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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on December 29, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶[0005] of the published application deposition is indicated as occurring by “hydroxide vapor phase epitaxy.” However, the entirety of the specification discusses growth by hydride vapor phase epitaxy. It is assumed applicants intended to refer to growth by “hydride vapor phase epitaxy.”
In ¶[0029] of the published application references is made to “(100) offcut 6° toward (111A) (Fig. 5A).” However, there is no Fig. 5A in the specification.
In ¶[0034] of the published application reference is made to “Fig. 1E.” However, there is no Fig. 1E in the instant application. It is assumed applicants may have intended to refer to Fig. 6E.
In ¶[0038] of the published application reference is made to Fig. 8A, Fig. 8B, and Fig. 8C which allegedly show AFM scans of the surface as a function of temperature. However, there is no Fig. 8C and Figs. 8A-B show the surface morphology with increasing thickness. It is assumed applicants intended to refer to Figs. 9A, 9B, and 9C.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites an offset of 3 degrees which appears to be represented as a zero “0” as a superscript. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “3°” with a degree symbol.
Claim 1 further recites that deposition is performed by “hydroxide phase vapor epitaxy.” It is assumed applicants intended to recite “hydride vapor phase epitaxy” as growth is performed using hydrides (i.e., AsH3) rather than hydroxides.
Similarly, claim 4 recites a temperature of 750 degrees Celsius which appears to be represented as a zero “0” as a superscript. It is assumed applicants intended to recite “750 °C” with a degree symbol.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites a GaAs(110) surface plane with an “offset 3° towards (111)A” or an “offset 3° towards (111)B).” For examination purposes the (111)A surface in GaAs is interpreted as being a Ga-stabilized (111) plane whereas the (111)B surface in GaAs is interpreted as being an As-stabilized (111) plane.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a GaAs substrate having a lattice orientation of (110) with an “offset 3° towards (111)A” or an “offset 3° towards (111)B.” This is understood as referring to the (110) surface plane of GaAs whose normal is in the [110] direction. Being misoriented towards the (111) plane by 3° is understood as meaning that the surface normal to the GaAs(110) plane (i.e., the [110] direction) is tilted by 3° towards the [111] direction. Since (111)A and (111)B merely refer to (111) planes which are Ga-stabilized or As-stabilized, respectively, it is unclear how there is a different misorientation between the two surfaces because both ultimately are (111) planes and the misorientation for both is 3° towards the [111] direction. Dependent claims 2-13 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], 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 10 is 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.
Claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites that “the GaAs substrate has a (110) lattice orientation.” However, since claim 1 already recites that a “GaAs substrate having a lattice orientation of (110),” claim 10 therefore does not further limit the claim from which it depends. 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0221705 to Schulte, et al. (hereinafter “Schulte”) in view of a publication to Allen, et al. entitled “Characterization of surface faceting on (110)GaAs/GaAs grown by molecular beam epitaxy,” Journal of Crystal Growth, Vol. 87, pp. 193-200, (1988) (“Allen”).
Regarding claim 1, Schulte teaches a method (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-10, and entire reference which teach a method of growing Group III-V materials by hydride vapor phase epitaxy (HVPE)) comprising:
providing a GaAs substrate having a lattice orientation offset 3° towards (111)A, or offset 3° towards (111)B (See at least Figs. 4 & 7, ¶[0021], ¶[0051]-[0052], and ¶[0061]-[0064] which teach providing a GaAs(100) substrate (104) which is miscut 4°, 6°, or 9° towards the (111)B direction. In this case the 4° miscut substrate is sufficiently close to 3° that it would be reasonably expected to yield the same properties. Alternatively, see infra with respect to the teachings of Allen which teaches the use of a miscut GaAs(110) substrate); and
depositing one or more lattice-matched semiconducting materials on the GaAs substrate via hydroxide phase vapor epitaxy (HVPE) (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0033]-[0044] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference which teach deposition of a lattice-matched Group III-V semiconductor layer (110) such as GaAs onto the substrate (104)).
Schulte does not teach that the GaAs substrate has a lattice orientation of (110). However, in the Introduction section at pp. 193-94 Allen teaches that growth on the GaAs(110) surface provides more efficient ionization impact behavior for electrons and can be utilized to fabricate a p-n junction diode polarizer/modulator for use in integrated optics. In Figs. 1-5 and the Experimental section at pp. 194-96 Allen further teaches that growth on nominal GaAs(110) surfaces (e.g., with no miscut) tends to result in the initiation and propagation of facets rather than a smooth surface. Then in Figs. 6-8 and the Discussion section at pp. 198-99 Allen teaches that faceting during growth on the GaAs(110) surface may be suppressed by angling the substrate by up to 6° towards the (111) surface such that only Ga-rich or As-rich ledges are present on the surface. By utilizing a GaAs(110) substrate with up to a 6° miscut in the (111) direction it is possible to produce a higher quality epitaxial layer which is facet-free with predictable doping levels, excellent room temperature mobility, and strong exciton luminescence. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Allen and would be motivated to utilize a vicinal GaAs(110) substrate with a miscut of up to 6° towards (111) as the substrate in the HVPE growth method of Schulte in order to utilize the higher growth rates of HVPE to produce higher quality optoelectronic devices with improved electronic and optical properties. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 2, Schulte teaches that the lattice-matched semiconducting material comprises one or more III-V semiconductors (see at least ¶[0051]-[0052] which teach the deposition of GaAs).
Regarding claim 3, Schulte teaches that the lattice-matched semiconducting material comprises GaAs or GaInP (see at least ¶[0051]-[0052] which teach the deposition of GaAs).
Regarding claim 4, Schulte teaches that the step of depositing the one or more lattice-matched semiconducting materials is performed at a temperature less than or equal to 750 °C (see at least ¶[0051]-[0052] which teach that a growth temperature of 650 °C).
Regarding claim 5, Schulte teaches that the step of depositing the one or more lattice-matched semiconducting materials further comprises:
flowing a group III source into a deposition chamber at a group III partial pressure (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0033]-[0044] as well as ¶[0051]-[0052] which teach flowing GaCl into a deposition chamber (100) at a Group III partial pressure); and
flowing a group V source into a deposition chamber at a group V partial pressure (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0033]-[0044] as well as ¶[0051]-[0052] which teach flowing AsH3 into the deposition chamber (100) at a Group V partial pressure).
Regarding claim 6, Schulte teaches that the group III source comprises GaCl or InCl (see at least ¶[0051]-[0052] which teaches that the Group III source material comprises GaCl).
Regarding claim 7, Schulte teaches that the group III source is generated in-situ by reacting anhydrous HCl with Ga or In (see Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0033]-[0044] as well as ¶[0051]-[0052] which teach flowing HCl (108) over a solid Ga source (106)).
Regarding claim 8, Schulte teaches that the group V source comprises AsH3 or PH3 (see at least ¶[0051]-[0052] which teaches that the Group V source material comprises AsH3).
Regarding claim 9, Schulte teaches that the group V partial pressure is less than or equal to 4 times the group III partial pressure (see Fig. 6(b) and ¶¶[0057]-[0060] which teach that the GaAs growth rate may be controlled to the desired value by controlling the relative GaCl and AsH3 flow rates and partial pressures with Fig. 6(b) specifically showing an embodiment in which PHCl(Ga) is approximately 3.4×10-3 atm while PAsH3 is 1.1×10-2 atm for a V/III ratio of 0.011/0.0034 = 3.2 which falls within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, Schulte does not teach that the GaAs substrate has a (110) lattice orientation. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in the Introduction section at pp. 193-94 Allen teaches that growth on the GaAs(110) surface provides more efficient ionization impact behavior for electrons and can be utilized to fabricate a p-n junction diode polarizer/modulator for use in integrated optics. In Figs. 1-5 and the Experimental section at pp. 194-96 Allen further teaches that growth on nominal GaAs(110) surfaces (e.g., with no miscut) tends to result in the initiation and propagation of facets rather than a smooth surface. Then in Figs. 6-8 and the Discussion section at pp. 198-99 Allen teaches that faceting during growth on the GaAs(110) surface may be suppressed by angling the substrate by up to 6° towards the (111) surface such that only Ga-rich or As-rich ledges are present on the surface. By utilizing a GaAs(110) substrate with up to a 6° miscut in the (111) direction it is possible to produce a higher quality epitaxial layer which is facet-free with predictable doping levels, excellent room temperature mobility, and strong exciton luminescence. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Allen and would be motivated to utilize a vicinal GaAs(110) substrate with a miscut of up to 6° towards (111) as the substrate in the HVPE growth method of Schulte in order to utilize the higher growth rates of HVPE to produce higher quality optoelectronic devices with improved electronic and optical properties.
Regarding claim 12, Schulte teaches that the GaAs substrate is reusable (see Fig. 5 and ¶¶[0051]-[0054] which teach that the GaAs substrate is formed into a GaAs solar cell; moreover, the thus-deposited layers may be removed by, for example, an etching or grinding and CMP polishing process followed by one or more epitaxial growth processes which necessarily means that the GaAs substrate is capable of being reused for a different purpose).
Regarding claim 13, Schulte teaches generating an optoelectronic device (see Fig. 5 and ¶¶[0053]-[0054] which teach that the GaAs substrate is formed into a GaAs solar cell).
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulte in view of Allen and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2010/0307572 to Bedell, et al. (“Bedell”).
Regarding claim 11, Schulte teaches that removing the GaAs substrate from the lattice matched semiconducting material via controlled spalling. However, in Figs. 1-4 and ¶¶[0016]-[0022] Bedell teaches an analogous method of producing a III-V photovoltaic cell (400) in which an optional back surface field layer (202) is initially formed on a Group III-V substrate such as GaAs. This is followed by the deposition of a tensile stressed metal layer (203) and a flexible substrate layer (204) is adhered to the metal layer (203). The flexible substrate (204) is used to produce tensile stress in the metal layer (203) in order to produce a fracture (302) in the substrate (201) such that a thin base layer (301) is spalled from the substrate and may be used to form a III-V PV cell (400). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to utilize the controlled spalling technique of Bedell to remove a thin layer of the homoepitaxial GaAs(110) layer produced in the method of Schulte and Allen by spalling in order to produce multiple thin GaAs(110) substrates that may be used for the production of electronic and optoelectronic devices thereupon.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In at least ¶¶[0033]-[0035] Chinese Patent Appl. Publ. No. CN 102379033A to Hirotaka Geka teaches the use of a vapor-phase deposition technique for epitaxial growth on a GaAs(110) substrate with an offset angle of 1 to 5°.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 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, 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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714