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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 to 4, 6, 11 to 13, 24, 26 and 28 to 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al 2020.
The Wang et al 2020 reference teaches a method and product of a heterostructure note entire reference. The reference teaches the growth of pure wurtzite phase ScxAl1-xN with a Sc composition as high as X = 0.34 on GaN and AIN templates using plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy, page 2, column 1, second paragraph, ScxAl1-xN samples were grown on GaN and AIN templates on sapphire. The method comprising providing a substrate (page 2, column 1, second paragraph, ScxAl1-xN samples were grown on GaN and AIN templates on sapphire); and implementing a non-sputtered, epitaxial growth procedure at a growth temperature to form a wurtzite structure supported by the substrate (abstract, the growth of pure wurtzite phase SoxAl1-xN with a Sc composition as high as X = 0.34 on GaN and AIN templates using plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy; page 2, column 1. second paragraph. The growth conditions included epitaxy in the range of 400-900 °C. The wurtzite structure comprising an alloy of a III-nitride material, the non-sputtered, epitaxial growth procedure being configured to incorporate a group IIIB element into the alloy of the Ill-nitride material (abstract, the growth of pure wurtzite phase SexAl1-XN with a Sc composition as high as X = 0.34 on GaN and AIN templates using plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy; page 2, column I, second paragraph. The growth conditions included a nitrogen flow rate of 0.3-0.6 standard cubie centimeters per minute (scom). RF plasma forward power of 350 W. Al beam equivalent pressure (BEP) in the range of 2.0-8.0x10^-8 Torr, Ga BEP of 2.0x10^-7 Tom, Sc deposition rate of 0.05-0.10 A/s, and TG in the range of 400-900 °C). The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the wurtzite structure exhibits breakdown field strength greater than ferroelectric coercive field strength of the wurtzite structure. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Wang 202 reference to have the claimed properties of breakdown strength in order to grow the desired structure noting, the reference grows the same materials with similar process parameters, which would give rise to similar results.
Regarding Claim 2, the Wang 2020 reference teaches the growth temperature is at about 650 degrees Celsius or less page 2, column 1, second paragraph.
Regarding Claim 3, the Wang 2020 reference teaches forming a semiconductor layer supported by the substrate before implementing the non-sputtered, epitaxial growth procedure such that the wurtzite structure is formed on the semiconductor layer (page 2, column 1, second paragraph).
Regarding Claim 4, the Wang 2020 reference teaches wherein forming the semiconductor layer comprises forming a III-nitride layer (page 2, column 1, second paragraph, ScAlN).
Regarding Claim 6, the Wang '2020 reference teaches wherein the semiconductor layer comprises gallium nitride (GaN) (page 2. column 1, second paragraph
Regarding Claim 11, the Wang 2020 reference teaches the group IIIB element is scandium (abstract, the growth of pure wurtzite phase ScxAI1-xN).
Regarding Claim 12, the Wang 2020 reference teaches the III-nitride material can be aluminum nitride (AIN) (page 2, column 1, second paragraph, ScAlN samples ware grown on GaN and AIN templates).
Regarding Claim 13, the Wang 2020 reference teaches the substrate comprising sapphire (page 2, column 1, second paragraph.
Regarding Claims 18, 26 and 29, the Wang 2020 reference teaches forming a semiconductor layer supported by the substrate before implementing the non-sputtered, epitaxial growth procedure such that the wurtzite structure is formed on the semiconductor layer (page 2, column 1, second paragraph).
Regarding Claim 19, 31 and 32, the Wang 2020 reference teaches wherein forming the semiconductor layer comprises forming a III-nitride layer (page 2, column 1, second paragraph, ScAlN).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 20, 27 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al 2020 in view of Tsui.
The Wang 2020 reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the wurtzite structure is nitrogen-polar. However, the Tsui reference teaches epitaxial grown wurtzite-structure semiconducting ScGaN (abstract) where the III-nitride layer is nitrogen-polar, page 84. first paragraph. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of the invention to modify Weng 12020 by the teachings of the Tsui reference to include a nitrogen-polar in order to grow pure wurtzite phase ScxAl1-xN using plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy.
Claim(s) 7, 9. 10 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al 2020 in view of Tsui and Leone et al.
The Wang and Tsui references are relied on for the same reasons as stated supra, and differ from the instant claims in forming the semiconductor such that the substrate is not removed from the epitaxial growth chamber between forming the semiconductor layer and implementing the non-sputtered, epitaxial growth procedure. However, the Leone in the field of structures grown by molecular beam (MBE) epitaxy (abstract) teaches growing the semiconductor layer in an epitaxial growth chamber such that the substrate is not removed from the epitaxial growth chamber between forming the semiconductor layer and implementing the non-sputtered, epitaxial growth procedure (page A, column 1, second paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wang 2020 by the teachings of the Leone et al reference to grow in one chamber in order to growing a pure wurtzite phase ScxAl1-xN lowering impurities by movement.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al 2020 in view of wo 2018/217973
The Wang 2020 reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in off-cut sapphire. However, wo 2018/217973 reference teaches using the (page 2, lines 34) sapphire substrates to form inclined off the c-plane surfaces. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wang 2020 to include wherein a substrate comprises off-cut sapphire as taught by wo 2018/217973 reference in order to grow the desired orientation of the layers.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al 2020 in view of US 2014/0217553 to Arena at al.
The Wang 2020 reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the annealing of the wurtzite structure at a temperature higher than the growth. Arena et al teaches in the field of depositing III-nitride semiconductor materials on substrates by HVPE process (abs) annealing wurtzite structure at a temperature higher than a growth temperature (Pare. [0009] Both are done in the same chamber (claim 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Invention to modify Wang "2020 to include further comprising annealing the wurtzite structure as taught by Arena, for the benefit of reducing cracks in the layers.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument concerning the Wang et al reference is noted. However, the Wang et al reference does in fact teach growing a wurtzite ScGaN by a non-sputtering method. This is also done at conditions set forth in the claims to obtain the properties claim. Therefore, it would be expected and obvious that the reference inherently has a structure with the same properties. Further, applicants do not point out where in the Wang et al reference all the defects in the grown crystal arise or are taught in the prior art reference. The argument appears to be based in theory that an defect could be found in the Wang et al layer. The opposite could be also be true, no defects and similar properties.
The terminal disclaimer has been approved and the double patenting rejections overcome.
Claims 17 to 23 are allowed over the prior art which does not teach the claimed annealing step.
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 ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights