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
Applicant’s election of Invention II (Claims 1-10, 13-30) in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 11-22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention as originally restricted, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/16/2026.
The Examiner notes that the propriety of a restriction requirement will be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance, and the nonelected invention(s) will be considered for rejoinder. (MPEP 821.04)
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites “performing a relaxation operation to facilitate a release of strain energy in the second layer by the mechanically-compliant layer, the mechanically-compliant layer, the second layer and the relaxation operation being configured such that a surface of the second layer has an extended defect density below a predetermined value; and forming a light-emitting region, the second layer being disposed between the light-emitting region and the substrate, the extended defect density being below the predetermined value results in a leakage resistance in an active region of the light-emitting region that is higher than 10 milliohms per centimeter-squared”
It is not clear what specific process steps or physical parameters (of layers) lead to the functional outcome of “extended defect density being below the predetermined value results in a leakage resistance in an active region of the light-emitting region that is higher than 10 milliohms per centimeter-squared”.
Functional result of “a leakage resistance in an active region of the light-emitting region that is higher than 10 milliohms per centimeter-squared” does not clarify the structural of the defect density itself. Further, the lack of objective procedure to determine the “predetermine value” renders the claim scope indeterminate
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat claim limitation met as long as “performing a relaxation operation to facilitate a release of strain energy in the second layer by the mechanically-compliant layer” and “the mechanically-compliant layer, the second layer and the relaxation operation being configured such that a surface of the second layer has an extended defect density” are met.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on Claim 1
Claim 8 recites “the optoelectronic device operates at a current density J and has a leakage current of less than J/10.”
It is unclear what structure allows for those functions to happen. Further, it is not clear if current density represents a numerical range or whether it is specific operating point (peak value, specific operating point, arbitrary value). If the optoelectronic device operates across many different current densities, it is unclear if the leakage current must be met across the entire operating range or a single, unspecified point.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the limitation to be met if all structural elements of the claim are present
Claim 9 recites “the optoelectronic device operates at a current density J and has an ideality factor of less than 5 at a current density of J/10.”
It is unclear what structure allows for those functions to happen. Further, it is not clear if current density represents a numerical range or whether it is specific operating point (peak value, specific operating point, arbitrary value). If the optoelectronic device operates across many different current densities, it is unclear if an ideality factor must be met across the entire operating range or a single, unspecified point. Further, ideality factor is a function of carrier recombination mechanisms and varies significantly with injection levels, temperature etc and since the claim does not specify standard of measurement condition , the function limitation of “less than 5” is indefinite.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner will interpret the limitation to be met if all structural elements of the claim are present
”
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US 2024/0063340 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Keller (Fig. 2, 12) discloses a method of producing an optoelectronic device, the method comprising:
forming a first layer on a substrate (Substrate, 202), the first layer being a mechanically-compliant layer (N++GaN, 204);
forming a second layer (Strained n-InGaN, 206), the mechanically-compliant layer (204) being disposed between the second layer (206) and the substrate (202);
performing a relaxation operation (EC etch) to facilitate a release of strain energy in the second layer (“at least partially relaxed (e.g., semiconductor or III-nitride) layer 206, 1206 on or above the porous III-nitride layer”), by the mechanically-compliant layer (204), the mechanically-compliant layer (204), the second layer (206) and the relaxation operation being configured such that a surface of the second layer (206) has an extended defect density below “strained InGaN layer was grown on bulk GaN with very low threading dislocation densities in the order of 10.sup.5 to 10.sup.6 cm.sup.−2, the relaxed InGaN layer will be characterized by the same very low threading dislocation density”) [0281] a predetermined value (the original pre-process number;”); and
forming a light-emitting region (MQW), the second layer (206) being disposed between the light-emitting region (MQW) and the substrate (202), the extended defect density being below the predetermined value (“strained InGaN layer was grown on bulk GaN with very low threading dislocation densities in the order of 10.sup.5 to 10.sup.6 cm.sup.−2, the relaxed InGaN layer will be characterized by the same very low threading dislocation density”) [0281] results in
The Examiner notes that as long as there is an extended defect density on a surface of the second layer has the extended defect density being below the predetermined value is the original pre-process number.
Further, regarding the language of " to facilitate a release of strain energy in the second layer, by the mechanically-compliant layer” and “results in a leakage resistance in an active region of the light-emitting region that is higher than 10 milliohms per centimeter-squared (mOhm/cm.sup.2)”, the examiner notes that such language merely recites an intended outcome or result of the positively recited method step of " performing a relaxation operation ". The examiner notes recitations directed to the intended use/outcome/result of a specific step in a method claim does not narrow scope of the method claim past the specific recited step. See MPEP § 2106 II C and MPEP § 2111.04. As such, the claim as currently written does not actually require " to facilitate a release of strain energy in the second layer, by the mechanically-compliant layer ", but merely requires "performing a relaxation operation ", which is taught by the prior art of Keller.
Keller does not explicitly disclose that a leakage resistance in an active region of the light-emitting region that is higher than 10 milliohms per centimeter-squared (mOhm/cm.sup.2).
However, Keller teaches optimizing extended defect density of second layer. [0477, 0864-0867]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of producing an optoelectronic device in Keller and have defect density of second layer such that a leakage resistance in an active region of the light-emitting region that is higher than 10 milliohms per centimeter-squared (mOhm/cm.sup.2) in order to have the quality of the layers above the porous layer in terms of treading dislocation and defect density for example, can be superior to the layer below the porous layer. [0477, 0865] and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 2, Keller discloses the method of claim 1.
Keller does not explicitly disclose the leakage resistance is greater than 100 mOhm/cm.sup.2.
However, Keller teaches optimizing extended defect density of second layer. [0477, 0864-0867]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of producing an optoelectronic device in Keller and have defect density of second layer such that a leakage resistance in an active region of the light-emitting region that is higher than 100 milliohms per centimeter-squared (mOhm/cm.sup.2) in order to have the quality of the layers above the porous layer in terms of treading dislocation and defect density for example, can be superior to the layer below the porous layer. [0477, 0865] and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 3, Keller discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the extended defect density is less than 1×10.sup.9/cm2. [0865].
Regarding Claim 4, Keller discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising forming
Keller in the current embodiment does not explicitly disclose a defect-reduction layer, the mechanically-compliant layer being disposed between the defect-reduction layer and the substrate.
However, in a different embodiment Keller (Fig. 13) discloses a defect-reduction layer (Layer above porous GaN), the mechanically-compliant layer (porous GaN) being disposed between the defect-reduction layer (Layer above porous GaN), and the substrate (Substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of producing an optoelectronic device in Keller and have defect density of second layer such that a defect-reduction layer, the mechanically-compliant layer being disposed between the defect-reduction layer and the substrate in order to have obtain desired lattice constant or thick relaxed III-N films [0291]
Regarding Claim 5, Keller discloses the method of claim 1, wherein:
the mechanically-compliant layer has a first defect density; the light-emitting region has a second defect density; and the second defect density is less than of the first defect density. [0477, 0865]
Keller does not explicitly the second defect density is less than one-tenth of the first defect density.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of producing an optoelectronic device in Keller and have defect density of second layer such that a defect-reduction layer, the mechanically-compliant layer being disposed between the defect-reduction layer and the substrate in order to have obtain desired lattice constant or thick relaxed III-N films [0291] and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 6, Keller discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the relaxation operation is performed during an epitaxial growth operation. (“the initial InGaN layers on top of porous GaN further relaxed upon consecutive InGaN growth”) [0707]
Regarding Claim 7, Keller discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
Keller does not explicitly disclose the optoelectronic device has a peak internal quantum efficiency of at least 20%.
However, Keller teaches optimizing extended defect density of second layer. [0477, 0864-0867]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of producing an optoelectronic device in Keller and have defect density of second layer such that the optoelectronic device has a peak internal quantum efficiency of at least 20% in order to have a LED with minimal etch damage and high efficiency [0437] and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 8, Keller discloses the method of claim 1,
Keller does not explicitly disclose the optoelectronic device operates at a current density J and has a leakage current of less than J/10.
However, Keller teaches optimizing extended defect density of second layer. [0477, 0864-0867]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of producing an optoelectronic device in Keller and have defect density of second layer the optoelectronic device operates at a current density J and has a leakage current of less than J/10 in order to have a LED with minimal etch damage and high efficiency [0437] and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 9, Keller discloses the method of claim 1,
Keller does not explicitly disclose the optoelectronic device operates at a current density J and has an ideality factor of less than 5 at a current density of J/10.
However, However, Keller teaches optimizing extended defect density of second layer. [0477, 0864-0867]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a method of producing an optoelectronic device in Keller and have defect density of second layer such that the optoelectronic device operates at a current density J and has an ideality factor of less than 5 at a current density of J/10 in order to have a LED with minimal etch damage and high efficiency [0437] and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 10, Keller discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the mechanically-compliant layer includes at least one of: a nano-porous structure (Fig. 2, 12); voids with dimensions more than 1 nm and less than 1 um; metallic inclusions; extended defects; or semiconductor material with an in-plane inhomogeneity in a composition of one atomic species of at least 1%.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
With regards to claim 1, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, alone or in combination, “a second lateral region with the strain-inhibition layer having a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness; after forming the first lateral region and the second lateral region, performing a relaxation operation, the relaxation layer changing a mechanical structure of the at least one relaxation layer to reduce the strain in the at least one relaxation layer, such that relaxation in the first lateral region is greater than relaxation in the second lateral region; and forming at least one light-emitting region on at least one of the first lateral region or the second lateral region.” in the combination required by the claim.
Claims 24-30 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.m.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571) 272-1731. 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.
/DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891