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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“the GaN/InGaWN structure is an LED.” of Claim 27.
“one or more LEDs are included to form a multicolor microdisplay.” of Claim 28
“multicolor mesas are present on a single substrate.” of Claim 29
“the LED device consists of only InGaN LEDs.” of Claim 30
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment to drawing filed 12/22/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Originally filed specifications do not disclose singulated LED having electrically insulating layer on both side of InGaN mesas and that layers 401-405 are all the same thickness and that layers 401-405 have same width with layers 102, 102.
Therefore, Fig. 8 is new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 13 and 14 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.
Claims 13, 14 recites the limitation "undoped or weekly doped InGaN” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will treat "undoped or weekly doped InGaN” as --undoped or weekly doped non-porous InGaN--.
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) 12, 19-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US 2024/0063340 A1) as based upon the provisional filing date of 09/10/2019 for 62/898178 and provisional filing date of 09/10/2019 for 62/927,486) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0011656 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Keller (Fig. 2, 12) discloses a GaN/InGaN structure successively comprising:
(a) a non-porous electrically conductive doped GaN layer (a growth substrate 202 or base layer 1202, n-GaN) [0335, 0394];
(b) InGaN mesas (1220, 1204, 212) in contact with the non-porous conductive doped GaN layer (202, 1202), wherein
the InGaN mesas (1220, 1204, 212) comprise:
a porous doped InGaN layer (“a porous (e.g., semiconductor or III-nitride) layer 204, 1204”) and
an undoped or weakly doped non-porous layer (an intermediate III-nitride layer 212) [0357] in contact with the porous dopes InGaN layer (“a porous (e.g., semiconductor or III-nitride) layer 204, 1204”), and
(c) a relaxed epitaxially grown InGaN layer (1206, 206; at least partially relaxed (e.g., semiconductor or III-nitride) layer 206, 1206 on or above the porous III-nitride layer) [0335] in contact with the undoped or weekly doped non-porous layer (an intermediate III-nitride layer 212) [0357].
Examiner notes that all of the layers are in the GaN/InGaN structure are in contact (at least indirect) with each other.
Keller does not explicitly disclose an undoped or weakly doped layer is InGaN.
Zhang (Fig. 8) discloses the InGaN mesas (828, 822) comprise a porous doped InGaN layer (buried NP GaN layer 828) and an undoped or weakly doped non-porous InGaN layer ( undoped GaN layer 822) [0069-0071] and further discloses “Although GaN is emphasized throughout this specification, these techniques are also applicable to other III-nitride systems such as InGaN. Thus the term "GaN" should be broadly interpreted throughout the specification to mean any III-nitride material such as InGaN, AlGaN, etc. Thus the phrase "NP GaN" can also be interpreted as "NP InGaN" etc.” [0044]
Therefore, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang such that an undoped or weakly doped non-porous layer is InGaN since selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (See MPEP 2144.07). and in order to fabricate long wavelength (green, yellow, amber, and red) LEDs with high efficiency to overcome the so-called "green-gap" issue overcome efficiency droop in InGaN LEDs [0108]
Further, limitation in line 2, “a relaxed epitaxially grown InGaN layer” is considered to be product-by-process.
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 19, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12, wherein
the porous doped InGaN layer of the InGaN mesas is doped with silicon (Si(n)) or magnesium (Mg(p)). [0708 Keller]
Regarding Claim 20, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12, wherein
the porous doped InGaN layer of the InGaN mesas has the same doping types from one mesa to another. [0708]
Regarding Claim 21, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12.
Keller in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose the porous doped InGaN layer of the InGaN mesas has different doping types from one mesa to another.
However, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang such the porous doped InGaN layer of the InGaN mesas has different doping types from one mesa to another and in order to color-tunable monolithically integrated nitride based RGB μLED arrays can be fabricated.[0715]
Regarding Claim 22, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12, wherein
the porous doped InGaN layer has a porosity of between 5% and 70%. (NP GaN layer with about 30% porosity; Zhang)
Regarding Claim 23, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 22, wherein the porosity is between 25% and 50%. (NP GaN layer with about 30% porosity; Zhang)
Regarding Claim 24, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12.
Keller in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose the height of the pores is from 3 nm to 3 mm and the diameter of the pores is from 3 nm to 100 nm.
However, Zhang discloses having 40 nm pore size, and 70 nm pore size [0072 and controlling pore diameters, pore density, and porosity [0043]
Therefore, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang such that the height of the pores is from 3 nm to 3 mm and the diameter of the pores is from 3 nm to 100 nm and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 25, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12, wherein the GaN/InGaN structure is at least partially relaxed (a relaxation percent of more than 50%), wherein
the relaxation percent corresponds to:
Δa/a=(ac2−ac1)/ac1 with ac1 being the lattice parameter of the undoped or weakly doped InGaN layer, and
ac2 being the lattice parameter of the relaxed epitaxially grown InGaN layer. (“at least partially relaxed (e.g., semiconductor or III-nitride) layer 206, 1206”) [0335 Keller]
Regarding Claim 26, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 25, wherein the GaN/InGaN structure is totally relaxed. [0868 Keller]
Regarding Claim 27, Keller in view of Zhang discloses a device comprising the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12, and wherein the GaN/InGaNis an LED [Fig. 12 Keller].
Regarding Claim 28, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the device according to claim 27, wherein one or more LEDs are included to form a multicolor microdisplay. [0958, Keller]
Regarding Claim 29, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the device according to claim 27, wherein
the porous doped InGaN layers of the InGaN mesas have different doping types and are present on a single substrate. [0715,Keller, See integrated)
Regarding Claim 30, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the device according to claim 27, wherein the LED device consists of only InGaN LEDs. [0715; InGaN μLEDs Keller]
Regarding Claim 31, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12, wherein the indium concnetration in the InGaN mesas (“the different indium content associated with the different degrees of strain relaxation.”) [0438, 0691] Keller
Keller in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose indium concentration is greater than or equal to 8%.
However, in a different embodiment Keller (Fig. 66) discloses varying indium concentration in InGaN [0<y<1 in 0266] and having indium concentration is greater than or equal to 8%. [See mole ration of In in [0250, 0856-0859].
Therefore, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang such that indium concentration is greater than or equal to 8% in order to cause different degrees of strain relaxation [0451] and have color tunable monolithically integrated highly efficient micro-LEDs [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).
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US 2024/0063340 A1) as based upon the provisional filing date of 09/10/2019 for 62/898178 and provisional filing date of 09/10/2019 for 62/927,486) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0011656 A1) and further in view of Oliver et al. (US 20210057601 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12, wherein
Keller in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose the undoped or weakly doped InGaN layer has a thickness ranging from 0.25 nm to 3 nm.
Oliver (Fig. 4) discloses an undoped or weakly doped InGaN layer (46) has a thickness ranging from 0.25 nm to 3 nm. (Three 3 nm-thick NID-InGaN nanostructured layers 46”) [0297].
Therefore, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver such that the undoped or weakly doped InGaN layer has a thickness ranging from 0.25 nm to 3 nm in order to cause strain relaxation in the nanostructured layer, which may advantageously increase the electron-hole overlap and reduce the electron-hole recombination time. [0295-0296]
Regarding Claim 14, Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver discloses The GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 13, wherein
the undoped or weakly doped InGaN layer has a thickness ranging from 2 nm to 3 nm. (Three 3 nm-thick NID-InGaN nanostructured layers 46”) [0297].
Regarding Claim 15, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12, wherein
Keller in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose the porous doped InGaN layer has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 100 nm.
Oliver discloses varying thickness of a porous doped InGaN layer [0240]
Therefore, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver such that the doped GaN layer has a thickness ranging from 10 nm to 100 nm in order to cause strain relaxation in the nanostructured layer, which may advantageously increase the electron-hole overlap and reduce the electron-hole recombination time. [0295-0296] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The specific claimed relative thicknesses of the porous doped InGaN layer, absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" thicknesses that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired adhesive strength, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
Accordingly, since the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the stated thicknesses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 16, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12, wherein
Keller in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose the InGaN mesas have a thickness of less than 100 nm.
Oliver discloses varying thickness of InGaN mesas [0147-0148; 0152]
Therefore, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver such that the InGaN mesas have a thickness of less than 100 nm in order to cause strain relaxation in the nanostructured layer, which may advantageously increase the electron-hole overlap and reduce the electron-hole recombination time. [0295-0296] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The specific claimed thicknesses of t the InGaN mesa absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" thicknesses that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired adhesive strength, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
Accordingly, since the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the stated thicknesses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 17, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 16.
Keller in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose dimensions (width and length) of the InGaN mesas range from 500 nm to 500 μm.
Oliver (Fig. 4) discloses varying thickness of InGaN mesas [0138, 0317]
Therefore, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver such that the dimensions (width and length) of the InGaN mesas range from 500 nm to 500 μm in order to cause strain relaxation in the nanostructured layer, which may advantageously increase the electron-hole overlap and reduce the electron-hole recombination time. [0295-0296] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The specific claimed dimensions (width and length) of the InGaN mesas range from 500 nm to 500 μm. mesa absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" thicknesses that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired adhesive strength, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
Accordingly, since the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the stated dimentions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 18, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12.
Keller in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose a pitch between two consecutive mesas ranges from 50 nm to 20 μm.
Oliver discloses varying interval between trenches [0009]
Therefore, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver such that a pitch between two consecutive mesas ranges from 50 nm to 20 μm in order to cause strain relaxation in the nanostructured layer, which may advantageously increase the electron-hole overlap and reduce the electron-hole recombination time. [0295-0296] and since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in a prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
The specific claimed relative thicknesses of the doped GaN, absent any criticality, are only considered to be the "optimum" pitch that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation based, among other things, on the desired adhesive strength, manufacturing costs, etc. (see Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained.
Accordingly, since the applicants have not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the stated thicknesses, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Keller in view of Zhang and Oliver.
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al. (US 2024/0063340 A1) as based upon the provisional filing date of 09/10/2019 for 62/898178 and provisional filing date of 09/10/2019 for 62/927,486) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2013/0011656 A1) and further in view of Han et al. (US 2020/0152841 A1).
Regarding Claim 32, Keller in view of Zhang discloses the GaN/InGaN structure according to claim 12.
Keller in view of Zhang does not explicitly disclose the InGaN mesas are separated by electrically insulating layers.
Han (Fig 1B, 3E) discloses an InGaN mesas are separated by electrically insulating layers. (insulator layer 120 disposed between the plurality of GaN diodes 102) [0062, 0074]
Therefore, 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 GaN/InGaN structure in Keller in view of Zhang and Han such that the InGaN mesas are separated by electrically insulating layers in order to have an array of electrical circuits configured to allow for individual electronic control of each circuit [0004]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicants arguments on Pages 7-9 concerning Claim 12
That
“First, Applicant maintains that Keller and Zhang do not disclose or suggest "InGaN mesas in contact with the non-porous electrically conductive doped GaN layer" as claimed. As noted in Applicant's prior response, the cited porous InGaN layer (204) of Keller does not contact the cited conductive GaN layer (202) as it does amended claim 12, and as shown, for example, in Fig. 6 of the instant specification. Furthermore, the cited porous InGaN layer (1204) of Keller is shown as directly contacting the cited epitaxially grown layer (1206) in Fig. 12 of Keller, not an undoped or weakly doped porous InGaN layer as claimed and shown, for example, in Fig. 6 of the instant specification.”
The Examiner notes that all of the layers are in the GaN/InGaN structure are in contact (at least indirect) with each other.
Further, Claim 12 as amended recites “InGaN mesas in contact with the non-porous conductive doped GaN layer”. Claim as amended does not require porous InGaN layer of Keller to contact the cited conductive GaN layer.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments
“Furthermore, the cited porous InGaN layer (1204) of Keller is shown as directly contacting the cited epitaxially grown layer (1206) in Fig. 12 of Keller, not an undoped or weakly doped porous InGaN layer as claimed and shown, for example, in Fig. 6 of the instant specification.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., directly contacting the cited epitaxially grown layer) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, Regarding Applicant’s arguments
“Applicant maintains that Zhang simply does not disclose a non-porous GaN layer. Respectfully, the Office action appears to misinterpret para. [0044] of Zhang and did not address the arguments Applicant raised to this point in the prior response. Specifically, Fig. 9 of Zhang discloses InGaN mesas (904, 906) having a porous doped InGaN layer (nanoporous GaN 906/932) and an undoped or weakly doped InGaN layer (902). Fig. 9a, Zhang discloses a porous undoped GaN layer (906) and a sapphire substrate (902). Further, para. [0043] pf Zhang remarks that (904) is an "NP layer", wherein NP means "nanoporous"- not "nonporous." Consequently, Zhang does not disclose or suggest, "a non-porous electrically conductive doped GaN layer" and "InGaN mesas in contact with the non-porous electrically conductive doped GaN layer" as set forth in amended claim 12. Thus, Applicant submits that the cited references do not disclose the features of claim 12 for at least this reason.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner notes that prior art of Zhang is not relied upon for teaching non-porous GaN layer. Prior art of Zhang is relied upon for teaching an undoped or weakly doped layer is InGaN. Zhang discloses that both an undoped or weakly doped non-porous layer and porous doped layer are InGaN layers. “Although GaN is emphasized throughout this specification, these techniques are also applicable to other III-nitride systems such as InGaN. Thus the term "GaN" should be broadly interpreted throughout the specification to mean any III-nitride material such as InGaN, AlGaN, etc. Thus the phrase "NP GaN" can also be interpreted as "NP InGaN" etc.” [0044]. NP InGaN is related to porous doped InGaN layer not to non-porous electrically conductive doped GaN layer.
Regarding Applicants arguments
“Furthermore, Applicant submits that none of the cited references disclose or suggest a relaxed epitaxially grown InGaN layer in contact with the undoped or weakly doped non- porous InGaN layer as now recited in amended Claim 12. In Figures 2 and 12 of Keller, the relaxed layers are in contact with the porous layers. The practical effect of this arrangement is explained in para. [0153], where Keller states, "As layer 102 is not porosified during the electrochemical anodisation step, it enables an epitaxial regrowth to be performed on a continuous, dense, non-porous 2D layer. The epitaxial regrowth is thus facilitated and the epitaxially grown layer has a better resistance. The creation of defects related to pore coalescence is avoided."
The Examiner notes that prior art of Keller in view of Zhang discloses (c) a relaxed epitaxially grown InGaN layer (1206, 206; at least partially relaxed (e.g., semiconductor or III-nitride) layer 206, 1206 on or above the porous III-nitride layer) [0335] in contact at least through layer 204 with the undoped or weekly doped non-porous layer (an intermediate III-nitride layer 212) [0357].
The Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation contact is interpreted as met as long as indirect contact exists between layers. Applicant is advised to use direct physical contact to avoid broader interpretation of term “contact”
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