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 .
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 elements of claim 14-15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Applicant must show the three-layer structure with the Al in contact with the p-type electrode
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Interdiffusion is intermixing thus claim 5 already precludes the elements of claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant does not have support for a pn-electrode in contact with the p-electrode. The pn-electrode is already recited as the Ni/Au of claim 1. Further it directly contradicts claim 1 which requires a p-electrode provided on and in contact with the p layer wherein the p-electrode comprises a contact layer that is provided in contact with the p layer, has a thickness of 0.5 nm or more and 6 nm or less, and contains Ru or Ni/Au, and a reflection layer that is provided in contact with the contact layer, has a thickness of 50 nm or more, and contains Al or an alloy mainly containing Al.
If there is an intervening pn-electrode how can the aluminum be in contact with the contact layer.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inazu in view of Kim (102593296).
Inazu teaches light emitting element comprising a group III nitride semiconductor with an emission wavelength of 200 nm or more and 280 nm or less,
By setting the thickness of the Rh layer 30a to 10 nm or less and the thickness of the Al layer 30b to 20 nm or more, the p-side contact electrode 30 has a thickness of 1 × 10 .sup.-2 Ω .Math. cm .sup.2 or less (for example, 1 × 10 .sup.-4 Ω). It is possible to obtain a contact resistance of cm .sup.2 or less and a reflectance of 70% or more (for example, about 71% to 81%) with respect to ultraviolet light having a wavelength of 280 nm. In the present specification, the reflectance of the p-side contact electrode 30 with respect to ultraviolet light having a wavelength of 280 nm incident from the p-type semiconductor layer 28 side is also referred to as “first reflectance R1”.), (Paragraph 0039)
the light emitting element comprising: a semiconductor layer in which an n layer (item 24), a light emitting layer (item 26), and a p layer are provided in this order (item 28); and a p-electrode provided on and in contact with the p layer (item 30), wherein the p-electrode comprises a contact layer that is provided in contact with the p layer, has a thickness of 0.5 nm or more and 6 nm or less, and contains Rh,
FIG. 3 is a graph showing the reflectance of the p-side contact electrode 30. FIG. 3 shows the reflectance of the p-side contact electrode 30 to ultraviolet light having a wavelength of 280 nm when the thickness of the Rh layer 30a is (a) 5 nm, (b) 10 nm, (c) 20 nm, or (d) 100 nm. show. (A) to (c) show the reflectance when the 100 nm-thick Al layer 30b is laminated, and (d) shows the reflectance of the Rh layer alone without the Al layer 30b laminated. FIG. 3 shows the reflectance of the p-side contact electrode 30 before the annealing treatment and the reflectance after the annealing treatment. In the example of FIG. 3, the p-side contact electrode 30 is subjected to an annealing treatment at an annealing temperature of 600 ° C. for 1 minute in a nitrogen atmosphere.
; performing a heat treatment to reduce a contact resistance of the contact layer to the p layer (as per the discussion the anneal at 600 C); and forming, in contact with the contact layer, a reflection layer having a thickness of 50 nm or more and containing Al or an alloy mainly containing Al to form a p-electrode in which the contact layer and the reflection layer are stacked.
and a reflection layer that is provided in contact with the contact layer, has a thickness of 50 nm or more, and contains Al or an alloy mainly containing Al.
The Rh layer 30a is provided so as to be in direct contact with the upper surface of the p-type semiconductor layer 28. The thickness of the Rh layer 30a is preferably reduced in order to increase the ultraviolet light reflectance of the p-side contact electrode 30. The thickness of the Rh layer 30a is preferably 10 nm or less, and more preferably 5 nm or less. The Al layer 30b is provided so as to be in direct contact with the upper surface of the Rh layer 30a. The thickness of the Al layer 30b is preferably increased in order to increase the ultraviolet light reflectance of the p-side contact electrode 30. The thickness of the Al layer 30b is preferably 20 nm or more, more preferably 100 nm or more. (Paragraph 0036)
Inazu further teaches performing a heat treatment to reduce a contact resistance of the contact layer to the p layer; and forming, in contact with the contact layer
In the example of FIG. 3, the p-side contact electrode 30 is subjected to an annealing treatment at an annealing temperature of 600 ° C. for 1 minute in a nitrogen atmosphere.
Inazu does not teach Ni/Au or Ru.
Kim teaches paragraph 57:
Although not shown, a high reflective ohmic contact layer may be formed as a conductive substrate 11 on the p-side electrode. highly reflective ohmic contact layer capable of forming an ohmic contact with the P-type semiconductor layer 12, and can be formed as having more than 70% reflectivity. Furthermore, the high reflective ohmic contact layer may comprises a material selected from the group consisting of Ag, Ni, Al, Rh, Pd, Ir, Ru, Mg, Zn, Pt, Au and mixtures thereof is selected and made of at least one layer. highly reflective ohmic contact layer can be made of Ag, Zn/Ag, Ni/Al, Ni/Au, Zn/Al, Pd/Ag, Pd/Al, Ir/Ag, Ir/Au, Pt/Ag, Pt/Al or Ni/Ag/Pt. However, the high reflective ohmic contact layer elements necessary in the exemplary embodiment of the present invention, can selectively using high reflective ohmic contact layer according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention and to various modifications.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to try to replace Rh with other materials including Ru and Ni/Au.
Based on the improved result of reflectivity and resistivity it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to replace Rh with either Ru or Ni/Au.
Contrary to the assertion of applicant has provided no unexpected results. Applicant provide one data point outside the claimed range. Applicant has simply not provided enough data to present a trend or expectation of an outcome (MPEP 716.02a). Further Inazu already indicates variation of thickness of the contact effects the reflectance and none of the data provided by applicant is better than the 81% reflectance of Inazu figure 1 a.
b. As to claim 2, Inazu in view of Kim teaches Ru and the anneal would inherently provide a contact resistivity of the p-electrode is 3 × 10−3Ω·cm2 or less, and a reflectance at the emission wavelength is 55% or more (since it is the same step applicant uses to provide the resistivity and reflectivity).
c. As to claim 3, Inazu in view of Kim teaches Ni/Au the outcome of a contact resistivity of the p-electrode is 2 × 10−3Ω·cm2 or less, and a reflectance at the emission wavelength is 40% or more would be inherent since the process is the same as those disclosed.
Claim(s) 4 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inazu in view of Kim (102593296). In view of Pan.
a. As to claim 4, though Inazu teaches mixing.
As shown in FIG. 3, under the conditions before the annealing treatment, the ultraviolet light reflectance tends to be higher as the thickness of the Rh layer 30a is smaller, but under any of the conditions (a) to (d). , The reflectance is less than 70%. Before the annealing treatment, the reflectance of the Rh layer alone is not so different from 66%. Under the conditions after the annealing treatment, the reflectance greatly changes depending on the thickness of the Rh layer 30a. In particular, under the conditions (a) and (b) where the thickness of the Rh layer 30a is 10 nm or less, the reflectance is 70% or more, 81% under the condition (a), and 73% under the condition (b). The reflectance is obtained. The reflectance’s of (a) and (b) are 5% or more higher than the reflectance of 66% of the Rh layer alone of (d). It is presumed that this is because the materials of the Rh layer 30a and the Al layer 30b are mixed by the annealing treatment, and the ultraviolet light reflectance is improved as compared with the Rh layer alone. On the other hand, under the condition (c) where the thickness of the Rh layer 30a is 20 nm, the reflectance is lowered by the annealing treatment, and the reflectance is less than 50%. It is presumed that this is because the interface between the Rh layer 30a and the Al layer 30b is disturbed by the annealing treatment and unevenness having a large height is formed.
Inazu remarks the improvement is due to the mixing. Applicant shows no evidence that there is an improvement in reflectivity without mixing. Thus, it would still be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the device without mixing to form a device with a decreased reflectivity. One would have been so motivated to lower the thermal budget since the intermixing requires higher temperature for diffusion. Especially with Ru which has a very stable interface with Al up to 660 C this is why Ru was used at the time of filing as a Diffusion barrier in integrated circuit metallization with aluminum.
Further Pan teaches that:
The reflectivity of Al for 250-280 nm DUV light is as high as 92%, and the reflectivity of Mg is greater than that of Al. However, Al and Mg themselves cannot achieve p-type ohmic contact and are not suitable for p-electrodes. Al- and Mg-based multiple metals cannot achieve excellent p-type ohmic contact. Moreover, the formation of oxidation and the diffusion of Al and Mg during the high-temperature process, such as the passivation process or FC bonding process, would destroy ohmic contact. Deteriorative ohmic contact can reduce the performance of DUV LEDs. It is necessary to find a DUV LED technology that makes a trade-off between reflectivity and electrical stability.
Thus, there is a known balance between resistivity and reflectance.
If one wanted better resistivity but adequate reflectivity that would do no post anneal to prevent Al diffusion from decreasing the resistivity further no performing the post anneal would decrease thermal budget decreasing expenses
The lower thermal budget would decrease the power needed to form the device and to improve resistivity. Due to the lack of an anneal the modified device would be provided with an interface between the contact layer and the reflection layer is free of any region in which a material of the contact layer and a material of the reflection layer are intermixed.
b. As to claim 9-11, while Inazu strongly suggests a anneals Inazu further teaches that the anneal reduced the reflectance:
On the other hand, under the condition (c) where the thickness of the Rh layer 30a is 20 nm, the reflectance is lowered by the annealing treatment, and the reflectance is less than 50%. It is presumed that this is because the interface between the Rh layer 30a and the Al layer 30b is disturbed by the annealing treatment and unevenness having a large height is formed (figure 1c reduction in the reflectance).
Pan teaches that:
The reflectivity of Al for 250-280 nm DUV light is as high as 92%, and the reflectivity of Mg is greater than that of Al. However, Al and Mg themselves cannot achieve p-type ohmic contact and are not suitable for p-electrodes. Al- and Mg-based multiple metals cannot achieve excellent p-type ohmic contact. Moreover, the formation of oxidation and the diffusion of Al and Mg during the high-temperature process, such as the passivation process or FC bonding process, would destroy ohmic contact. Deteriorative ohmic contact can reduce the performance of DUV LEDs. It is necessary to find a DUV LED technology that makes a trade-off between reflectivity and electrical stability.
Thus, there is a known balance between resistivity and reflectance.
If one wanted better resistivity but adequate reflectivity that would do no post anneal to prevent Al diffusion from decreasing the resistivity further no performing the post anneal would decrease thermal budget decreasing expenses
Thus, Pan suggests wherein the contact layer and the reflection layer are arranged such that an interface therebetween is free of any alloyed or intermixed region of the material of the contact layer with Al or
wherein the contact layer contains Ru and has a thickness of 4 nm or less, and wherein an interface between the contact layer and the reflection layer is free of any Ru-Al intermixed region or
wherein the contact layer contains Ni/Au and has a total thickness of 6 nm or less, and wherein an interface between the contact layer and the reflection layer is free of any Ni-Al or Au-Al intermixed region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 12,13, and 18-20 are allowed.
As to claim 5 prior art fails to teach and or suggest after the heat treatment is performed, forming, in contact with the contact layer, a reflection layer having a thickness of 50 nm or more and containing Al or an alloy mainly containing Al to form a p-electrode in which the contact layer and the reflection layer are stacked, wherein no heat treatment causing intermixing of the material of the contact layer with the material of the reflection layer is performed after the reflection layer is formed in conjunction with the other elements of claim 5.
Claim 16 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.
Prior art fails to teach and or suggest further comprising a protective film covering the p-electrode, the protective film comprising a first protective film and a second protective film stacked in order, and a reflection film containing Al or an alloy mainly containing Al provided between the first protective film and the second protective film in conjunction with the elements of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts there is no teaching or suggestion to replace one material cited in Kim with another functionally equivalent material.
This is not found persuasive as applicant already pointed out:
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is a viable rationale for replacing the material. These are shown and know functional equivalents. The courts have never stated that List are bad in fact Kim provides a small list of about 20 alternatives. Thus, it is not a list of every possible material that could be used. In response to the argument that (b) shrink them to an ultrathin 0.5-6 nm layer, and (c) stack them under a thick Al reflector for a UVC device is improper is not found convincing, Inazu already suggest thin layers stacked with aluminum provide better reflectivity. Thus, applicant argument is merely attacking the Kim reference in a vacuum without looking at Inazu.
With respect to the assertion of unexpected results the data is insufficient.
Applicant data does not provide enough information to establish a trend or an expectation. Figure 11 depicts one value outside the claimed range one cannot make a determination of a trend based on the data of figure 11.
Likewise figures 12 and 13 only provide one data point outside the range. Moreover, Inazu already suggest some optimization will be required Figure 1 show that for Rh 10 20 and 100 have a lower reflectance that 5 nm. Further 5 nm is within the range claimed.
Further the data is not commensurate applicant point to 50 nm Al or more however all applicant’s data is at 150 nm. Further the Ni/Au is specific the thickness of Au/Ni are equal in all the example.
Further compared to the 81% of Inazu none of applicant results provide a better reflectivity.
Thus, the argument applicant has shown results unexpected is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights