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 .
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) 24-26 & 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bour (US Pub no.2018/0374991 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Bour et al discloses A method, comprising: growing one or more Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(104-110) - grown on a substrate(100)[0065], where 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, 0≤v≤1, 0≤w≤1, 0≤u≤1, v+w+u=1, and x+y+z=1[0065];
dry-etching the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(104-110) to expose sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(104-110) [0070]; subjecting the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers to one or more
surface treatments to recover from damage to the sidewalls resulting from the dry etch[0070], wherein the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(104-110) are thermally annealed at temperatures above 40°C and the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers are treated with a chemical that contains either hydrogen[0070]; and
depositing one or more dielectric materials (170)on the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(104-110) to passivate the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(104-110) [0076], after subjecting the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(104-110) to the surface treatments[0070]; wherein the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(104-110) having a reduced defect density of dry-etched-induced defects as compared to untreated sidewalls[0070].
Regarding claim 25, Bour et al discloses wherein the surface treatments comprise the thermal annealing at temperatures above 40°C and then treating the sidewalls with the chemical that contains hydrogen[0070].
Regarding claim 26, Bour et al discloses wherein the chemical is applied at temperatures above 40°C[0070].
Regarding claim 30, Bour et al discloses wherein the dielectric materials (170)are deposited using atomic layer deposition (ALD)[0076].
Regarding claim 31, Bour et al discloses wherein the dielectric materials(170) are conformal or uniformly cover the sidewalls[0075-0076].
Regarding claim 32, Bour et al discloses wherein the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers have an improvement in optical efficiency as compared to Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers that are not subjected to the surface treatments and the depositing of the dielectric materials[0070][0076].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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) 13-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over El-Ghoroury (WO 2019241159 A1).
Regarding claim 13, El-Ghoroury et al discloses A device(fig. 1-4) [0033-0044][0056], comprising:
one or more Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(1010/1020/1030-1060) grown on a substrate(fig. 1[0033][0026], where 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, 0≤v≤1, 0≤w≤1, 0≤u≤1, v+w+u=1, and x+y+z=1; wherein: the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(1010/1020/1030-1060) are dry-etched to
expose sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(1010/1020/1030)[0056]; the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers being subjected to one or more surface treatments are performed on the sidewalls to recover from damage to the sidewalls
resulting from the dry etch, wherein the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers (1010/1020/1030)are treated with a chemical that contains either oxygen atoms (El Ghoroury et al teaches smoothness achieved by wet etching (which indicates repair after dry etching) and sidewalls passivated with silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride which provides the oxygen environment and passivation)[0056]; the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(1010/1020/1030)[0056] having one or more dielectric materials are deposited thereon the sidewalls to passivate the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers, after the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers are subjected to the surface treatments are performed(because El Ghoroury et al teaches silicon oxide and silicon nitride in combination the oxygen environment to treat the surface when initially exposing the sidewalls to the oxide and depositing silicon oxide nitride to complete the passivation by ALD)[0056][0037] ;
El Ghoroury et al is silent to the sidewalls of the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers having a reduced defect density of dry-etched-induced defects as compared to untreated sidewalls. Furthermore, the claimed phrase of “thermal annealing at temperatures above 40°C” is being treated as a product by process limitation and the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Thus, even though El-Ghoroury et al is silent as to the process of thermal annealing at temperatures above 40°C, the product in El-Ghoroury et al would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product has similar structure and similar electrical properties which indicates improvement compared to an untreated sidewall(see instant spec fig. 3a/fig. 6). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Therefore , a prima facie case of anticipation /obviousness exists, as the characteristics of sidewalls of the AlxGavInzNyPwAsu semiconductor layers having a reduced defect density of dry etch induced defects as compared to untreated sidewall would necessarily be present,In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
Regarding claim 14, El-Ghoroury et al discloses the claim limitations of claim 13 and further teaches the claimed surface treatment of sidewalls with the chemical containing oxygen. El Ghoroury et al teaches smoothness achieved by wet etching (which indicates repair after dry etching) and sidewalls passivated with silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride which provides the oxygen environment and passivation)[0056] . However, the claimed phrase of “thermal annealing at temperatures above 40°C” is a product by process limitation and the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Thus, even though El-Ghoroury et al is silent as to the process of thermal annealing at temperatures above 40°C, it appears the product in El-Ghoroury et al would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product has similar structure and similar electrical properties which indicates improvement compared to an untreated sidewall(see instant spec fig. 3a/fig. 6). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .
Regarding claim 15, El-Ghoroury et al discloses the claim limitations of claim 13 and further teaches the claimed surface treatment of sidewalls with the chemical containing oxygen. El Ghoroury et al teaches smoothness achieved by wet etching (which indicates repair after dry etching) and sidewalls passivated with silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride which provides the oxygen environment and passivation)[0056] . However, the claimed phrase of “wherein the chemical is applied at temperatures above 40°C”is a product by process limitation and the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Thus, even though El-Ghoroury et al is silent as to the process of wherein the chemical is applied at temperatures above 40°C, it appears that the product in El-Ghoroury et al would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product has similar structure and similar electrical properties which indicates improvement compared to an untreated sidewall(see instant spec fig. 3a/fig. 6). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .
Regarding claim 16, El-Ghoroury et al discloses the claim limitations of claim 13 and further teaches smoothness achieved by wet etching (which indicates repair after dry etching) and sidewalls passivated with silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride which provides the oxygen environment and passivation)[0056] . However, the claimed phrase of” comprise a liquid, gas, or plasma, such as ammonium sulfide for sulfidation, potassium hydroxide for oxidation, and/or ultra-violet (UV) ozone plasma for oxidation “is a product by process limitation and the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Thus, even though El-Ghoroury et al is silent as to the process of a liquid, gas, or plasma, such as ammonium sulfide for sulfidation, potassium hydroxide for oxidation, and/or ultra-violet (UV) ozone plasma for oxidation, it appears that the product in El-Ghoroury et al would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product has similar structure and similar electrical properties which indicates improvement compared to an untreated sidewall(see instant spec fig. 3a/fig. 6). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .
Regarding claim 17, El-Ghoroury et al discloses the claim limitations of claim 13 and further teaches smoothness achieved by wet etching (which indicates repair after dry etching) and sidewalls passivated with silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride which provides the oxygen environment and passivation)[0056] .. However, the claimed phrase of” treating the sidewalls with ammonium sulfide after thermal annealing at temperatures greater than 40°C”is a product by process limitation and the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Thus, even though El-Ghoroury et al is silent as to the process of treating the sidewalls with ammonium sulfide after thermal annealing at temperatures greater than 40°C, it appears that the product in El-Ghoroury et al would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product has similar structure and similar electrical properties which indicates improvement compared to an untreated sidewall(see instant spec fig. 3a/fig. 6). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .
Regarding claim 18, El-Ghoroury et al discloses the claim limitations of claim 13 and further teaches smoothness achieved by wet etching (which indicates repair after dry etching) and sidewalls passivated with silicon oxide and/or silicon nitride which provides the oxygen environment and passivation)[0056] . However, the claimed phrase of” chemical is applied ambient conditions or at elevated temperatures greater than 40 °C less than 200°C” is a product by process limitation and the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Thus, even though El-Ghoroury et al is silent as to the chemical is applied ambient conditions or at elevated temperatures greater than 40 °C less than 200°C, it appears that the product in El-Ghoroury et al would be the same or similar as that claimed; especially since both applicant’s product and the prior art product has similar structure and similar electrical properties which indicates improvement compared to an untreated sidewall(see instant spec fig. 3a/fig. 6). "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) .
Regarding claim 19, El-Ghoroury et al discloses wherein the dielectric materials(1001) are deposited using atomic layer deposition (ALD)[0037].
Regarding claim 20, El-Ghoroury et al discloses wherein the dielectric materials (1001)are conformal or uniformly cover the sidewalls(1070) [0036].
Regarding claim 21, El-Ghoroury et al discloses wherein the Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers(1010/1020/1030-1060) have an improvement in optical efficiency as compared to Alx Gay In z N v Pw A u semiconductor layers that are not subjected to the performing of the surface treatments and the depositing of the dielectric materials(1001)[0056].
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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Ghoroury (WO 2019241159 A1) in view of Kwak (US Pub no. 2020/0235161 A1)
Regarding claim 23, El-Ghoroury et al discloses wherein the gallium-containing semiconductor layers(1010/1020/1030-1060) [0056] but fails to teach have one or more of nitrogen, phosphorus, or arsenic as counter atoms.
However, Kwak et al discloses micro array LED comprising p-GaN layer(123) comprising nitrogen atoms[0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify El-Ghoroury et al with the teachings of Kwak et al to cut off current.
Claim(s) 27, 28, & 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour (US Pub no.2018/0374991 A1) in view of Margalith (WO 2020096859 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Bour et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 24 but fails to teach wherein the chemical comprises a liquid, gas, or plasma, such as ammonium sulfide for sulfidation, potassium hydroxide for oxidation, and/or
ultra-violet (UV) ozone plasma for oxidation.
However, Margalith et al discloses an effective technique to suppress surface defects using chemicals such as KOH and ammonium sulfide(pp. 7 lines 25-29). Since KOH and ammonium sulfide is one of finite solutions to improve electrical performance and to reduce sidewall damage from dry etching as taught by Margalith et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try in the invention of Bour et al since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Regarding claim 28, Margalith et al discloses wherein the surface treatments comprise treating the sidewalls with ammonium sulfide after thermal annealing at temperatures greater than 40°C but fails to teach surface treatment after thermal annealing. However, Margalith et al discloses that the sidewall profile can be modulated by varying temperature and treatment time(pp 5 lines 25-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to treat the surface after annealing to avoid degradation.
Regarding claim 29, Bour et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 24 but fails to teach wherein the chemical is applied at ambient conditions or at elevated temperatures greater than 40°C and less than 200°C.
However, Margalith et al discloses wherein the chemical is applied
at elevated temperatures greater than 40°C and less than 200°C(pp. 10 lines 19-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention of Bour et al with the teachings of Margalith et al since temperature influences the degree of damage removal.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bour (US Pub no.2018/0374991 A1) in view of Kwak (US Pub no. 2020/0235161 A1)
Regarding claim 33, Bour et al discloses the AlxGayIn₂NᵥPwAsu semiconductor
layers (104-110)but fails to teach have one or more of nitrogen, phosphorus, or arsenic as counter atoms.
However, Kwak et al discloses micro array LED comprising p-GaN layer(123) comprising nitrogen atoms[0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bour et al with the teachings of Kwak et al to provide a desired conductivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Examiner characterizes the limitation requiring that the sidewalls "are thermal annealed at temperatures above 40 °C and the sidewalls are treated with a chemical that contains either oxygen, hydrogen, or sulfur atoms" as a product-by-process limitation, and asserts that the claimed product is indistinguishable from that of El-Ghoroury. Respectfully, this position is incorrect.
The M.P.E.P. recognizes that process limitations confer patentability when they result in
a product having distinct characteristics, even if those characteristics are not explicitly recited in structural terms. See, e.g., M.P.E.P §2113:
The M.P.E.P. recognizes that process limitations confer patentability when they result in a product having distinct characteristics, even if those characteristics are not explicitly recited in structural terms. See, e.g., M.P.E.P §2113: The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final
product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA
1979) (holding "interbonded by interfusion" to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as "welded," "intermixed," ground in place," "press fitted," and "etched" are capable of construction as structural limitations.) Moreover, the Examiner has not identified - and cannot identify - any disclosure in El- Ghoroury of sidewalls having the same defect-recovered condition produced by Applicant's claimed annealing and chemical treatment. The Claimed Limitation Imparts Structural and Electronic Differences to the Sidewalls The recited annealing and chemical treatment are not merely steps of manufacture, but are expressly tied to recovery from dry-etch damage, which necessarily modifies the physical and electronic structure of the sidewalls.
Examiner notes that El-Ghoroury et al explicitly teaches subjecting the pixel sidewalls to wet etching (a chemical treatment)to achieve surface smoothness, followed by passivating the sidewalls using silicon oxide , silicon nitride , or a combination of both[0056]. The introduction of silicon oxide inherently provides an oxygen containing environment and forms an oxide on the sidewall surface. Furthermore, the references disclosure of a combination of both silicon oxide and silicon nitride encompasses any combined or sequential chemical/dielectric treatment claimed by the applicant. Therefore, the rejection is maintained. Applicant emphasizes that the recited process steps imparts distinctive structural characteristics to the final product under MPEP 2113. While process steps can distinguish a product by process claim if they result in a structurally distinct article, the application has provided no evidence to establish that the claimed thermal anneal and chemical treatment produce a physical or electronic structure different from the smoothened /passivated sidewall taught by El-Ghoroury et al. Because El-Ghoroury et al explicitly teaches etching, surface smoothing and subsequent dielectric passivation(silicon oxide/nitride) that inherently repairs and modifies the sidewall structure, the prior art process results in the same structure as the claim.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights