DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 8/12/2026. Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of arguments filed 8/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. After consideration of the applicant’s arguments and further search and consideration, an additional rejection is made under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of enablement.
The applicant’s arguments start on page 2 of arguments filed 8/12/2026 and cites NPL “Two yellow luminescence bands in undoped GaN” by Reschikov et al., Scientific Reports (2018) 8:8091 provided as an attachment to this response. The applicant argues in view of Reshchikov et al.:
“[Reshchikov] provides empirical evidence that the zero-phonon line (ZPL) position of color centers in gallium nitride is dependent on the method used to synthesize the material. Particularly, the authors of the Reshchikov et al. reference investigated two distinct yellow luminescence (YL) bands with different ZPL positions in GaN samples and demonstrated that the appearance and position of these bands correlates directly with the growth technique employed. For example, the YL1 band with a ZPL at 2.57 eV (482 nm) was observed in GaN samples grown by both hydride vapor phase epitaxy (HVPE) and metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD), with the authors noting that "the same YL1 band with a maximum at 2.20 eV and the ZPL at 2.57 eV is detected in GaN samples of group I grown by HVPE and GaN samples grown by MOCVD." (see p. 5, "Shapes of the YL1 and YL3 bands" section). In contrast, a second yellow luminescence band labeled YL3, with a distinctly different ZPL at 2.36 eV (525 nm), appeared only in HVPE-grown samples and was entirely absent in MOCVD-grown material. This differential appearance of color center ZPL features based on growth method, despite similar nominal dopant concentrations, demonstrates that synthesis conditions, not just chemical composition, control the defect incorporation pathways and resulting optical properties. And while the Reshchikov et al. reference addresses color centers in the visible range, and not to mention the fact that the Reshchikov et al. is devoid of any discussion or mention of a ZPL in the 900-990 nm range, the underlying principle that synthesis method controls defect incorporation and thus ZPL position, applies equally to the near-infrared color centers claimed in the present application.
The applicant states “the zero-phonon line (ZPL) position of color centers in gallium nitride is dependent on the method used to synthesize the material” and concludes, “Applicant submits objective evidence provided by the Reshchikov et al. reference shows one skilled in the art that the "the color center having a zero-phonon line (ZPL) between about 900 nanometers (nm) and about 990 nm" recited in claim 13 is not an inherent feature of Si-doped GaN.”
As best understood by the examiner, the applicant argues Reshchikov teaches forming vapor deposition using MOCVD (one of the two techniques disclosed in Arakawa) which yields ZPL lines at 482 nm and 525 nm, not between 900-990 nm as claimed.
While the applicant argues the zero-phonon line is dependent on the method for fabricating the materials. The pending application does not provide any specific method to synthesize the material. The disclosure merely states in [0022] of the pending PG. Pub:
The GaN can be a doped GaN, and in some variations, the GaN is doped with Si, e.g., via Si doping during chemical vapor deposition growth or Si ion implantation. The GaN, in one or more non-limiting examples, includes about 1016 atoms of Si per cm3. Further, in one or more forms, the GaN has low C and O impurity. For example, in one non-limiting example, the GaN comprises less than about 8×1015 C atoms per cm3 and less than about 6×1015 O atoms per cm3. Additionally, in at least one variation, the Ga vacancy density is less than about 1016 vacancies per cm3.
The only guidance provided is that the doping may be done during “chemical vapor deposition growth or Si ion implantation” with the particular concentrations as claimed. No other guidance or method steps for fabricating are disclosed.
As best understood by the examiner, the main distinctions between Reshchikov and the pending application are 1) Reshchikov uses HVPE or MOCVD while the pending application discloses chemical vapor deposition (commonly known as CVD) or Si ion implantation, and 2) The examiner notes Reshchikov fails to teach the particular values for the Si-concentration or the oxygen and carbon impurity concentration as recited in the disclosure.
In contrast to the pending application, primary reference Arakawa discloses chemical vapor deposition is a most common method for n-type doping of GaN. Arakawa teaches in the first paragraph:
“One of the key methods used to fabricate these devices is a light n-type doping of GaN with a low residual impurity concentration of the order of 1015cm-3 or less. Despite intensive research efforts, the performance of GaN-based power devices has remained insufficient because of an immature epitaxial growth process. The most common method, metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD), inherently results in GaN that is contaminated by carbon, oxygen, and silicon atoms originating from the metal-organic precursors, susceptors, and reactor walls. … In particular, several studies on MOCVD have reported an undesirable increase in carbon concentration in GaN with increasing TMGa flow rate7 or growth rate.8 By contrast, a new growth technique called pulsed sputtering deposition (PSD) has recently attracted much attention. Recent progress in PSD has enabled the growth of device-quality group-III nitrides at much lower temperatures than those used in a conventional MOCVD process.”
While Arakawa teaches pulsed sputtering deposition (PSD), Arakawa also discloses metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) as taught in Reshchikov is the most common method for n-type doping of GaN. Further, while the reference discloses one of the key methods used to fabricate these devices results in a low residual impurity concentration of the order of 1015 cm-3, this impurity concentration is within the range of carbon and oxygen impurities disclosed in the pending specification.
Thus, Arakawa teaches wherein Si-doping of GaN is commonly performed using metal organic chemical vapor deposition, has impurity concentrations of the order of 1015 cm-3, and discloses Si-doping concentration from 2 × 1016 to 2 × 1020 cm−3, the reference would reasonably teach or suggest using chemical vapor deposition to form Si-doped GaN with a Si concentration of 1016 cm−3 and impurity concentrations for S and O within the ranges disclosed in the pending application.
However, it remains unclear to the examiner if the different ZPL values of Reshchikov are due to a different method of fabricating or due to different concentrations of Si and oxygen/carbon impurities from those disclosed in the pending application.
Further, while the pending application discloses GaN is doped with Si during chemical vapor deposition, it is unclear to the examiner what the difference is, if any, between Si-doping GaN by metal organic chemical vapor deposition as disclosed in Reshchikov and Arakawa versus Si-doping GaN by chemical vapor deposition as disclosed in the pending application.
After further search and consideration, the examiner was unable to identify any NPL documents which disclose Si-doped GaN having a ZPL line between 900-990 nm, or identify any prior art which teaches a method for manufacturing the quantum device as claimed. In view of the applicant’s arguments that the zero-phonon line (ZPL) position of color centers in gallium nitride is dependent on the method used to synthesize the material, and the absence of detailed instructions for synthesizing the material beyond what would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the examiner must reasonably conclude the quantum device was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In view of the above, the examiner concludes, absent further evidence, that:
1) There is no clear and obvious distinction between MOCVD as disclosed in Arakawa/Reshchikov and chemical vapor deposition (CVD) as disclosed in the pending application. Therefore, the examiner maintains Arakawa’s disclosure of Si-doped GaN formed using MOCVD having a Si concentration of 1016 cm−3 and impurity concentrations 1016 cm−3 would inherently result in “a color center, the color center having a zero-phonon line (ZPL) between about 900 nanometers (nm) and about 990 nm” in an equivalent manner as a material fabricated by CVD as disclosed in the pending application. Absent further evidence, the examiner concludes the distinction between the ZPL values of Reshchikov and the pending application are due to different concentrations of Si, O, and C.
2) Accept the applicant’s argument that MOCVD as disclosed in Arakawa and Reschikov is different from the chemical vapor deposition disclosed in the pending application. Since the applicant argues the ZPL position is dependent on the method used to synthesize the material and the pending application fails to disclose specific method steps to synthesize the material, the examiner must reasonably conclude the quantum device was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a sensor comprising a quantum device comprising GaN having a color center with a ZPL between 900-990 nm, a laser source, and a spectrometer. While it is known in the art to form quantum sensors comprising devices having a color center, laser source, and spectrometer, the prior art of record does not specifically disclose the quantum device as claimed. While quantum sensors using materials having a color center, e.g. nitrogen vacancies, using a laser source and spectrometer are known, using the quantum device comprising Si-doped GaN provides unexpected results over the prior art in that it allows for a larger temperature range and is more cost effective to manufacture. See [0002]-[0007] and [0015] of the pending application. There would be no obvious motivation to combine the Si-doped GaN of Arakawa with a laser and spectrometer to arrive at the invention as claimed, or disclosed in the pending application. However, claim 1 is currently rejected under 112(a) for enablement in light of the applicant’s arguments.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites a quantum sensor comprising a quantum device comprising GaN having a color center with a ZPL between 900-990 nm, and includes the functional limitation of “the quantum device configured to operate at between about 15-25 degrees Celsius”. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation functional limitation would be inherent to the quantum device as claimed and does not otherwise limit the structure of the apparatus claim. As best understood by the examiner, claim 13 would monopolize any and all sensors comprising GaN having a ZPL between 900-990 nm. Therefore, claim 13 stands rejected under Arakawa and is currently rejected under 112(a) for enablement in light of the applicant’s arguments.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites all the elements of claim 13 and “the doped GaN being [” and “measure at least one of a temperature and a magnetic field strength of a sample.” Therefore, claim 13 stands rejected under Arakawa and Miyoshi and is currently rejected under 112(a) for enablement in light of the applicant’s arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, in response to the applicant’s arguments, the limitation “a quantum device comprising a semiconductor chip including gallium nitride (GaN) with a color center, the color center having a zero-phonon line (ZPL) between about 900 nanometers (nm) and about 990 nm” is rejected for enablement.
The applicant states starting at page 2 of arguments filed 8/12/2026 “the zero-phonon line (ZPL) position of color centers in gallium nitride is dependent on the method used to synthesize the material” and concludes, “Applicant submits objective evidence provided by the Reshchikov et al. reference shows one skilled in the art that the ‘the color center having a zero-phonon line (ZPL) between about 900 nanometers (nm) and about 990 nm’ recited in claim 13 is not an inherent feature of Si-doped GaN.”
While the applicant argues, the ZPL position is “dependent on the method used to synthesize the material”, the pending application provides no clear methods for synthesizing the material. The only method disclosed is in [0022] of the pending PG. Pub. which recites “chemical vapor deposition growth or Si ion implantation”.
However, two issues remain unclear to the examiner:
How Si-doping GaN by metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) as disclosed in Reshchikov and Arakawa is different from Si-doping GaN by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) as disclosed in the pending application?
Are the different ZPL values of Reshchikov due to a different method of fabricating or due to different concentrations of Si and oxygen/carbon impurities from those disclosed in the pending application?
After further consideration, the examiner is unable to identify any prior art which discloses Si-doped GaN as claimed. While the applicant argues the zero-phonon line (ZPL) position of color centers in gallium nitride is dependent on the method used to synthesize the material, neither the pending application nor the prior art of record described a method of manufacturing Si-doped GaN as claimed in in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
For these reasons, claims 1, 13, and 20 stand rejected for lack of enablement.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are rejected through a dependence on one of claims 1 and 13.
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) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arakawa et al., APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 110, 042103 (2017) (referred to herein as “Arakawa”).
Regarding claim 13, Arakawa teaches a quantum sensor (a device comprising gallium nitride (GaN); see full document) comprising: a quantum device comprising gallium nitride (GaN) with a color center, the color center having a zero-phonon line (ZPL) between about 900 nanometers (nm) and about 990 nm, the GaN being Si-doped, and the quantum device configured to operate at between about 15 degrees Celsius (°C) and about 25 °C (Arakawa teaches a device comprising GaN which is Si-doped with concentrations ranging from 1016 atoms/cm3 – 1020 atoms/cm3. See Fig. 1. As best understood by the examiner, the quantum device as claimed corresponds to Si-doped GaN where the limitation “a color center, the color center having a zero-phonon line (ZPL) between about 900 nanometers (nm) and about 990 nm, the GaN being Si-doped, and the quantum device configured to operate at between about 15 degrees Celsius (°C) and about 25 °C” are inherent features of Si-doped GaN with a Si concentration of 1016 atoms/cm3. In view of a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim as a whole is a mere drafting effort designed to monopolize all devices comprising GaN having a Si-doped concentration of 1016 atoms/cm3. ).
Regarding claims 14-15, Arakawa teaches wherein the ZPL of the GaN is between about 948 nm and about 955 nm; and wherein the ZPL of the GaN is between about 949 nm and about 951 nm (As stated in the rejection of claim 1, as best understood by the examiner, the claimed features are inherent to Si-doped GaN with a Si concentration of 1016 atoms/cm3. In view of a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim as a whole is a mere drafting effort designed to monopolize all devices comprising GaN having a Si-doped concentration of 1016 atoms/cm3.)
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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa et al., APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 110, 042103 (2017) (referred to herein as “Arakawa”) in view of US 2019/0120712 (White).
Regarding claim 16, Arakawa fails to teach wherein the quantum device is configured to measure a temperature of a sample.
White teaches wherein the quantum device is configured to measure a temperature of a sample (a Hall sensor comprising GaN provides temperature detection over temperature ranges from -183o-252o C; see abstract, [0011]-[0014]; see Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of a Hall sensor comprising Si-doped GaN as taught in Miyoshi with Si-doped GaN as disclosed in Arakawa in order to gain the advantage manufacturing a Hall sensor for measuring magnetic fields which simultaneously determines temperature.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arakawa et al., APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 110, 042103 (2017) (referred to herein as “Arakawa”) in view of US 2009/0058411 (Miyoshi).
Regarding claim 17, Arakawa fails to teach wherein the quantum device is configured to measure a magnetic field strength of a sample.
Miyoshi teaches wherein the quantum device is configured to measure a magnetic field strength of a sample (a sensor comprising Si-doped GaN wherein the Si concentration was not lower than 1015 cm3 in layer 2a, and is implemented in a Hall sensor for measuring magnetic fields; see Fig. 4; see [0044], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of a Hall sensor comprising Si-doped GaN as taught in Miyoshi with Si-doped GaN as disclosed in Arakawa in order to gain the advantage manufacturing a Hall sensor for measuring magnetic fields.
Regarding claims 18-19, Arakawa fails to teach further comprising a biological sample, wherein the quantum device is in contact with the biological sample and is configured to measure at least one of a temperature and a magnetic field strength of the biological sample; and further comprising a battery electrolyte, wherein the quantum device is in contact with the battery electrolyte and is configured to measure at least one of a temperature and a magnetic field strength of the battery electrolyte.
Miyoshi fails to explicitly teach further comprising a biological sample, wherein the quantum device is in contact with the biological sample and is configured to measure at least one of a temperature and a magnetic field strength of the biological sample; and further comprising a battery electrolyte, wherein the quantum device is in contact with the battery electrolyte and is configured to measure at least one of a temperature and a magnetic field strength of the battery electrolyte, however, Miyoshi teaches an operating layer 2 of a Hall element 10 comprising Si-doped GaN as claimed. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure a magnetic field of a sample by placing said sample in contact with the operating layer without requiring any undue experimentation or providing any new or unexpected results. Further, the specific choice of sample being a biological sample or battery electrolyte is merely an article in which the sensor works upon in its intended use and would be an obvious matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 20, Arakawa teaches a quantum sensor (a device comprising gallium nitride (GaN); see full document) comprising: a quantum device comprising doped gallium nitride (GaN) with a color center, the color center having a zero-phonon line (ZPL) between about 940 nanometers (nm) and about 960 nm, the doped GaN being Si-doped with about 1016 atoms of Si per cm3 (Arakawa teaches a device comprising GaN which is Si-doped with concentrations ranging from 1016 atoms/cm3 – 1020 atoms/cm3. See Fig. 1.), having less than about 8 x 1015 C atoms per cm3 and less than about 6 x 1015 O atoms per cm3 (C and O correspond to impurities. Arakawa states prior art methods for fabricating n-type doping of GaN has a low residual impurity concentration of the order of 1015 cm-3 and PSD as disclosed by Arakawa results in a reduction in the amount of residual impurities such as “oxygen, hydrogen, and carbon”. See pg.1, first paragraph), wherein the quantum device is configured to operate between about 15 degrees Celsius (°C) and about 25 °C (As best understood by the examiner, the quantum device as claimed corresponds to Si-doped GaN where the limitation “a color center, the color center having a zero-phonon line (ZPL) between about 900 nanometers (nm) and about 990 nm, the GaN being Si-doped, and the quantum device configured to operate at between about 15 degrees Celsius (°C) and about 25 °C” are inherent features of Si-doped GaN with a Si concentration of 1016 atoms/cm3. In view of a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim as a whole is a mere drafting effort designed to monopolize all devices comprising GaN having a Si-doped concentration of 1016 atoms/cm3. ).
Miyoshi teaches wherein the quantum device is configured to measure at least one of a temperature and a magnetic field strength of a sample (a sensor comprising Si-doped GaN wherein the Si concentration was not lower than 1015 cm3 in layer 2a, and is implemented in a Hall sensor for measuring magnetic fields; see Fig. 4; see [0044], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the features of a Hall sensor comprising Si-doped GaN as taught in Miyoshi with Si-doped GaN as disclosed in Arakawa in order to gain the advantage manufacturing a Hall sensor for measuring magnetic fields.
Conclusion
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 STEVEN LEE YENINAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0372. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10 - 6.
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, Judy Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-2258. 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.
/STEVEN L YENINAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights