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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 08/27/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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 angles γ and θ (claim 8) 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Third lower limiting layer elastic coefficient S3 described twice (0028 lines 3 and 6)
“lower limiting layer” should read “substrate” (0030 line 8)
“active layer” not included (0058)
Fig. 6 description involves upper waveguide layer (0060), fig. 6 instead focuses on upper limiting layer 105
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7, 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
(claim 7) A ratio of ratios is described in lines 4-5, but “ratio” only used once in the label “element concentration ratio”
(claim 12) elastic coefficient of third lower limiting layer is written twice, lines 3-4 + lines 6-7
. 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.
Claim 8, 13 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 8 indefinite due to “a direction from the second active layer to the first active layer” (line 7) and “a direction from the lower waveguide layer to the first active layer” (line 10). These directions already introduced in claim 8 line 3 + line 5, respectively. It is unclear if the line 7 and 10 references are meant to introduce new directions or refer to the existing ones. Examiner interprets the corresponding directions to be the same (line 3 = line 7 direction and line 5 = line 10 direction).
Claim 13 indefinite due to equation y = x/sinx (lines 2 + 4). Claim does not define what variables x and y represent within third lower limiting layer. Additionally, no origin or scale is provided. Applicant is advised to define both variables and provide a coordinate system with an origin with respect to the third lower limiting layer. Examiner interprets x to be a positional depth coordinate with respect to the third lower limiting layer and y to be the corresponding material property value at position x.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chen_NPL/”Chen” (“Improving Output Efficiency of InGaN-Based MQW Green Laser Diodes…”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a semiconductor green laser, from bottom to top (520 nm green laser in pg. 2 Section 2 Figure 1), comprising: a substrate (n-GaN substrate 150 um), a lower limiting layer (n-AlGaN CL 1000 nm), a lower waveguide layer (n-InGaN LWG 300 nm), an active layer (InGaN MQW), an upper waveguide layer (n-InGaN UWG 200 nm), and an upper limiting layer (p-AlGaN CL 600 nm), wherein, the active layer is a quantum well composed of well layers and barrier layers (MQW is quantum well with 2 wells + 3 barriers), and a period of the quantum well is denoted as z, wherein 1≤z≤3 (period z = 2 well layers); each of the well layers includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlGaN, AlN, InN, InGaN, and GaN, or any combination thereof (each well layer includes InGaN), and a thickness of each of the well layers is denoted as p, wherein 5 Å≤p≤100 Å (each well layer thickness p = 2.5 nm = 25 A); each of the barrier layers includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlGaN, AlN, InN, InGaN, and GaN, or any combination thereof (each barrier layer includes InGaN), and a thickness of each of the barrier layers is denoted as q, wherein 10 Å≤q≤200 Å (each barrier layer thickness q = 10 nm = 100 A); and an electron effective mass of each of the well layers is less than an electron effective mass of each of the barrier layers (see italicized portion A), a spontaneous polarization coefficient of each of the well layers is less than a spontaneous polarization coefficient of each of the barrier layers (italicized portion B), and a band gap of each of the well layers is less than a band gap of each of the barrier layers (italicized portion C).
Well layers 23% In, barrier layers 2% In
Kucukgok discloses InGaN electron effective mass decreasing with increasing In composition (evidentiary reference Kucukgok_NPL pg. 025305-4 par. 3 Fig. 4 description). Therefore, higher In well layers will have lower electron effective mass than lower In barrier layers.
Gladysiewicz_NPL discloses InGaN spontaneous polarization equation (pg. 1018 (4) equation 6). Using values from Chen with a higher In% well layer and lower In% barrier layer gives more negative/lower spontaneous polarization for well than for barrier.
Kucukgok discloses InGaN band gap decreasing with increasing In composition (evidentiary reference Kucukgok_NPL pg. 025305-4 par. 3 Fig. 4 description). Therefore, higher In well layers will have lower band gap than lower In barrier layers.
All claimed relationships met.
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the semiconductor green laser of claim 1, wherein the lower waveguide layer includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlGaN, InGaN, InN, and GaN, or any combination thereof (LWG layer includes InGaN), and a thickness of the lower waveguide layer is within a range of 10 Å-9000 Å (LWG thickness 3000 A); the upper waveguide layer includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlGaN, InGaN, InN, and GaN, or any combination thereof (UWG layer includes InGaN), and a thickness of the upper waveguide layer is within a range of 10 Å-9000 Å (UWG thickness 2000 A); the upper limiting layer includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlN, AlGaN, InGaN, and GaN, or any combination thereof (upper limiting CL layer includes AlGaN), and a thickness of the upper limiting layer is within a range of 10 Å-8000 Å (upper limiting CL layer thickness 6000 A); the lower limiting layer includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlN, AlGaN, and GaN, or any combination thereof (lower limiting CL layer includes AlGaN), and a thickness of the lower limiting layer is within a range of 10 Å-90,000 Å (lower limiting CL layer thickness 10000 A); and the substrate includes any one of a sapphire, silicon, Ge, SiC, AlN, GaN, GaAs, InP, Mo, TiW, Cu, a sapphire/SiO2 composite substrate, a sapphire/AlN composite substrate, a diamond, sapphire/SiNx, a sapphire/SiNx/SiO2 composite substrate, a sapphire/SiO2/SiNx composite substrate, and a magnesium aluminate spinel MgAl2O4, MgO, ZnO, ZrB2, LiAlO2, and LiGaO2 composite substrate (substrate includes GaN).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Nagahama (US-6172382-B1).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the semiconductor green laser of claim 1, wherein the lower limiting layer includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlGaN, AlN, InN, InGaN, and GaN, or any combination thereof (lower limiting CL layer includes AlGaN).
Chen does not disclose and the lower limiting layer includes a first lower limiting layer, a second lower limiting layer, a third lower limiting layer, a fourth lower limiting layer, and a fifth lower limiting layer.
Nagahama discloses a nitride semiconductor MQW light emitting device with a lower cladding layer comprising 200 AlGaN/GaN constituent cladding layers (fig. 6 lower cladding layer comprises 100 AlGaN/GaN layer pairs, first layer above 13 is Al(0.2)Ga(0.8)N, final layer before 15 is GaN, therefore, “fifth layer” is GaN closest to 15, third = first (closest to 13) = GaN, fourth = second = Al(0.2)Ga(0.8)N, col. 49 lines 50-65, see instant application fig. 8 + 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lower limiting layer includes a GaN first lower limiting layer, a Al(0.2)Ga(0.8)N second lower limiting layer, a GaN third lower limiting layer, a Al(0.2)Ga(0.8)N fourth lower limiting layer, and a GaN fifth lower limiting layer to provide more strain relief relative to a lower limiting layer with single component layer (Hansen_NPL pg. 5 Conclusion).
A second rejection of claim 1
Claim(s) 1, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama in view of "Chen"/Chen_NPL.
Regarding claim 1, Nagahama discloses a semiconductor green laser (fig. 3, cols. 50-53), from bottom to top, comprising: a substrate (100, col. 50 lines 60-65), a lower limiting layer (14, col. 51 lines 10-25), a lower waveguide layer (15, col. 51 lines 20-35), an active layer (16, col. 51 lines 35-50), an upper waveguide layer (18, col. 51 lines 60-65), and an upper limiting layer (19, col. 52 lines 10-20), wherein, the active layer is a quantum well composed of well layers and barrier layers (16 is QW with wells and barriers, col. 51 lines 30-55), and a period of the quantum well is denoted as z, wherein 1≤z≤3 (z=3, col. 51 lines 30-55 “repeated two times”); each of the well layers includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlGaN, AlN, InN, InGaN, and GaN, or any combination thereof, and a thickness of each of the well layers is denoted as p, wherein 5 Å≤p≤100 Å (well layers each include InGaN with 25 A thickness); each of the barrier layers includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlGaN, AlN, InN, InGaN, and GaN, or any combination thereof, and a thickness of each of the barrier layers is denoted as q, wherein 10 Å≤q≤200 Å (barrier layers each include InGaN with 50 A thickness).
Nagahama does not disclose a green laser and an electron effective mass of each of the well layers is less than an electron effective mass of each of the barrier layers, a spontaneous polarization coefficient of each of the well layers is less than a spontaneous polarization coefficient of each of the barrier layers, and a band gap of each of the well layers is less than a band gap of each of the barrier layers.
Chen discloses a green laser with a well layer and barrier layer composition that provides the claimed relationships (see pg. 2 Section 2 and Figure 1). See italicized portions A, B, C below.
Well layers In(23%)Ga(77%)N, barrier layers In(2%)Ga(98%)N in Chen
Kucukgok discloses InGaN electron effective mass decreasing with increasing In composition (evidentiary reference Kucukgok_NPL pg. 025305-4 par. 3 Fig. 4 description). Therefore, higher In well layers will have lower electron effective mass than lower In barrier layers.
Gladysiewicz_NPL discloses InGaN spontaneous polarization equation (pg. 1018 (4) equation 6). Using values from Chen with a higher In% well layer and lower In% barrier layer gives more negative/lower spontaneous polarization for well than for barrier.
Kucukgok discloses InGaN band gap decreasing with increasing In composition (evidentiary reference Kucukgok_NPL pg. 025305-4 par. 3 Fig. 4 description). Therefore, higher In well layers will have lower band gap than lower In barrier layers.
All claimed relationships met.
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 well layer and barrier layer compositions from Chen to obtain green emission and a wavelength of 520 nm.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nagahama discloses the semiconductor green laser of claim 1, wherein the lower limiting layer includes any one of AlInGaN, AlInN, AlGaN, AlN, InN, InGaN, and GaN, or any combination thereof (14 includes AlGaN and GaN, col. 51 lines 10-25); and the lower limiting layer includes a first lower limiting layer , a second lower limiting layer, a third lower limiting layer, a fourth lower limiting layer, and a fifth lower limiting layer (14 includes first (farthest from 15), third, fifth (closest to 15) layers GaN and second, fourth layers AlGaN; GaN second (top) layer in each pair).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nagahama discloses the semiconductor green laser of claim 9, wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the first lower limiting layer is denoted as a1, a thermal expansion coefficient of the second lower limiting layer is denoted as a2, a thermal expansion coefficient of the third lower limiting layer is denoted as a3, a thermal expansion coefficient of the fourth lower limiting layer is denoted as a4, a thermal expansion coefficient of the fifth lower limiting layer is denoted as a5, a thermal expansion coefficient of the lower waveguide layer is denoted as b, a thermal expansion coefficient of the active layer is denoted as c, a thermal expansion coefficient of the upper waveguide layer is denoted as d, and a thermal expansion coefficient of the upper limiting layer is denoted as f; and a gradient of a thermal expansion coefficient of the semiconductor green laser satisfies a relationship of: 2.5(10-6/K)≤c≤d≤a3≤b≤a5≤a1≤f≤a2≤a4≤6.5(10-6/K).
2.5(10-6/K) ≤ c(InGaN) ≤ d(GaN) ≤ a3(GaN) ≤ b(GaN) ≤ a5(GaN) ≤ a1(GaN) ≤ f(AlGaN or GaN) ≤ a2(AlGaN) ≤ a4(AlGaN) ≤ 6.5(10-6/K)
See Kern US-6274399-B1 col. 2 Table 1 for GaN AlN InN expansion coefficients.
InN < GaN < AlN
Kim2001 discloses use of linear interpolation and Vegard’s law to determine AlGaN coefficient > GaN coefficient (Kim2001_NPL pg. 2175 (3) left col., Note Kim2001 uses a-axis coefficients, claim 10 is interpreted to involve c-axis coefficients, see Kern c-axis coefficients). See also Vegard_NPL. Vegard_NPL demonstrates that thermal expansion coefficient for alloys is a weighted mean of/between the relevant endpoints (e.g. InN < InGaN < GaN, GaN < AlGaN < AlN).
Using Kern c-axis values with Kim2001 linear interpolation technique/Vegard’s law, c-axis (in growth direction) thermal expansion coefficients InGaN < GaN < AlGaN with all three between 2.5e-6 and 6.5e-6.
Claim 10 compound inequality satisfied.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nagahama discloses the semiconductor green laser of claim 9, wherein a dielectric constant of the first lower limiting layer is denoted as g1, a dielectric constant of the second lower limiting layer is denoted as g2, a dielectric constant of the third lower limiting layer is denoted as g3, a dielectric constant of the fourth lower limiting layer is denoted as g4, a dielectric constant of the fifth lower limiting layer is denoted as g5, a dielectric constant of the lower waveguide layer is denoted as h, a dielectric constant of the active layer is denoted as i, a dielectric constant of the upper waveguide layer is denoted as j, and a dielectric constant of the upper limiting layer is denoted as k; and a gradient of a dielectric constant of the semiconductor green laser satisfies a relationship of: 8≤g4≤g2≤k≤g1≤g5≤h≤g3≤j≤i≤12.
8≤g4≤g2≤k≤g1≤g5≤h≤g3≤j≤i≤12
8≤ g4(AlGaN) ≤ g2(AlGaN) ≤ k(layer 19 is AlGaN and GaN) ≤ g1(GaN) ≤ g5(GaN) ≤ h(layer 15 is GaN) ≤ g3(GaN) ≤ j(layer 18 is GaN) ≤ i(layer 16 is InGaN) ≤ 12.
Srivastava discloses AlGaN dielectric constant < GaN < InGaN with all three between 8 and 12 (Srivastava_NPL Table 4).
Claim 11 compound inequality satisfied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-8, 12-13 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.
Claim 8, 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, 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:
Claim 2: Prior art of record does not disclose an active layer comprising a first active layer and a second active layer having the six separate claimed distributions. Portions of the claimed band-gap distributions are disclosed by the prior art of record, but the prior art of record does not disclose two separate active layers with the claimed combination of electron effective mass, spontaneous polarization coefficient, and band gap distributions. Independently tailoring the distributions for each property to achieve one W distribution and a separate inverted U distribution is not obvious.
Claims 3-8: Depend from claim 2
Claim 12: Prior art of record does not disclose the claimed elastic coefficient relationship. Although prior art of record discloses generally varying composition and elastic properties to control strain within semiconductor stack, it does not disclose anything to a degree of specificity sufficient to read on the relationship in claim 12.
Claim 13: Prior art of record does not disclose, specifically and exclusively for the third lower limiting layer, an x/sinx relationship for both thermal expansion coefficient and elastic coefficient distributions, and a dielectric constant distribution governed by y=Vx^2+Ux+W. General strain management principles guiding semiconductor layer design are disclosed by the prior art of record, but these are not specific enough to read on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alex Ehrlich whose telephone number is (703)756-5716. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/A.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2828 /MINSUN O HARVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2828
