding claim 3, it is not clear what the limitation “optionally including a fractional part” recited on line 4 refers to, because (a) it is not clear whether the limitation should be considered, and (b) it is not clear what “a fractional part” is about since it is not clear whether “a fractional part” is about δ, about the compound of formula (I), about the compound of formula (II), or an unspecified structure.
(9) Regarding claim 7, it is not clear how the polycrystalline material can include Cr2O3 as discussed above, because either the formula (I) recited in claim 1 is wrong, or the material composition of is Cr2O3 incorrect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aguilera et al. (“Preparation and characterization of CrO2 films by Low Pressure Chemical Vapor Deposition from CrO3,” Thin Solid Films 539 (2013) pp. 1-11)
In the below prior art rejections, the claim limitations “gallium nitride (GaN) growth” and “GaN epitaxial growth” specify intended uses or fields of use, and are treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Aguilera et al. disclose a gallium nitride (GaN) growth layer (CrO2 films mentioned in Title), because as discussed above, the limitation “gallium nitride (GaN) growth” is directed to an intended use of the claimed material having the claimed material composition, comprising: a first surface (top or bottom surface of CrO2 films); a second surface (bottom or top surface of CrO2 films); and a bulk region extending between the first and second surfaces, the bulk region having a polycrystalline material (Fig. 3) with linear coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of about 2-25 ppm/K above 800 K, which is inherent because (a) the formula (I) would be CrO2 when (i) the part (ZnxCd1-x) becomes 0 just like Cr2O3 recited in claim 7, and (ii) y = 1, which would render (CryAl1-y)2O4 Cr2O4, which is the same with CrO2 disclosed by Aguilera et al., and (b) in other words, if the claimed formula (I) can be directed to Cr2O3, it can also be directed to CrO2 disclosed by Aguilera et al., and therefore, the CrO2 disclosed by Aguilera et al. should inherently have the claimed coefficient of thermal expansion, and one or more spinel compounds having formula (I): (ZnxCd1-x)(CryAl1-y)2O4 (I), where x and y are any number between 0 and 1, inclusive of 0 and 1, one of the first and second surfaces including a GaN epitaxial growth region, which is directed to an intended use of the CrO2 films disclosed by Aguilera et al. (claim 1), wherein the first or second surface includes the polycrystalline material (Fig. 3) (claim 2), and the polycrystalline material (CrO2 films) is electrically conductive to a certain degree, because Applicants do not specifically claim how electrically conductive the polycrystalline material is, and under what measurement condition(s) the polycrystalline material is electrically conductive (claim 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the second 35 USC 112(b) rejection involving the temperature “above 800K” on pages 6-7 of the REMARKS are not persuasive, because (a) Applicants do not claim whether “the upper limit above 800 K is approximately flat” in claim 1, (b) also, paragraph [0084] does not state any specific temperature, and therefore, Applicants’ arguments on pages 6-7 of the REMARKS are not persuasive, (c) in addition, it is not clear what the phrase “approximately flat” implies since the phrase does not necessarily suggest that the linear coefficient of thermal expansion of the claimed gallium nitride growth layer converges toward a certain value as a slowly increasing line can also be referred to be “approximately flat”, and (d) it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, see MPEP 2111.01.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the fourth 35 USC 112(b) rejection on page 7 of the REMARKS are not persuasive, because the allegations on page 7 are not relevant to the Examiner’s 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the fifth 35 USC 112(b) rejection on page 7 of the REMARKS are not persuasive, because (a) Applicants argue that “Regarding (5), claim 1 does not require that every conceivable composition falling (5) within formula (I) inherently exhibit the claimed CTE”, that “Rather, claim 1 recites a gallium nitride growth layer having a bulk region with a polycrystalline material that exhibits a linear CTE of about 2-25 ppm/K above 800 K and includes one or more spinel compounds having formula (I)”, (b) however, these arguments are not persuasive arguments since (i) Applicants should first have formed the gallium nitride growth layer, and then measured its linear coefficient of thermal expansion rather than Applicants first decided a value of a linear coefficient of thermal expansion and then formed the corresponding gallium nitride growth layer, and (ii) in other words, it does not appear that Applicants formed all the possible gallium nitride growth layers that have linear coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) of about 2-25 ppm/K above 800 K such as a gallium nitride growth layer with a linear CTE of 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, …, 24.9 and 25 ppm/K, and then measured the corresponding material compositions of the gallium nitride growth layers, and (c) therefore, Applicants’ arguments cited above render claim 1 further indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the sixth 35 USC 112(b) rejection on pages 7-8 of the REMARKS are not persuasive, because (a) Applicants simply made allegations without providing any evidence, and (b) the allegations are not exactly related to the Examiner’s 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Applicants’ arguments traversing the twelfth 35 USC 112(b) rejection on page 8 of the REMARKS involving Cr2O3 are not persuasive, because (a) it is not clear whether Applicants’ arguments are based on Applicants’ original disclosure, and (b) these arguments may have rendered claim 1 further indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections since Applicants’ arguments on page 8 of the REMARKS appear to suggest that, as long as the claimed formula (I) is satisfied, the claimed gallium nitride growth layer would have a linear coefficient of thermal expansion with or without other materials such as Cr2O3; if more materials are added to the claimed gallium nitride growth layer, wouldn’t the linear coefficient of thermal expansion also change?
Applicants’ arguments traversing the 35 USC 102 rejection are not persuasive, because the amended independent claim 1 is further indefinite as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J.K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 February 23, 2026