DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 15, filed on 8/28/2026 have been fully considered for examination based on their merits. The previously presented claim(s) 3-4, 7-14, have been considered. Claim(s) 5 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Independent Claim(s) 1, and 2. The Applicant argues (see Remarks, page 6) that OTANI and HAYASHI fail to teach or suggest the rolled over claim limitation (from the canceled claim 5) and now recites, “a AlGaN composition having an Al mole fraction greater than or equal to 0.4.” The Applicant further provided the citations regarding the criticality of the Al mole fraction greater than 0.4 or for example 0.5 to 0.7 (see currently amended claim 6). The Applicant referred to the OTANI art, for the low Al mole fraction (e.g. 0.1) and HAYASHI art, for the very high Al mole fraction (e.g. 0.7 to 0.9) and therefore, the Applicant argued that neither OTANI nor HAYASHI read through the Al mole fraction as mentioned above and in the instant application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the fact that in HAYASHI art, paragraph [0022], demonstrates the Al mole fraction of 0.4 which meets the claim 1, and 2 limitations mentioned above. The excerpt of paragraph [0022] is given below for easy reference.
“FIG. 4 is an illustration of a Nomarski micrograph of the deposition substrate which consists of a single crystalline Al0.4Ga0.6N (y = 0.4) layer and a low-temperature-deposited GaN (x = 0) buffer layer grown on a GaN/GaN buffer/sapphire substrate;”
Based on such strong evidence in the HAYASHI art, the Examiner would maintain the rejection using the references applied in the previous office action (OA), filed on . In addition, the Examiner would like to cite an additional reference (JP5596652B2), the paragraph [0030] refers to the Al mole fraction of 0.2, which has a band gap energy of 3.8 eV and is greater than 3.4 eV as argued by the applicant (see Remarks, page 7) and could be categorized within the ultra-wide bandgap material. Therefore, the person with ordinary skill in the art would even use Al mole fraction less than the criticality mentioned by the Applicant (Al mole fraction greater than or equal to 0.4) to achieve the ultra-wide bandgap characteristics as demonstrated in the instant application. Yet another fact that the Examiner noted regarding the criticality statement as marked by the Applicant (see Remarks, page 7), it is not apparently understood regarding the relation between the threading dislocation density and the ultra-wide bandgap characteristics for the unexpected results as stated by the Applicant (see Remarks, page 6).
Regarding Claim(s) 3-4, and 6-15. The dependent claims 3-4, and 6-15 depend on Claim 1, and follow the similar arguments and therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection of record.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigeki Otani et al, (hereinafter OTANI), US 20060102924 A1, in view of Nobuaki Hayashi et al, (hereinafter HAYASHI), EP 1138062 B1.
Regarding Claim 1, OTANI teaches a device (Fig. 11, 10, semiconductor laser diode, or LD) comprising:
a semiconducting material comprising AlxGa1-xN where 0 < x < 1 (Fig. 11, 13, n-type Al0.1Ga0.9N layer (x=0.1; 1-x = 1-0.1=0.9) or 15, p-type ; Al0.1Ga0.9N layer (x=0.1; 1-x = 1-0.1=0.9), [0083])
a substrate having the formula MB2, wherein B is Boron, and M is a metal comprising at least one of the group of Zr, Hf, Sc, Nb, Ta, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Y, Mo, Mg, Al and U (Fig. 11, 1, single crystal substrate, ZrB2, [0081]).
OTANI does not explicitly disclose a device comprising: wherein the AlGaN has an Al mole fraction greater than or equal to 0.4.
HAYASHI teaches the device (Fig. 1, 10, deposition substrate), wherein the AlGaN mole fraction greater than or equal to 0.4 (Fig. 4, a single crystalline Al0.4Ga0.6N (y = 0.4) layer, [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have modified OTANI to incorporate the teachings of HAYASHI, such that the device, wherein the AlGaN has an Al mole fraction greater than or equal to 0.4, so that the cracks in the films were completely suppressed that enables extremely high reflectance by the AlGaN films (HAYASHI, [0014]).
Regarding Claim 2, OTANI teaches a device (Fig. 11, 10, semiconductor laser diode, or LD) comprising:
a semiconducting material comprising AlxX1-xN where 0 < x < 1; wherein X comprises at least one of the group of Ga, In, Sc, Gd, or a combination thereof (Fig. 11, 13, n-type Al0.1Ga0.9N layer (x=0.1; 1-x = 1-0.1=0.9) or 15, p-type ; Al0.1Ga0.9N layer (x=0.1; 1-x = 1-0.1=0.9), [0083]); and
a substrate having the formula MB2, wherein B is Boron and M is a metal comprising at least one of the group of Zr, Hf, Sc, Nb, Ta, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Y, Mo, Mg, Al and U (Fig. 11, 1, single crystal substrate, ZrB2, [0081]).
OTANI does not explicitly disclose a device comprising: wherein the AlGaN has an Al mole fraction greater than or equal to 0.4.
HAYASHI teaches the device (Fig. 1, 10, deposition substrate), wherein the AlGaN mole fraction greater than or equal to 0.4 (Fig. 4, a single crystalline Al0.4Ga0.6N (y = 0.4) layer, [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have modified OTANI to incorporate the teachings of HAYASHI, such that the device, wherein the AlGaN has an Al mole fraction greater than or equal to 0.4, so that the cracks in the films were completely suppressed that enables extremely high reflectance by the AlGaN films (HAYASHI, [0014]).
Regarding Claim 3, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI teaches the of claim 1.
OTANI further teaches the device (Fig. 11, 10, semiconductor laser diode, or LD) wherein the substrate is selected from the group of ScB2, HfB2 and ZrB2 (Fig. 11, 1, single crystal substrate, ZrB2, [0081]).
Regarding Claim 4, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI teaches the device of claim 1.
OTANI further teaches the device (Fig. 11, 10, semiconductor laser diode, or LD) wherein the semiconducting material (Fig. 11, 13, n-type Al0.1Ga0.9N layer (x=0.1; 1-x = 1-0.1=0.9) or 15, p-type ; Al0.1Ga0.9N layer (x=0.1; 1-x = 1-0.1=0.9), [0083]) is lattice matched along an in-plane direction (a-direction) (Fig. 2, a1/a2/a3 axis, based of hexagonal pole, [0054]) to the substrate (Fig. 11, 1, single crystal substrate, ZrB2, [0081]); wherein the substrate Fig. 11, 1, single crystal substrate, ZrB2, [0081]) has a lattice mismatch less than or equal to 1% for AlGaN (Fig. 1, lattice constant of ZrB2 (a = 3.1857 Å) and the lattice constant of AlGaN is the value between GaN (a = 3.189 Å) ) and AlN (a = 3.112 Å), [0060-0061]). [Note: Per the range of values given above, the lattice mismatch has been calculated and found to be in range between 0.6% and 1.79%; For the upper range, the calculation yields per formula: (aGaN-aZrB2)/aZrB2) x 100 = (3.189-3.1857)/3.1857 x 100 = 0.1%; and for the lower range, the calculation yields per formula: (aZrB2-aAlN)/aZrB2) x 100 ((3.1857-3.112)/3.1857 x 100 = 2.3%)].
Regarding Claim 7, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI teaches the device of claim 1.
OTANI further teaches the device (Fig. 11, 10, semiconductor laser diode, or LD) wherein the substrate (Fig. 11, 1, single crystal substrate, ZrB2, [0081]) exhibits metallic or semimetallic electron transport and the substrate has a resistance less than or equal to .0001 Ωcm (ZrB2 substrate…has a good electrical conductivity, [0006, 0011, 0085, 0095]; ZrB2 substrate…has a specific resistance of several micro-Ohm.cm, [0062]).
Regarding Claim 9, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI teaches the device of claim 1.
OTANI further teaches the device (Fig. 11, 10, semiconductor laser diode, or LD) wherein the device (Fig. 11, 10, semiconductor laser diode, or LD) contains an ultra-wide bandgap semiconductor (Fig. 11, 13, n-type Al0.1Ga0.9N layer (x=0.1; 1-x = 1-0.1=0.9) or 15, p-type ; Al0.1Ga0.9N layer (x=0.1; 1-x = 1-0.1=0.9), [0083]; NOTE: According to Wikipedia, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_gallium_nitride] AlGaN is a wide-bandgap semiconductor material).
Regarding Claim 10, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI teaches the device of claim 1.
OTANI further teaches the device (Fig. 11, 10, semiconductor laser diode, or LD) wherein the device (Fig. 11, 10, semiconductor laser diode, or LD) has a vertical or pseudo-vertical orientation (Fig. 11, vertical structure, [0115]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OTANI, in view of HAYASHI as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 9-10 above, and further in view of Rakesh Jain et al, (hereinafter JAIN), US 20170256672 A1.
Regarding Claim 6, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI teaches the device of claim 1.
HAYASHI further teaches the device (Fig. 1, 10, deposition substrate), wherein the AlGaN (Fig. 1, 4/5, A has an AlGaN buffer layer/AlGaN single crystalline layer, [0015]) has an Al mole fraction selected from the range of 0.5 to 0.7 (Fig. 1, AlxGa1-xN (where x is a mole fraction from zero to one (0 ≤ x ≤ 1)) / AlyGa1-yN (where y is a mole fraction from above zero to one (0 < y ≤ 1)), [0015]).
Though HAYASHI teaches the broader range of Al mole fraction in the AlGaN layer, OTANI does not explicitly disclose the device, wherein the AlGaN has an Al mole fraction selected from the range 0.5 to 0.7.
JAIN teaches the device (Fig. 9, 60, heterostructure), wherein the AlGaN has an Al mole fraction selected from the range 0.5 to 0.7 (Fig. 9, 64, graded p-type layer, can be formed of AlGaN material having an aluminum molar fraction up to 0.6, [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have OTANI as modified by HAYASHI, to incorporate the teachings of JAIN, such that the device, wherein the AlGaN has an Al mole fraction selected from the range 0.5 to 0.7, so that to reduce overall stresses in the device, further reduce dislocation density and prevention of cracks (JAIN, [0003-0007]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OTANI, in view of HAYASHI as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 9-10 above, and further in view of Ok Hyun Nam et al, (hereinafter NAM), US 20120205665 A1.
Regarding Claim 8, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI teaches the device of claim 1.
OTANI as modified by HAYASHI does not explicitly disclose the device, wherein the semiconducting material has a vertical thickness greater than or equal to 1 µm.
NAM teaches the device (Fig. 7, 100, a semiconductor optical device, [0045]), wherein the semiconducting material (Fig. 7, 111, buffer layer, InxAlyGa1-x-yN (0≦x≦1, 0≦y≦1, 0≦x+y≦1), [0048]) has a vertical thickness greater than or equal to 1 µm (thickness of 10 to 20,000 Å, [0048]; 1Å = 1e-4 micrometer; 20,000 Å = 2 micrometer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have OTANI as modified by HAYASHI to incorporate the teachings of NAM, such that the device, wherein the semiconducting material has a vertical thickness greater than or equal to 1 µm, so that to improving the quantum efficiency, as a result, the brightness of the optical device may be improved (NAM, [0053]).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OTANI, in view of HAYASHI as applied to claims 1-4, 7, 9-10 above, and further in view of Eric Frayssinet et al, (hereinafter FRAYSSINET), US 20070072320 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI teaches the device of claim 1.
OTANI as modified by HAYASHI does not explicitly disclose the device, wherein the substrate is removable.
FRAYSSINET teaches the device (Fig. 17, optoelectronic device, [0065]), wherein the substrate (Fig. 17, the upper crystalline layer chosen among the group consisting of ZrB2, [0077]) is removable (Fig. 17, substrate can be removed using methods, [0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have OTANI as modified by HAYASHI to incorporate the teachings of FRAYSSINET, such that the device, wherein the substrate is removable, so that to reduce the strain from the difference in the thermal expansion coefficients between the nitride layer and the substrate (FRAYSSINET [0079]).
Regarding Claim 12, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI and FRAYSSINET teaches the device of claim 11.
FRAYSSINET further teaches the device (Fig. 17, optoelectronic device, [0065]), wherein the substrate (Fig. 17, the upper crystalline layer chosen among the group consisting of ZrB2, [0077]) is a thin film capable of removal via liftoff (Fig. 17, substrate can be removed using methods but not limited to laser lift off, H+ implantation, strained induced separation, [0079]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OTANI, in view of HAYASHI and FRAYSSINET as applied to claims 11 above, and further in view of John Kuvetakis et al, (hereinafter KOUVETAKIS), US 20110189838 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI and FRAYSSINET teaches the device of claim 11.
OTANI as modified by HAYASHI and FRAYSSINET does not explicitly disclose the device, wherein the substrate is a bulk substrate.
KUVETAKIS teaches the device (Fig. 1, semiconductor structure, [0016]), wherein the substrate is a bulk substrate (Figs. 8/13, bulk ZrB2 substrates, [0023], [0031], [0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have OTANI as modified by HAYASHI and FRAYSSINET to incorporate the teachings of KUVETAKIS, such that the device, wherein the substrate is a bulk substrate, so that to reduce the lateral strain as a function of substrate thickness (KUVETAKIS, [0154]).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OTANI, in view of HAYASHI, FRAYSSINET and KUVETAKIS, as applied to claims 13 above, and further in view of Jinuk Choi et al, (hereinafter CHOI), NPL: The effects of acid treatment of ZrB2 particles on their purity and aqueous dispersibility, Jinuk Choi, and Gye Seok An, Processes, 2022, 10, 18, https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10010018.
Regarding Claim 14, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI, FRAYSSINET and KUVETAKIS teaches the device of claim 13.
OTANI as modified by HAYASHI, FRAYSSINET and KUVETAKIS does not explicitly disclose the device, wherein the substrate is acid soluble.
CHOI teaches the device (Fig. 1, XRD patterns of ZrB2 particles), wherein the substrate (Fig. 1, ZrB2 particles, As-received and HF treated ZrB2 particles) is acid soluble (Fig. 1, ZrB2-HF treated shows XRD peak reduction from the as-received ZrB2 at angles 20-40 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to have OTANI as modified by HAYASHI, FRAYSSINET and KUVETAKIS to incorporate the teachings of CHOI, such that the device, wherein the substrate is acid soluble, so that HF-treated ZrB2 particles differ significantly from that of the as-received ZrB2 particles, and during acid treatment, HF dissolve ZrB2 particles, transform them from ZrB2 particles to oxide phases and thus HF treatments do not enhance the purity of ZrB2 particles (CHOI, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 15, OTANI as modified by HAYASHI, FRAYSSINET, KUVETAKIS, and CHOI teaches the device of claim 14.
CHOI further teaches the device (Fig. 1, XRD patterns of ZrB2 particles), wherein the substrate (Fig. 1, ZrB2 particles, As-received and HF treated ZrB2 particles) is soluble in HF, HNO3 or a combination thereof (Fig. 1, ZrB2-HF treated shows XRD peak reduction from the as-received ZrB2 at angles 20-40 degrees).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110189838 A1 – [0100]
STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE - The AlxGa1-xN layer may be prepared according to the preceding methods such that x has a value between 0 and 1. In a preferred embodiment, the AlxGa1-xN layer thus formed has a value of x between about 0.01 to about 0.20; more preferably, the AlxGa1-xN layer has a value of x between about 0.01 to about 0.10.
JP 5596652 B2 – [0030]
STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE – For example, the first barrier layer 102 can be formed by crystal growth of Al 0.2 Ga 0.8 N using trimethylgallium, trimethylaluminum, and ammonia as source gases by metal organic chemical vapor deposition. Al 0.2 Ga 0.8 N has a band gap energy of 3.8 eV, which is larger than GaN (3.42 eV).
US 20080164570 A1 – [0101]
STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE - The AlxGa1−xN layer may be prepared according to the preceding methods such that x has a value between 0 and 1. In a preferred embodiment, the AlxGa1−xN layer thus formed has a value of x between about 0.01 to about 0.20; more preferably, the AlxGa1−xN layer has a value of x between about 0.01 to about 0.10.
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 SESHA SAIRAMAN SRINIVASAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM -5:30 PM.
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, MARLON T FLETCHER can be reached at (571)272-2063. 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.
/SESHA SAIRAMAN SRINIVASAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights