DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application filed May 10, 2023.
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 without traverse of Species C drawn to the embodiment shown in Fig. 9 of current application in the reply filed on September 25, 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Subspecies 1 whose feature is recited in claim 5, but not in claim 6, in the reply filed on September 25, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that “Subspecies 1 (directed towards Claim 5) and subspecies 2 (directed towards Claim 6) are obvious variants of each other, since either may be used to change the lattice constant”, and that “If art was found teaching one of Claim 5 or 6, that art may be applied against the other claim.” This is not found persuasive because (a) Applicant does not provide any evidence to substantiate the allegation that Subspecies 1 and Subspecies 2 are obvious variants from each other, (b) a superlattice structure formed from a composite of AlN and GaN recited in claim 5 and a superlattice structure formed from a composite of InN and GaN recited in claim 6 would require distinct growth techniques and distinct growth parameters, not to mention the two superlattice epitaxial structures comprising distinct material compositions of AlN/GaN and InN/GaN, and distinct strain and defects associated with them, and (c) furthermore, Applicant does not provide any evidence that “If art was found teaching one of Claim 5 or 6, that art may be applied against the other claim (emphasis added)” all the time regardless of the structure of the superlattice epitaxial structure; in other words, if the hypothetical art can be applied against other claim sometimes, but not always, then Subspecies 1 and Subspecies 2 are not necessarily obvious variants from each other. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant's election with traverse of Sub-subspecies ii whose feature is recited in claims 9, 13 and 17, but not in claims 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18, in the reply filed on September 25, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that “Though sub-subspecies ii and iii are patentably distinct, the search would not require a different field of search (emphasis added)”, that “Furthermore, non-linear changes would very often be also monotonic changes, as non-monotonic changes in composition would require additional complexity during manufacturing of an epitaxial structure having non-linear composition changes”, that “For instance, Figure 9B shows both non-linear and monotonic change as monotonic change is the best mode of composing non-linear composition changes”, and that “Thus, prior art applicable to subsubspecies ii would likely also be applicable to sub-subspecies iii presenting little risk of additional burden on the Examiner.” This is not found persuasive because (a) Applicant does not even state that the three sub-subspecies are obvious variants from each other in the arguments above, while unpersuasively alleging that all the subspecies are obvious variants from each other in the REMARKS, (b) Applicant acknowledges that “sub-subspecies ii and iii are patentably distinct”, (c) Applicant merely makes allegations above without providing any substantiating evidence that “the search would not require a different field of search”, (d) if “non-linear changes would very often be also monotonic changes”, then there would be no meanings of the words “monotonic” and “non-linear”, and (e) Applicant does not provide any evidence that “prior art applicable to subsubspecies ii would likely also be applicable to sub-subspecies iii presenting little risk of additional burden on the Examiner.” The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The Examiner notes that claims 2 and 3 are not directed to Applicant’s elected species shown in Fig. 9 of current application, and therefore, claims 2 and 3 are withdrawn from further consideration, because (a) the elected species shown in Fig. 9 of current application is formed by repetitive epitaxial growth of the lower layer formed of Al0.28Ga0.72N 901 and the upper layer formed of AlGaN 902 shown in Fig. 9A of current application, see the legend “N times”, and (b) therefore, each of the lower layers and the upper layers shown in Fig. 9 of current application should have the same thickness with other lower layers and other upper layers rather than “the lower layers being of a different thickness for each of at least some of the multiple layer sequences” as recited in claim 2, and “the higher layers being of a different thickness for each of at least some of the multiple layer sequences” as recited in claim 3.
The Examiner also notes that claim 7 and its dependent claims 9, 11 and 13 are directed to a nonelected species, because the elected species shown in Fig. 9 of current application includes a single material composition of Al0.28Ga0.72N for each of the lower layers composed of the first composite material rather than “a component percentage of the first composite material changing for each successive lower layer in the multiple layer sequences” as recited in claim 7.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On lines 6, 9 and 10-12 of claim 1, “the higher layer” should be replaced with “the upper layer” to be consistent with the limitation “a corresponding upper layer” recited on lines 3-4, and to avoid indefiniteness due to lack of an antecedent basis.
On line 3 of claims 4 and 5, “higher layer” should be replaced with “upper layer” to be consistent with the limitation “a corresponding upper layer” recited on lines 3-4 of claim 1, and to avoid indefiniteness due to lack of an antecedent basis.
On line 4 of claim 5, “AlN,” should be replaced with “AlN”.
On line 5 of claim 5, “wherein” before “M and N” should be deleted to be grammatically correct.
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 1, 4, 5, 15 and 17 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 term “magnitude polarity” recited on lines 6 and 9 refers to, because (a) it appears that Applicant coined the term “magnitude polarity” without specifically defining what it means in the original disclosure, (b) the only place Applicant mentioned the term “magnitude polarity” in the original disclosure is paragraph [0051] of current application where Applicant stated that “the lower layer has a lattice parameter that has a magnitude polarity as compared to the substrate and the higher layer of the first layer sequence, wherein for additional layer sequences in the multiple layer sequences, the lower layer of the corresponding layer sequence has the magnitude polarity as compared to the higher layer of a prior layer sequence and as compared to the higher layer of the corresponding layer sequence, a difference between a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of one layer sequence being different than a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of another layer sequence (emphases added)”, (c) as can be seen above, Applicant’s usage of the words “polarity” and “difference” in paragraph [0051] of current application appears to suggest that the “magnitude polarity” of the lattice parameter may be different from “difference” in the lattice parameters, (d) the term “polarity” is commonly associated with a vector that has a magnitude and a direction, but the “lattice parameter” is a scalar that does not accompany a direction, (e) in GaN-based semiconductor materials, the term “polarity” is also used in association with a direction; for example, when Ga atoms are located on the exposed surface of GaN-based semiconductor materials, the exposed surface is referred to as “Ga-polar”, which implies that the Ga-polar surface has a surface normal vector pointing from underlying and hidden N atoms to the exposed Ga atoms, (f) on the other hand, in semiconductor research and industry, the term “polarity” is associated with doping type such that a semiconductor material doped with n-type dopants may be referred to as n-polar, while a semiconductor material doped with p-type dopants may be referred to as p-polar, (g) however, the term “magnitude polarity” Applicant coined without any explanation or definition in the original disclosure is not associated with any of the term “polarity” described above that one of ordinary skill in the art can readily recognize, and (h) therefore, it is not clear how the term “magnitude polarity” is defined, and whether the term “magnitude polarity” includes a single factor, i.e. a value of a magnitude, or a plurality of factors, i.e. a value of a magnitude, a change or variation of the magnitude, a relative magnitude, etc., especially when Applicant claims “the magnitude polarity” on line 9, which should refer to “a magnitude polarity” recited on line 6, and without one of ordinary skill in the art understanding which factor(s) to consider, “the magnitude polarity” recited on line 9 may or may not be determined to be identical to “a magnitude polarity” recited on line 6.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear whether “a lattice parameter” recited on lines 5-6, 11 and 12 refers to a natural lattice parameter of the lower/upper layer or an actual lattice parameter of the lower/upper layer in the claimed superlattice epitaxial structure, because (a) as shown in Fig. 6 of Łopuszynski et al. (“Ordering in ternary nitride semiconducting alloys, PHYSICAL REVIEW B 85 (2012) 035211), which is illustrated below, any semiconductor materials including GaN-based semiconductor materials epitaxially grown on top of each other first strives to accommodate the difference in the lattice parameters by shrinking or expanding in one direction, while expanding or shrinking in a perpendicular direction to the one direction,
PNG
media_image1.png
332
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(b) especially for the elected embodiment shown in Fig. 9 of current application, each of the AlGaN layer 902 having a varying content of Al except for the topmost AlGaN layer 902 is sandwiched by two Al0.28Ga0.72N layers 901, and therefore, in the claimed superlattice epitaxial structure, it is most likely that each of the AlGaN layer 902 has a lateral lattice parameter identical to a lateral lattice parameter of the neighboring two Al0.28Ga0.72N layers 901 similar to the illustration shown above, i.e. a lattice matching of a lattice parameter of an AlGaN layer 902 caused by the two neighboring Al0.28Ga0.72N layers 901 in Fig. 9 of current application would be much more forceful than a lattice matching of a lattice parameter of the material B solely by the material A shown in Fig. 6 of Łopuszynski et al., (c) in this case, the limitation recited on lines 11-13 may not be true in the claimed superlattice epitaxial structure since all the lattice parameters should be the same in addition to the indefiniteness of this limitation recited on lines 11-13 as discussed below, and (d) finally, the term “magnitude polarity” recited on lines 6 and 9 would be further indefinite since, however the term “magnitude polarity” may be defined, it appears that the “magnitude polarity” should be zero when the lattice constants of each of the AlGaN layer 902 and each of the Al0.28Ga0.72N layers 901 in Fig. 9 of current application are matched with each other.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “the lower layer has a lattice parameter that has a magnitude polarity as compared to the substrate” recited on lines 5-6 suggests, because (a) the lower layer and the upper layer have the same crystalline lattice structure in view of Fig. 9 of current application where the lower layer must be the bottommost Al0.28Ga0.72N layer 901, and the upper layer must be the bottommost AlGaN layer 902, (b) however, the substrate such as the Si(111) substrate Applicant originally disclosed in paragraph [0025] of current application has a diamond or cubic crystalline lattice structure rather than a wurtzite or hexagonal crystalline lattice structure of the bottommost Al0.28Ga0.72N layer 901 and the bottommost AlGaN layer 902, (c) therefore, in addition to the fact that the term “magnitude polarity” has not been defined by Applicant in the original disclosure, it is not clear how the indefinite “magnitude polarity”, which appears to be associated with lattice parameters of the claimed layers such as the lower layer of the first layer sequence in the multiple layer sequences, can be compared between the substrate having the diamond or cubic crystalline lattice structure and the claimed epitaxially grown layers having the wurtzite or hexagonal crystalline lattice structure since the atoms of the substrate are not arranged or aligned in the same way as the atoms of the claimed epitaxially grown layers.
(4) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “the corresponding layer sequence” recited on line 9 refers to, because (a) Applicant does not claim “a corresponding layer sequence” before claiming “the corresponding layer sequence”, and therefore, the limitation “the corresponding layer sequence” lacks the antecedent basis, (b) also, Applicant does not claim “an additional layer sequence” on line 8, but rather claims “additional layer sequences” or a plurality of additional layer sequences, and (c) therefore, it is not clear which layer sequence out of the plurality of “additional layer sequences”, “the corresponding layer sequence” refers to.
(5) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “for additional layer sequences in the multiple layer sequences, the lower layer of the corresponding layer sequence has the magnitude polarity as compared to the higher layer of a prior layer sequence and as compared to the higher layer of the corresponding layer sequence (emphases added)” recited on lines 8-10 refers to, because (a) as discussed above, the limitation “the magnitude polarity” is indefinite, (b) it is not clear whether the “additional layer sequences” refer to an entirety of the remaining layer sequences that are not “the first layer sequence” recited on line 5, or only two or more of layer sequences, especially when Applicant claims that “the lower layer of the corresponding layer sequence” that belongs to the additional layer sequences “has the magnitude polarity as compared to the higher layer of a prior layer sequence and as compared to the higher layer of the corresponding layer sequence”, and (c) it does not appear that, even though it is not clear what the limitation “magnitude polarity” refers to, the entirety of the remaining layer sequences would have “the lower layer of the corresponding sequence” having “the magnitude polarity”, which is the same with “a magnitude polarity” of the lower layer of the first layer recited on lines 5-6 in view of Fig. 9B of current application since the profile shown in Fig. 9B of current application have two distinct regions along the vertical line at the x value of 0.28 corresponding to the Al0.28Ga0.72N layer 901.
(6) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “a difference between a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of one layer sequence being different than a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of another layer sequence” recited on lines 11-13 refers to, because (a) Applicant does not claim that “a difference between a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of one layer sequence” is different than a difference between “a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of another layer sequence”, which appears to be more logical comparison than the claimed comparison, and (b) therefore, it is not clear whether the limitation recited on lines 11-13 is an incomplete limitation, or the limitation cited above is correct, in which case, it appears that technically almost all the lower layers and higher (upper) layers of a superlattice epitaxial structure would satisfy the claimed limitation cited above since a difference between lattice parameters of two sublayers of a superlattice epitaxial structure would be different than individual lattice parameters of the two sublayers of the superlattice epitaxial structure.
Claims 4, 5, 15 and 17 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 4, 5, 15 and 17 are also indefinite.
(7) Regarding claim 5, it is not clear what the limitation “M is a number being 0 and 100” recited on line 3 refers to, because (a) M cannot be both 0 and 100, and (b) it is not clear whether Applicant intended to claim “M is a number being from 0 to 100” or “M is a number being between 0 and 100”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Charles (US 2021/0343525)
Regarding claim 1, Charles discloses a superlattice epitaxial structure (Figs. 1 and 2) epitaxially grown on a substrate (102) ([0061]), the superlattice epitaxial structure comprising a plurality of epitaxial layers (107) composed of multiple layer sequences (multiple pairs of layers 108.x and 110.x where x = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6), each of the multiple layer sequences including a corresponding lower layer (110.x) and a corresponding upper layer (108.x) epitaxially grown on the corresponding lower layer, wherein for the first layer sequence (sequence of 110.1 and 108.1) in the multiple layer sequences, the lower layer (110.1) has a lattice parameter that has a magnitude polarity as compared to the substrate, because (a) this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, (b) the substrate 102 is a Si(111) substrate ([0077]), which is the same with Applicant’s originally disclosed substrate material, and (c) therefore, the lower layer 110.1 and the Si(111) substrate 102 should have the claimed relative “magnitude polarity”, however it is defined, since it appears that the term “magnitude polarity” implies different lattice parameters, different crystalline structures, different semiconductor material compositions, etc., and the higher layer (108.1) of the first layer sequence, because (a) this limitation is also indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, (b) the lower layer 110.1 is formed of GaN and the higher layer 108.1 is formed of AlGaN ([0083]), and (c) therefore, the lower layer 110.1 and the higher layer 108.1 should have the claimed relative “magnitude polarity” since it appears that the term “magnitude polarity” implies different lattice parameters, different crystalline structures, different semiconductor material compositions, etc., wherein for additional layer sequences (some or all of sequences of 107 above bottommost 110.1 and 108.1) in the multiple layer sequences (107), the lower layer (110.2) of the corresponding layer sequence (sequence of 110.2 and 108.2) has the magnitude polarity as compared to the higher layer (108.1) of a prior layer sequence (sequence of 110.1 and 108.1) and as compared to the higher layer (108.2) of the corresponding layer sequence, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, it is not clear what the “additional layer sequences”, “the corresponding layer sequence”, and “the magnitude polarity” each refers to, and (b) therefore, as long as there are two GaN-based semiconductor materials in the first layer sequence and in “the corresponding layer sequence”, the claim limitations cited above would be met, which is the case of the teachings of Charles, a difference between a lattice parameter of the lower layer (one of 110.x) and the higher layer (one of 108.x) of one layer sequence (one layer sequence of 110.x and 108.x) being different than a lattice parameter of the lower layer (another of 110.x) and the higher layer (another of 108.x) of another layer sequence (another layer sequence of 110.x and 108.x), because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, Applicant does not claim that “a difference between a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of one layer sequence” is different than a difference between “a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of another layer sequence”, (b) a difference between a lattice parameter of the lower layer 110.x formed of GaN and a lattice parameter of the higher layer 108.x formed of AlGaN is different from a lattice parameter of GaN and a lattice parameter of AlGaN in another layer sequence, and (c) even if arguendo Applicant had claimed that “a difference between a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of one layer sequence” is different than a difference between “a lattice parameter of the lower layer and the higher layer of another layer sequence”, this limitation would be satisfied since the lattice parameters of the lower layers 110.x are constant, while the lattice parameters of the upper layers 108.x vary since the compositions of Al and Ga in the upper layers 108.x vary ([0083]), which is indicated by the increasing Ga composition and thus decreasing Al composition along the x axis in Fig. 2 of Charles, which is the thickness direction of the superlattice epitaxial structure.
Regarding claims 4, 5 and 15, Charles further discloses that the lower layer (110.x) for each of the multiple layer sequences being composed of a first composite material (GaN) ([0083]) for each of the multiple layer sequences (multiple sequences of 110.x and 108.x), the higher layer (108.x) for each of the multiple layer sequences being composed of a second composite material (AlxGa1-xN) ([0083]) for each of the multiple layer sequences (claim 4), the first composite material (GaN) for each lower layer (110.x) being a composite of AIN and GaN with a composition of M% AIN (wherein M is a number being 0 and 100), because (a) M can be 0, which is in the claimed range, and (b) when M = 0, the first composite material would be GaN, and a second composite material (AlxGa1-xN) for each higher layer (108.x) being is a composite of AIN and GaN with a composition of N% AIN, (wherein N is a number between 0 and 100), where for each of the multiple layer sequences, wherein M and N are different for each of at least some of the multiple layer sequences (claim 5), a component percentage of the second composite material (AlxGa1-xN) changing for each successive lower layer in the multiple layer sequences (claim 15).
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 17, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles (US 2021/0343525). The teachings of Charles are discussed above.
Charles differs from the claimed invention by not showing that the component percentage of the second component material changing non-linearly for each successive higher layer in the multiple layer sequences.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the component percentage of the second component material can change non-linearly for each successive higher layer in the multiple layer sequences, because (a) even though Charles shows apparently linear change in the component percentage of the second composite materials, in actuality, both the Al and Ga atoms constituting the second composite materials would diffuse out of each of the second composite materials formed of AlxGa1-xN, (b) in this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Al atoms that are originally present only in the second composite materials formed of AlxGa1-xN would diffuse into the neighboring first composite materials formed of GaN such that the Al contents at the bottommost part and the topmost part of each of the second composite materials formed of AlxGa1-xN would be lower than the Al content in or near the central part of each of the second composite materials formed of AlxGa1-xN, and (c) Applicant does not specifically claim what the word “non-linearly” implies, and therefore, the local variations of the Al content in each of the second composite materials discussed above conjugated with the linear overall increase in the Al content in the thickness direction shown in Fig. 2 of Charles can be referred to as “changing non-linearly”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ken et al. (US 8,563,984)
Lim et al. (US 2013/0334495)
Chou et al. (US 12,317,532)
Liu et al. (US 11,705,489)
Sato (US 8,247,842)
Shimizu et al. (US 8,963,164)
Eichler et al. (US 2008/0054252)
Chou et al. (US 12,289,901)
Chou et al. (US 12,279,444)
Sie et al. (US 11,923,454)
Chen et al. (US 11,387,356)
Park et al. (US 11,581,269)
Chen et al. (US 11,257,939)
Sato (US 8,264,001)
Tak et al. (US 9,136,430)
Yeh et al. (US 9,324,907)
Han et al. (US 9,166,100)
Fuke et al. (US 2013/0248815)
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 November 14, 2025
Prosecution Insights