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 .
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on 04/26/2024 and 06/04/2025 have been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
As to claim 9, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the underlying insulating layer”. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will treat claim 9 as dependent on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 12-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (JP 2012119569 A, translation provided), hereafter “Saito”, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US 2021/0217618 A1), hereafter “Takahashi”.
As to claim 1, Saito teaches a stacked structure, comprising:
an amorphous substrate (11 “glass substrate”, Page 2, Fig. 1+2);
a buffer layer (12a/12b) on the amorphous substrate; and
a gallium nitride-based semiconductor layer (13) on the buffer layer.
Saito fails to disclose wherein the gallium nitride-based semiconductor layer includes at least one gallium nitride layer, and an oxygen concentration of the gallium nitride layer is less than 1 × 1021 /cm3.
Takahashi teaches a GaN film wherein the oxygen concentration is less than 1 × 1021 /cm3 (⁋ [0038], “more preferably 1.0×10.sup.17 atoms/cm.sup.3 or lower, and further preferably 1.0×10.sup.1 atoms/cm.sup.3 or lower”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the oxygen concentration of Takahashi into the device of Saito for the benefit of particularly excellent flatness and optical properties can be obtained (⁋ [0050]).
As to claim 2, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 1, Takahashi further teaches wherein a carbon concentration in the gallium nitride layer is less than 3 × 1019 /cm3 (⁋ [0038]).
As to claim 5, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 1, Saito further teaches wherein the gallium nitride layer is c-axis oriented (Page 2, “the GaN semiconductor layer 13 also grows in a preferentially oriented state on the (0002) plane”).
As to claim 6, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 1, Saito further teaches wherein the buffer layer (12b) is a c-axis oriented metal film (Page 4, Par. 5, “the Ti layer 12b is preferentially oriented in the (0002) plane”) comprising at least one element selected from titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), silver (Ag), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), strontium (Sr), rhodium (Rh), palladium (Pd), iridium (Ir), platinum (Pt), and gold (Au) (Page 4, Par. 3, “The Ti layer 12b is a thin film of metallic Ti”).
As to claim 7, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 1, Saito further teaches wherein the buffer layer (12a) is a metal oxide layer (Page 2, “a ZnO layer 12a”), and the metal oxide layer is a c-axis oriented metal oxide film (Page 2, “the ZnO layer 12a is preferentially oriented in the (0002) plane”) comprising one of zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide (TiO2).
As to claim 10, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 1, Saito further teaches wherein the amorphous substrate is a glass substrate (see claim 1).
As to claim 12, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 1, Saito further teaches wherein the gallium nitride layer is formed on the buffer layer by a sputtering method using a gallium nitride sputtering target (Page 2 “The ZnO layer 12a is formed by a sputtering method in this embodiment”).
As to claim 13, Saito teaches a gallium nitride-based semiconductor device, comprising:
an amorphous substrate (11 “glass substrate”, Page 2, Fig. 1);
a buffer layer (12a) on the amorphous substrate; and
a gallium nitride-based semiconductor layer (13) on the buffer layer.
Saito fails to disclose wherein the gallium nitride-based semiconductor layer includes at least one gallium nitride layer, and an oxygen concentration of the gallium nitride layer is less than 1 × 1021 /cm3.
Takahashi teaches a GaN film wherein the oxygen concentration is less than 1 × 1021 /cm3 (⁋ [0038], “more preferably 1.0×10.sup.17 atoms/cm.sup.3 or lower, and further preferably 1.0×10.sup.1 atoms/cm.sup.3 or lower”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the oxygen concentration of Takahashi into the device of Saito for the benefit of particularly excellent flatness and optical properties can be obtained (⁋ [0050]).
As to claim 14, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the gallium nitride-based semiconductor device according to claim 13, Takahashi further teaches wherein a carbon concentration in the gallium nitride layer is less than 3 × 1019 /cm3 (⁋ [0038]).
As to claim 17, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the gallium nitride-based semiconductor device according to claim 13, Saito further teaches wherein the gallium nitride layer is c-axis oriented (Page 2, “the GaN semiconductor layer 13 also grows in a preferentially oriented state on the (0002) plane”).
As to claim 18, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the gallium nitride-based semiconductor device according to claim 13, wherein the buffer layer (12b) is a c-axis oriented metal film (Page 4, Par. 5, “the Ti layer 12b is preferentially oriented in the (0002) plane”) comprising at least one element selected from titanium (Ti), aluminum (Al), silver (Ag), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), strontium (Sr), rhodium (Rh), palladium (Pd), iridium (Ir), platinum (Pt), and gold (Au) Page 4, Par. 3, “The Ti layer 12b is a thin film of metallic Ti”).
As to claim 19, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the gallium nitride-based semiconductor device according to claim 13, Saito further teaches wherein the buffer layer (12a) is a metal oxide layer (Page 2, “a ZnO layer 12a”), and the metal oxide layer is a c-axis oriented metal oxide film comprising one of zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) (Page 2, “the ZnO layer 12a is preferentially oriented in the (0002) plane”) comprising one of zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide (TiO2).
As to claim 20, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 13, Saito further teaches wherein the amorphous substrate is a glass substrate (see claim 13) or a flexible resin substrate.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Takahashi, and further in view of Hanawa et al. (US 2010/0244086 A1), hereafter “Hanawa”.
As To claim 3, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 2, but fail to teach wherein a hydrogen concentration in the gallium nitride layer is less than 2 × 1020 /cm3.
Hanawa teaches a similar device with a p-type semiconductor layer i.e. GaN crystal film (⁋ [0021]) wherein the hydrogen concentration is less than 2 × 1020 /cm3 (⁋ [0042] “a hydrogen concentration in the p-type semiconductor layer is set at 1 × 1016 /cm3 or lower”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the hydrogen concentration teaching of Hanawa to the device of Saito and Takahashi to solve the hydrogen contamination of a GaN crystal film which may result in difficulty in reducing other dopants which are easily bonded to hydrogen (⁋⁋ [0012]-[0020]).
As to claim 15, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the gallium nitride-based semiconductor device according to claim 14, but fail to teach wherein a hydrogen concentration in the gallium nitride layer is less than 2 × 1020 /cm3.
Hanawa teaches a similar device with a p-type semiconductor layer i.e. GaN crystal film (⁋ [0021]) wherein the hydrogen concentration is less than 2 × 1020 /cm3 (⁋ [0042] “a hydrogen concentration in the p-type semiconductor layer is set at 1 × 1016 /cm3 or lower”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the hydrogen concentration teaching of Hanawa to the device of Saito and Takahashi to solve the hydrogen contamination of a GaN crystal film which may result in difficulty in reducing other dopants which are easily bonded to hydrogen (⁋⁋ [0012]-[0020]).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Takahashi and Hanawa, and further in view of Mikawa et al. (US 2019/0189438 A1), hereafter “Mikawa”.
As to claim 4, Saito in view of Takahashi and Hanawa teach the stacked structure according to claim 3, but fail to teach wherein a fluorine concentration in the gallium nitride layer is less than 5 × 1017 /cm3.
Mikawa teaches a similar device with a GaN crystal film (⁋ [0002]) wherein the fluorine concentration is less than 2 × 1020 /cm3 (⁋ [0069] “may contain F (fluorine) at a concentration of 5×1014 /cm3 or more and less than 1×1016 /cm3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the fluorine concentration teaching of Mikawa to the device of Saito, Takahashi and Hanawa for the benefit of producing a C-plane GaN substrate for various applications including a substrate for producing nitride semiconductor devices and a seed for growing bulk GaN crystals (⁋ [0351]).
As to claim 16, Saito in view of Takahashi and Hanawa teach the gallium nitride-based semiconductor device according to claim 15, but fail to teach wherein a fluorine concentration in the gallium nitride layer is less than 5 × 1017 /cm3.
Mikawa teaches a similar device with a GaN crystal film (⁋ [0002]) wherein the fluorine concentration is less than 2 × 1020 /cm3 (⁋ [0069] “may contain F (fluorine) at a concentration of 5×1014 /cm3 or more and less than 1×1016 /cm3”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the fluorine concentration teaching of Mikawa to the device of Saito, Takahashi and Hanawa for the benefit of producing a C-plane GaN substrate for various applications including a substrate for producing nitride semiconductor devices and a seed for growing bulk GaN crystals (⁋ [0351]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Takahashi, and further in view of Jin et al. (US 2017/0229480 A1), hereafter “Jin”.
As to claim 8, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising an underlying insulating layer disposed between the amorphous substrate and the buffer layer.
Jin teaches a stacked GaN structure with buffer layer (310c, Fig. 3, ⁋ [0029]) a substrate (230, Fig. 2E) and an insulating layer therebetween (250, ⁋ [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the insulating layer of Jin to the device of Saito and Takahashi for the purpose of protecting a device from overheating and provide electrical isolation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Takahashi, Jin, and further in view of Sakamoto (US 2023/0022582 A1), hereafter “Sakamoto”.
As to claim 9, Saito in view of Takahashi and Jin teach the stacked structure according to claim 8 (see 112b above), but fail to teach wherein the underlying insulating layer includes a stacked structure of a silicon oxide film and a silicon nitride film.
Sakamoto teaches a similar device wherein a base layer is an insulating layer (110, Fig. 6, ⁋ [0084]) and is located on a substrate. The material may be a stacked structure in which a silicon oxide layer and a silicon nitride layer are combined.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the insulating material of Sakamoto to the device of Saito, Takahashi and Jin because the insulating stack would have been well known in the art as an insulating layer at the time of the invention.
Claims 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Takahashi, and further in view of.
As to claim 11, Saito in view of Takahashi teach the stacked structure according to claim 1, Saito teaches the substrate can be applicable to an amorphous surface (Page 3) but fails to explicitly teach wherein the amorphous substrate is a flexible resin substrate.
Sakamoto teaches a similar device wherein a flexible resin substrate (⁋ [0083]) could be used as a substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the teaching of the flexible resin substrate of Sakamoto to the device of Saito and Takahashi since Sakamoto teaches the flexible resin substrate as an acceptable substitution for a glass substrate (⁋ [0083]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARNELL HUNTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 4:30pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. 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.
/CARNELL HUNTER III/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights