DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants elected without traverse the embodiment shown in fig. 10. Since claims 14-18 recite limitations directed to non-elected embodiment of fig. 6 with DBRs having different spacings and non-elected embodiment of fig. 5 with DBR sub-layers with different cross-sectional areas, claims 14-18 are withdrawn from consideration. Further, claim 16 would possibly create new matter issues since there is no embodiment disclosed which has uneven spacing between DBRs and DBR segments with different areas.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-13 are being considered on their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states on page 7 that Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s position that “feature a”, which is a claimed property, is presumed to be present when the prior art structure us substantially identical to the claimed structure.
The first reason Applicant disagrees is because Chiu is silent as to the light transmittance. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the MPEP explicitly states that these properties need not explicitly be taught if the structure is substantially identical, therefore it is immaterial whether Chiu is silent as to the light transmittance.
Second reason provided by Applicant is that Chiu does not disclose any of the parameters (thickness, material properties) necessary to determine whether the light transmittance exceeds 70%. Again, Examiner respectfully disagrees since in similar fashion to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner contends that claim 1 does not provide any requirement for thickness or material for each of the claimed elements.
The third reason provided by Applicant is that Chiu doesn’t disclose any of the parameters in detail and is not “substantially identical” to the protecting layer and the growing substrate recited in claim 1. Again, Examiner respectfully disagrees since claim 1 does not require any material or thickness of the claimed elements. Further, what is claimed is a base, a DBR, a growing substrate, a protecting layer, and their relative positions. The claim does not require any specific material and a thickness of the specific material. Clearly Chiu teaches each and every element claimed and the associated property as claimed are present as outlined in MPEP 2112.01(i).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3-6, and 8-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The rejection has been updated to include the amended portions.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 9, 10, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as best understood, as being anticipated by Chiu et al. (US PGPub 2014/0131727; hereinafter “Chiu”).
Re claim 1: Chiu teaches (e.g. fig 6) a composite substrate, comprising: a base (110, 111); a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer (DBR 130; e.g. paragraph 17) on a side (upper side of 110,111; hereinafter “S”) of the base (110, 111); and a growing substrate (upper surface portion of i-GaN 70; e.g. paragraph 19; hereinafter “GS”) on the side (upper side of DBR 130) of the DBR layer (130) away from the base (110, 111); and a protecting layer (lower portions of i-GaN 70 that are between portions of 111; e.g. paragraph 19; hereinafter “PL”), wherein the protecting layer (PL) covers a top surface (top surface of 130) of the DBR layer (130); wherein a light transmittance of light (light emitted from active layer 150) of at least one wavelength passing through the protecting layer (PL) and the growing substrate (GS) exceeds 70% (claimed properties are presumed to be present when the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure, see MPEP 2112.01{i)).
Re claim 4: Chiu teaches the composite substrate according to claim 1, wherein the base (110, 111) comprises a patterned base (110 is provided with protrusions 111), and the top surface of the base (110, 111) is provided with a trench (regions between 111; hereinafter “T”), and the DBR layer (130) is in the trench (T).
Re claim 5: Chiu teaches the composite substrate according to claim 4, wherein a top surface of the DBR layer (130) is lower than the top surface of the base (110, 111).
Re claim 6: Chiu teaches the composite substrate according to claim 4, wherein the protecting layer (PL) further covers the DBR layer (130) and the base (110, 111), and the growing substrate (GS) is bonded to the protecting layer (PL).
Re claim 9: Chiu teaches the composite substrate according to claim 1, wherein a material of the base (sapphire substrate 110, 111; e.g. paragraph 20) comprises at least one of Si, SiC, AIN, Al2O3, or diamond.
Re claim 10: Chiu teaches the composite substrate according to claim 1, wherein the growing substrate (GS) comprises a monocrystalline-material layer (GaN layer 70; e.g. paragraph 21).
Claim(s) 1, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), as best understood, as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US PGPub 2017/0005242; hereinafter “Kim”).
Re claim 1: Kim teaches (e.g. fig 1) a composite substrate, comprising: a base (190); a distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) layer (DBR 160; e.g. paragraph 52) on a side (upper side of 190; hereinafter “S”) of the base (190); and a growing substrate (substrate 101; e.g. paragraph 52) on a side (upper side of DBR 160) of the DBR layer (160) away from the base (190); and a protecting layer (low refractive index layer 150 that is between 160 and 101; e.g. paragraph 52), wherein the protecting layer (150) covers a top surface (top surface of 160) of the DBR layer (160); wherein a light transmittance of light of at least one wavelength (x-ray would pass through 150) passing through the protecting layer (150) and the growing substrate (101) exceeds 70% (claimed properties are presumed to be present when the prior art structure is substantially identical to the claimed structure, see MPEP 2112.01{i)).
Re claim 10: Kim teaches the composite substrate according to claim 1, wherein the growing substrate (101) comprises a monocrystalline-material layer (if 101 is a sapphire, the c-plane is used for nitride semiconductor growth; e.g. paragraph 53).
Re claim 11: Kim teaches the composite substrate according to claim 10, wherein a material of the growing substrate (101) comprises at least one of Si, Al2O3, or AIN (if 101 is a sapphire, the c-plane is used for nitride semiconductor growth; e.g. paragraph 53).
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) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu as applied to claim 1 and 10 above, respectively, and further in view of Jain et al. (US PGPub 2016/0118531; hereinafter “Jain”).
Re claim 8: Chiu teaches the composite substrate according to claim 2, wherein a material of the protecting layer (PL) comprises GaN.
Chiu is silent as to the material of the protecting layer comprises at least one of Si, Al2O3, or AIN.
Jain teaches that substrate having a sapphire substrate can have a buffer/protecting layer made from AlN 14 (e.g. paragraph 34) that interfaces well with the GaN material of the LED structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the AlN protecting layer as taught by Jain in the device of Chiu in order to have the predictable result of using a known material which interfaces well with the GaN materials of the upper LED structure and reduce lattice structures so that the LED can have better light emitting performance.
Re claim 11: Chiu teaches the composite substrate according to claim 10, wherein a material of the growing substrate (GS) comprises GaN.
Chiu is silent as to the material of the growing substrate comprises at least one of Si, Al2O3, or AIN.
Jain teaches that substrate having a sapphire substrate can have a buffer/growth substrate made from AlN 14 (e.g. paragraph 34) that interfaces well with the GaN material of the LED structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the AlN growth substrate as taught by Jain in the device of Chiu in order to have the predictable result of using a known material which interfaces well with the GaN materials of the upper LED structure and reduce lattice structures so that the LED can have better light emitting performance.
Claim(s), 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Nagal et al. (US PGPub 2004/0077166; hereinafter “Nagal”).
Re claim 3: Kim teaches substantially the entire device as claimed in claim 1 except explicitly teaching the composite substrate, wherein the growing substrate is made of monocrystalline-Si, and a thickness of the growing substrate is less than 100nm.
Nagal teaches (e.g. figs. 1A and 1B) the growing substrate is made of monocrystalline-Si (growth substrate 11 for 3-5 materials is 100nm thick is formed from (111) silicon substrate; e.g. paragraph 47), and a thickness of the growing substrate is less than 100nm (growth substrate 11 for 3-5 materials is 100nm thick; e.g. paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the growth substrate as taught by Nagal in the device of Kim in order to have the predictable results of using a high quality, inexpensive growth substrate materials which is also thin therefore resulting in high quality subsequent growth of layers and reducing the size of the device created.
Re claim 12: Kim teaches substantially the entire device as claimed in claim 11 except explicitly teaching the composite substrate wherein the material of the growing substrate is Si, and a thickness of the growing substrate is less than 100nm.
Nagal teaches (e.g. figs. 1A and 1B) the material of the growing substrate is Si (growth substrate 11 for 3-5 materials is 100nm thick; e.g. paragraph 47), and a thickness of the growing substrate is less than 100nm (growth substrate 11 for 3-5 materials is 100nm thick; e.g. paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the growth substrate as taught by Nagal in the device of Kim in order to have the predictable results of using a high quality, inexpensive growth substrate materials which is also thin therefore resulting in high quality subsequent growth of layers and reducing the size of the device created.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US PGPub 2009/0114935; hereinafter “Huang”).
Re claim 13: Chiu teaches a Bragg reflector but is silent as to explicitly teaching the composite substrate according to claim 1, wherein a material of the DBR layer comprises a SiN layer and a SiO2 layer that are periodically stacked, a SiO2 layer and an Al2O3 layer that are periodically stacked, an AIN layer and an Al2O3 layer that are periodically stacked, or a fluorine doped SiO2 layer and a SiO2 layer that are periodically stacked.
Huang teaches a material of the DBR layer comprises a SiN layer and a SiO2 layer that are periodically stacked, a SiO2 layer and an Al2O3 layer (stack of high and low refractive index layers chosen from SiO2, SiN, AlN, and Al2O3; e.g. paragraph 38) that are periodically stacked, an AIN layer and an Al2O3 layer that are periodically stacked, or a fluorine doped SiO2 layer and a SiO2 layer that are periodically stacked.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, absent unexpected results, to use the alternative material for a DBR as taught by Huang in the device of Chiu in order to have the predictable result of reducing costs by using a known material that is readily available for the production of a DBR.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JESSE Y MIYOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-1629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/JESSE Y MIYOSHI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights