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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-10 repeatedly use the phrases “as being away from” and “ a direction of being away from.” The phrases are awkward, and, while not indefinite per se, could be written in a clearer manner. They are interpreted to mean “away from” and “a direction away from” respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-8 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 and 6-8 due to their dependency recite the limitation "the surface in contact with the intermediate layer" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0287354 (Sato).
For claim 1, Sato teaches a nitride semiconductor light emission element (fig. 1-2; title) comprising:
a substrate having a (0001) plane as a lamination plane (fig. 1, 11; [0041]; c-plane);
an n-type semiconductor layer (fig. 1 and 2, 312; [0046]);
an active layer (fig. 1 and 2, 352; [0058]);
a p-type semiconductor layer (fig. 1 and 2, 34 and 32; [0064]); and
a contact layer in this order (fig. 1 and 2, 33),
the p-type semiconductor layer including a cladding layer including AlGaN (fig. 1 and 2, label 32 or 322; [0068]), wherein
an Al composition of the cladding layer is formed to be smaller as being away from an interface on the substrate side ([0021]; x3 decreases away from the active layer which is also away from an interface on the substrate side, e.g. an interface between electron blocking layer 34 and light emitting unit 35), and
a Mg concentration of the cladding layer is formed to have a maximum value at the interface on the substrate side or a maximal value in a direction of being away from the interface on the substrate side ([0021]; the cladding layer is doped with Mg and the concentration will inherently be maximum at either “the interface on the substrate side,” i.e. adjacent to 34, or “in a direction away from the interface” as “a direction away from the interface” is a direction pointing across the remainder of the cladding layer. Therefore, if the maximum value is not at the interface, it must be in a direction of being away from the interface).
For claim 3, Sato teaches the p-type semiconductor layer includes an electron barrier layer including AlGaN (fig. 1 and 2, 34; [0024] and [0064]), and the Mg concentration of the cladding layer is formed to have a maximum value on a surface in contact with the electron barrier layer (table 1 teaches a uniform doping of the cladding layer; Acceptor 3x10-19 cm-3 and the Mg concentration therefore has a uniform maximum concentration including on a surface in contact with the electron barrier). Note, if it is determined that the Mg concentration is not inherently uniform in the cladding layer, claim 3 is rejected in the alternative as being obvious of Sato in view of Takano.
For claim 5, Sato teaches the p-type semiconductor layer includes
an electron barrier layer including AlGaN (fig. 1 and 2, 34), and
an intermediate layer including AlGaN (fig. 1 and 2, 321) in order closer to the substrate having the (0001) plane as the lamination plane than to the cladding layer (fig. 1 and 2, 322), and
the Mg concentration in the cladding layer is formed such that either of maximal values in a direction away from the surface in contact with the intermediate layer or the interface on the substrate side makes a maximum value ([0021]; the cladding layer is doped with Mg and the concentration will inherently be maximum at either “the interface on the substrate side,” i.e. left end of 322 in fig. 2, or “in a direction away from the interface” as “a direction away from the interface” is a direction pointing across the remainder of the cladding layer. Therefore, if the maximum value is not at the interface, it must be in a direction of being away from the interface).
For claim 11, Sato teaches the substrate having the (0001) plane as the lamination plane includes any of aluminum nitride (AlN), gallium nitride (GaN), sapphire, or silicon carbide (SiC) ([0041]).
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.
Claims 2-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0287354 (Sato) in view of US 2019/0067521 (Takano).
For claim 2, Sato does not teach the Mg concentration of the cladding layer is formed to decrease from the maximum value or the maximal value as being away from the interface on the substrate side. However, Takano teaches the Mg concentration of the cladding layer is formed to decrease from the maximum value or the maximal value as being away from the interface on the substrate side (fig. 1-2, 6) in order to curb deterioration while enhancing optical power ([0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Mg concentration of Takano with the invention of Sato in order to curb deterioration while enhancing optical power.
For claim 3, Sato teaches the p-type semiconductor layer includes an electron barrier layer including AlGaN (fig. 1 and 2, 34; [0024] and [0064]), and the Mg concentration of the cladding layer is formed to have a maximum value on a surface in contact with the electron barrier layer (table 1 teaches a uniform doping of the cladding layer; Acceptor 3x10-19 cm-3 and the Mg concentration therefore has a uniform maximum concentration including on a surface in contact with the electron barrier). However, if it is determined that the Mg concentration is not inherently uniform in the cladding layer and Sato cannot be said to teach the Mg concentration of the cladding layer is formed to have a maximum value on a surface in contact with the electron barrier layer, then Takano teaches a nitride semiconductor element where the Mg concentration of the cladding layer (fig. 1 and 4, 6) is formed to have a maximum value on a surface (fig. 4, top of 6) in contact (fig. 1 and 4, top of 6 is in electrical contact) with the electron barrier layer (fig. 1 and 4, 5) in order to curb deterioration while enhancing optical power ([0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the Mg concentration of Takano with the invention of Sato in order to curb deterioration while enhancing optical power.
For claim 4, Sato and Takano are applied according to the rejection of claim 3 above. Takano further teaches the Mg concentration of the cladding layer (fig. 4) is formed to decrease from the maximum value formed on a surface in contact with the electron barrier layer (fig. 4, Mg has maximum concentration at the top surface which is in electrical contact with electron barrier 5) as being away from the interface on the substrate side (fig. 4, both the maximum the decrease in Mg concentration are away from the interface on the substrate side, e.g. the interface between ebl 5 and active element 3).
For claim 6, Sato does not teach the Mg concentration of the cladding layer is formed to decrease as being away from the surface in contact with the intermediate layer or decreased as being away from the interface on the substrate side from the maximal value. However, Takano teaches changes in the Mg concentration of the cladding layer is a results effective variable which curbs deterioration while enhancing optical power ([0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mg doping of the cladding layer such that it decreases as being away from the surface in contact with the intermediate layer or decreased as being away from the interface on the substrate side from the maximal value in order to curb deterioration while enhancing optical power, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 7-8 are should also be written to overcome the claim objections.
Claims 9-10 are allowed but should be rewritten to overcome the claim objections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/Michael Carter/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights