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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. (see MPEP § 606.01).
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
The following title is suggested:
“Methods of Manufacture of Light Emitting Device having Monolithic Quantum Nanowire Structure .
Specification
Number of figures submitted does not match the number of figures listed under Brief Description of Drawings in the specification. All of the figures with alphabets should be listed separately. For example, ‘Figs. 1A-1C’ should be ‘Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C’.
In particular, ‘FIGS. 9A – 9E’ in the paragraph [0016] are objected.
See MPEP 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers, MPEP 507 - Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). This labeling convention ensures clarity and consistency in referencing figures throughout the patent application and publication. Improper labeling may result in an objection from OPAP and require correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “The method of claim 35” appears to be typo. Therefore, the examiner recommends amending to “The method of claim [[35]] 25”.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “The method of claim 35” appears to be typo. Therefore, the examiner recommends amending to “The method of claim [[35]] 25”.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “Al2O3” should be “Al2O3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 25-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the limitation “the ratio” in line(s) 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner recommends amending to “[[the]] a ratio”.
Regarding claims 26-35, because of their dependency on claim 25, these claims are also rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 25.
Regarding claim 38, the claim recites the limitation “the second semiconductor regions” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner construed the limitation as “the third semiconductor regions”. Therefore, the examiner recommends amending to “the [[second]] third semiconductor regions”.
Regarding claims 39-41, because of their dependency on claim 38, these claims are also rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 38.
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 21, 36, 38 and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schneider (US 20170323925).
Regarding claim 21. Fig 2 – Fig 9 of Schneider disclose A method of fabricating a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
providing a substrate 20 (Fig 2);
depositing a metallic mask 42 on the substrate (Fig 2, [0068]: titanium), the metallic mask having a pattern of spaced apart openings (Fig 2: 43G, 43B), each of a different size [0069];
growing a plurality of stand-alone nanowires through application of an epitaxial crystal growth technique [0072] such that each nanowire has a different diameter determined by the size of one of the spaced apart openings (Fig 3 – Fig 5, [0070]/[0071]: after forming the predetermined and different diameters of openings, each nanowires is grown. Thus, each nanowire inherently has a different diameter determined by the size of one of the spaced apart openings) and
forming each nanowire to have a quantum active layer structure 361/362 (Fig 5 – Fig 9, [0088]: quantum wells), such that each nanowire is configured to emit a photonic output at a different wavelength corresponding to the diameter of the nanowire ([0082]: “emitting light at different wavelengths”).
Regarding claim 36. Schneider discloses A method comprising:
forming a mask 42 on a substrate 20 (Fig 2), wherein the mask includes a plurality of openings (43G/43B) of a predetermined shape (Fig 2), wherein the plurality of openings include a number of different size openings (Fig 2, [0070]: “openings 43G, 43B (e.g., diameter) of the respective openings 43G, 43B may be different in each respective region”), and wherein the plurality of openings are separated by a predetermined spacing (Fig 2), and wherein the substrate is exposed through the plurality of opening in the mask (Fig 2);
epitaxially forming first semiconductor regions 32G/32B (Fig 3, [0072]: GaN) of a plurality of nanowires [0072], wherein the first semiconductor regions are formed on the exposed substrate in each of the plurality of opening of the mask (Fig 3);
epitaxially forming [0083] one or more quantum layers 361/362 ([0083]/[0085]: InGaN) of the plurality of nanowires (Fig 5), wherein the one or more quantum layers are formed on each of the first semiconductor regions (Fig 5); and
epitaxially forming third semiconductor regions (40G/40B) of the plurality of nanowires (Fig 9, [0091]: GaN), wherein the third semiconductor regions are formed on each of the one or more quantum layers (Fig 9).
Regarding claim 38. Schneider discloses The method according to claim 36, wherein:
the first semiconductor regions of the plurality of nanowires comprise gallium nitride (GaN) [0072];
the one or more quantum layers of the plurality of nanowires comprises one or more sets of gallium nitride (GaN) and indium gallium nitride (InGaN) layers [0085]; and
the [[second]] third semiconductor regions (refer to the above claim objection) of the plurality of nanowires comprise gallium nitride (GaN) [0091].
Regarding claim 40. Schneider discloses The method according to claim 38, wherein the one or more quantum layers of the plurality of nanowires include one or more quantum structures selected from a group consisting of quantum dots, quantum dots, quantum disks, quantum arch-shaped structures, quantum semi-polar planes, quantum wells [0085], and quantum dots in a shell.
Regarding claim 41. Schneider discloses The method according to claim 40, wherein at least two of the plurality of nanowires with different lateral diameters have different quantum structures [0069]/[0070].
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.
Claims 37 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (US 20170323925)
Regarding claim 37. Schneider discloses The method according to claim 36, wherein forming the mask comprises:
depositing a titanium layer [0068] on a substrate selected from a group consisting of a silicon (Si) substrate, a silicon carbide (SIC) substrate, a gallium nitride (GaN) substrate, and a sapphire (aluminum oxide (Al2O3)) substrate [0067]; and
patterning the titanium layer using electron-beam (e-beam) lithography or photolithography and reactive ion beam etching to form the plurality of openings ([0069]: Schneider discloses ‘ashing’ for the steps of forming the patterns. In the applicant’s field of endeavor, ashing is well known as a specific type of Reactive Ion Etching (RIE). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Schneider’s method discloses the claimed method) the opening shape selected from the group consisting of cylindrical, hexagonal, rectangular, and triangular, and opening sizes within the range of 80 nm to 1900 nm [0069].
Regarding claim 42. Fig 2 – Fig 9 of Schneider discloses The method according to claim 36 except further comprising:
forming a passivation layer that fills an area between the plurality of nanowires; and
forming a plurality of electrodes on the plurality of nanowires, wherein each of the plurality of electrodes are coupled independently to respective ones of the plurality of nanowires.
However, Fig 30B of Schneider discloses forming a passivation layer 190 that fills an area between the plurality of nanowires 10B/10G [0065]; and
forming a plurality of electrodes 192 on the plurality of nanowires, wherein each of the plurality of electrodes are coupled independently to respective ones of the plurality of nanowires (Fig 30B).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the steps of Fig 30B of Schneider within the steps of forming nanowire-based light emitting structure shown in Fig 2- Fig 9 of Schneider for the purpose of providing efficient charge injection, improved current spreading, and enhanced light extraction.
Regarding claim 43. Schneider discloses The method according to claim 36, but Schneider does not explicitly disclose wherein the spacing between the openings is determined so that formation of each nanowire is unaffected by the formation of the others of the plurality of nanowires.
However, Schneider’s method of forming each nanowires is grown by patterned mask, which means that the spacing is determined by pre-patterning the substrate before growth or by essential surface diffusion and catalyst-driven growth mechanisms.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Schneider’s method discloses claimed feature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and also overcome the claim objections (the claims 32 and 35), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 25. Schneider discloses some of the claimed steps including A method of fabricating a device, the method comprising:
depositing a mask 42 on a substrate 20 (Fig 2), the mask having formed therein a pattern of openings (43G/43B), wherein the openings have different effective diameters, and wherein the openings are spaced a distance apart from one another (Fig 2, [0070]: “diameter of the respective openings 43G and 43B may be different”);
growing epitaxially a plurality of nanowires at each of the openings (Fig 3 - Fig 5, [0072]), the plurality of nanowires comprising nanowires having different effective diameters corresponding to the effective diameters of the openings (Fig 3 – Fig 5),
wherein the nanowires are spaced apart from one another by a distance corresponding to the distance between the openings (Fig 3 – Fig 5); and
wherein said growing epitaxially comprises forming active regions 361/362 (Fig 5, [0082]) in the nanowires, the active regions comprising a quantum structure ([0085]: “quantum well layer”) comprising a first group III element ([0083]/[0085]: In) and a second group III element ([0083]/[0085]: Ga).
However, the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “said forming the active regions comprises directing beams toward the substrate, the beams comprising a beam comprising the first group III element and a beam comprising the second group III element, the ratio of the first and second group III elements in the quantum structure is dependent on the diameter of the openings”.
Claims 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 22. the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “forming each quantum active layer structure of one or more quantum dot layers of Indium Gallium Nitride/Gallium Nitride (InGaN/GaN)”.
Claim 39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 39 the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest, along with the other claimed features, “selective area epitaxially forming the one or more sets of gallium nitride (GaN) and indium gallium nitride (InGaN) layers results in a doping gradient of the indium (In) from the periphery to the center of the nanowire decreasing progressively as the lateral diameter of the respective nanowire increases”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8A-4P.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached on 571-272-1945. 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812