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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-18, 21-22, 25, 28, 30-31, 33-35, 37, 39-40, 44 and 46 are pending.
Claims 3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 19-20, 23-24, 26-27, 29, 32, 36, 38, 41-43 and 45 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16-18, 21-22, 25, 28, 30-31, 33-35, 37, 39-40, 44 and 46 are currently amended.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-12, 16-18, 21-22, 28, 31, 33, 35, 40, 44 and 46 are rejected herein.
Claims 9, 14, 25, 30, 34, 37 and 39 are objected to herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, an n-type layer, a p-type layer, and InGaN/GaN active layers between the n-type layer and the p-type layer and a light emitting diode (LED) (e.g., as claimed in claim 40) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 11-12, 21-22, 28, 31, 33 and 35 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.
Regarding claim 11, the phrases “preferably” and "for example" render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Moreover, the term “low” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Notably, it is unclear how low the value of a boiling point needs to be in order for it to be considered a low boiling point.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 21 also recites the limitations "the amplitude" and “the voltage” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Moreover, the term “about” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Notably, it is unclear how close a value has to be to 1 volt in order for it to be considered about 1 volt.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 28, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 31 depends from claim 28 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 28.
Regarding claim 33, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 35, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 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 1-2, 4, 6, 17-18, 22, 44 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 (M. Ainorkhilah, et al., "Structural and Surface Studies of Undoped Porous GaN Grown on Sapphire," Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 620, December 2012, pages 45-49) in view of Tai (US 4496448 A).
Regarding claim 1, NPL1 discloses a method for forming porous III-nitride material (namely, porous GaN) using reactive ion etching (RIE) (i.e., NPL1 explicitly discloses that “[p]orous GaN can be prepared by dry etching techniques such as … reactive ion etching,” page 45).
NPL1 does not explicitly disclose:
exposing a III-nitride material to a gas;
coupling the III-nitride material to one terminal of a power supply and coupling an electrode to another terminal of the power supply, and via the gas forming a circuit;
and
energizing the circuit to etch a plurality of pores in the III-nitride material and thereby form a porous III-nitride material.
However, in analogous art, Tai discloses (see generally, e.g., FIG. 2) reactive ion etching including:
exposing a material (22) to a gas (e.g., via inlet 16);
coupling the material (22) to one terminal of a power supply (23) (e.g., via electrode 20) and coupling an electrode (18) to another terminal of the power supply (23), and via the gas forming a circuit;
and
energizing the circuit to etch the material (22).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the reactive ion etching as taught by Tai to form a plurality of pores in the III-nitride material of NPL1 and thereby form a porous III-nitride material according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to use a readily available and know technique (i.e., RIE) for its known and intended purpose (i.e., forming a porous III-nitride material). Notably, NPL1 explicitly discloses forming porous III-nitride material from III-nitride material using RIE, and Tai discloses RIE conducted by exposing a material (22) to a gas (e.g., via inlet 16) and energizing a circuit between terminals of a power supply (23), wherein the material (22) is mounted to one electrode (20) that is coupled to one terminal of the power supply (23) and another electrode (18) is coupled to the other terminal of the power supply (23).
Regarding claim 2, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
Tai further discloses that energizing the circuit creates a gas plasma. See, e.g., column 4, line 39 through column 5, line 33.
Regarding claim 4, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
NPL1 further discloses forming a porous III-nitride material using a dry etching technique and Tai further discloses that the material is not exposed to an electrolyte.
Regarding claim 6, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
Tai further discloses that the gas comprises Cl2. See, e.g., column 7, lines 47-49.
Regarding claim 17, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
Tai further discloses the step of applying a voltage in the range between 0.1 V and 500,000 V, namely, 250 V for example. See, e.g., column 10, Table 1.
Regarding claim 18, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
Tai further discloses the step of varying the voltage as a function of time. See, e.g., column 8, lines 16-38.
Regarding claim 22, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
Tai further discloses the step of applying a sequence of voltage pulses for a predetermined period of time. See, e.g., column 8, lines 16-38.
Regarding claim 44, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
Tai further discloses a semiconductor structure comprising porous III-nitride material formed by a method defined in claim 1. See, e.g., column 1, lines 8-10.
Regarding claim 46, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
Tai further discloses a semiconductor device comprising porous III-nitride material formed by a method defined in claim 1. See, e.g., column 1, lines 8-10.
Claims 7 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 in view of Tai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tajima (US 20220115238 A1).
Regarding claim 7, NPL1 in view of Tai as applied to claim 1 above discloses the method according to claim 1.
NPL1 in view of Tai does not explicitly disclose that the gas comprises a vapor of one or more inorganic salts, optionally in which the gas comprises a vapor of one or more of LiF, NaF, NaCl, LiCl, KCl, LiBr, LiNO3, NaNO3, KNO3, CaCl2, SnCl2, ZnCl2, ZnBr2, CuCl2, AlCl3, FeCl3, TiCl4, ZrCl4, PCl3, PCl5, NH4Cl, NH4NO3.
However, in analogous art, Tajima disclose use of a gas in dry plasma etching, in which the gas comprises PCl3. See, e.g., paragraph [0077].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the PCl3 vapor as taught by Tajima for the gas of NPL1 in view of Tai according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to use a readily available and know material (i.e., PCl3) for its known and intended purpose (i.e., as a gas or vapor for dry plasma etching such as RIE).
Regarding claim 16, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
NPL1 in view of Tia further discloses the step of exposing the III-nitride material to a vapor as a function of time to generate a porosity profile.
Notably, as taught by Tia, while the RIE is being conducted, the material is exposed to the vapor and when the RIE is not being conducted, the material is not exposed to the vapor. Accordingly, the III-nitride material is exposed to the vapor as a function of time. Moreover, the porous material formed will necessarily have some profile. Notably, as claimed, there is no limitation on what the profile looks like, i.e., the profile could be uniform, non-uniform, or otherwise.
NPL1 in view of Tia does not explicitly disclose that the vapor is one or more inorganic salts.
However, in analogous art, Tajima disclose use of a gas in dry plasma etching, in which the gas comprises PCl3. See, e.g., paragraph [0077].
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the PCl3 vapor as taught by Tajima for the gas of NPL1 in view of Tai according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to use a readily available and know material (i.e., PCl3) for its known and intended purpose (i.e., as a gas or vapor for dry plasma etching such as RIE).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 in view of Tai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 9206524 B2).
Regarding claim 40, NPL1 in view of Tai discloses the method according to claim 1.
NPL1 in view of Tia does not explicitly disclose forming over the porous III-nitride material: an n-type layer, a p-type layer, and InGaN/GaN active layers between the n-type layer and the p-type layer to form a light emitting diode (LED).
However, in analogous art, Zhang discloses (see generally, e.g., FIGS. 9a-c) forming over the porous III-nitride material (906): an n-type layer (908), a p-type layer (912), and InGaN/GaN active layers (910) between the n-type layer (908) and the p-type layer (912) to form a light emitting diode (LED) (column 8, lines 52-53).
It would have been obvious to and within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed over an n-type layer, a p-type layer, and InGaN/GaN active layers between the n-type layer and the p-type layer as taught by Zhang over the porous III-nitride material of NPL1 in view of Tai to form a light emitting diode (LED) according to known methods to yield predictable results, e.g., in order to use a readily available and know material (i.e., porous GaN) for its known and intended purpose in an LED with enhanced light extraction properties (see, e.g., Zhang, column 2, lines 1-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 14, 25, 30, 34, 37 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-12, 28, 31, 33 and 35 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: that “the gas comprises a vapor of one or more metals, optionally in which the gas comprises a vapor of one or more of Li, Na, K, H, Ga, In, Al, or Pb,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: that “the gas comprises a vapor of one or more acids, preferably one or more acids of low boiling point, for example boiling points < 350ºC at 1 atm,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Claim 12 depends from claim 11, and accordingly is indicated as including allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: “comprising the step of varying the composition of the gas as a function of time to generate a porosity profile; or comprising the step of varying the composition of the gas while the circuit is energized; or comprising the steps of de-energizing the circuit, altering the composition of the gas, and re-energizing the circuit,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: “the step of varying the pressure of the gas while the circuit is energized; optionally comprising the step of sweeping the pressure of the gas between 0 bar and 20 bar, or between 1 bar and 15 bar, or between 1 bar and 10 bar, while the circuit is energized; optionally comprising the step of applying a first gas pressure P1 for a first time duration tP1; and applying a second gas pressure P2 for a second time duration tP2,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: “the step of varying a temperature of the gas and the III-nitride material, preferably while the circuit is energized; optionally comprising the step of applying a first gas temperature T1 for a first time duration tP1; and applying a second gas temperature T2 for a second time duration TP2,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 30, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: “the temperature of the gas is swept between a first temperature T1 and a second temperature T2 over a predetermined period of time; and/or in which the method comprises the step of varying a temperature of the gas and the III-nitride material between the first temperature T1 and the second temperature T2 while the circuit is energized,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Claim 31 depends from claim 28, and accordingly is indicated as including allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as claim 28.
Regarding claim 33, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: “the step of varying a distance between the electrode and the III-nitride material, preferably while the circuit is energized,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 34, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: “the steps of forming a non-uniform porosity profile in the III-nitride material by varying one or more of: the gas composition; the voltage applied between the electrode and the III-nitride material; the distance between the electrode and the III-nitride material; the temperature of the gas; and the pressure of the gas,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 35, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: that “the III-nitride material has a charge carrier density of greater than 1 x 1017 cm-3, optionally in which at least a first region of the III-nitride material consists of n-type doped III-nitride material, which is preferably doped with one or more of silicon (Si), germanium (Ge) and oxygen (O),” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 37, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: that “the plurality of pores are etched in a first region of the III-nitride material, and in which the first region of III-nitride material has a charge carrier density of greater than 1 x 1017 cm-3; optionally in which the III-nitride material additionally comprises a second portion having a charge carrier density of less than 1 x 1017 cm-3, and in which no pores are formed in the second portion,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 39, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to disclose, along with the other claimed limitations and/or features, inter alia: that “the III-nitride material is a first region of III-nitride material, and in which an undoped surface layer of III-nitride material is positioned over the first region of III-nitride material,” in such a manner as to anticipate the claim or render the claim obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P CORNELY whose telephone number is (571)272-4172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 AM - 4:00 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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571) 272-1945. 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.
JOHN P. CORNELY
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights