DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
A restriction requirement was mailed on 6/18/26.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 8/18/26 is acknowledged. Claims 9-21 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/20/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/7/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 6 is/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 4 recites the limitation “…the buffer layer has a thickness of about 5 nm or less”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons:
The term "about" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It 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. The term “about 5 nm” implicitly requires a boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “about 5 nm” any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. For example, it is unclear if 5.1, 5.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, or 100 nm is “about 5 nm”, and where the boundary lies between being close enough to 5 nm to be “about 5 nm” and being farther than that boundary. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “…each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures has a lateral thickness less than about 40 nm”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons:
The term "about" is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. It 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. The term “about 40 nm” implicitly requires a boundary different than the target beyond which one is not “about 40 nm” any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines this boundary. For example, it is unclear if 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 52, 55, 60, 62, 65, 70, 75, 80, 90, 100, 150, 200, 300, or 400 nm is “about 40 nm”, and where the boundary lies between being close enough to 40 nm to be “about 40 nm” and being farther than that boundary. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Growth of GaN nanowall network on Si (111) substrate by molecular beam epitaxy”, A. Zhong and K. Hane, Nanoscale Research Letters 2012, 7:686, Springer (hereinafter “Zhong”) (see copy provided by the Applicant).
Zhong teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
250
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhong teaches:
1. A device comprising:
a substrate (see “Si(111) substrate”, Background section; see also Methods section);
a buffer layer (see e.g. “several monolayers of Al”, and “growth of an about 40 nm-thick AlN buffer layer”, Methods section) supported by the substrate; and
a plurality of nanostructures supported by the substrate, each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures being shaped as a wall (see e.g. “GaN networks”, in Background, Methods, and Results and discussion sections) extending outward from the substrate,
wherein the walls of the plurality of nanostructures are interconnected to define a set of voids, each void of the set of voids extending outward from the substrate (see voids in e.g. Fig. 1), and
wherein the buffer layer is disposed between the substrate and each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures (see e.g. Background and Methods sections, wherein SI(111) is a substrate, Al and AlN are deposited thereon, and then GaN nanostructure network is growth thereon).
3. The device of claim 1, wherein the buffer layer comprises AIN (see “AlN buffer layer”, Methods section).
4. The device of claim 1, wherein the buffer layer has a thickness of about 5 nm or less (see AlN buffer layer of about 40 nm thickness, Methods section; the Applicant has not defined any upper boundary to “about 5 nm”, and it is reasonable to read 40 nm thereon, especially in comparison with the 380 micrometer thick Si substrate).
6. The device of claim 1, wherein each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures has a lateral thickness less than about 40 nm (see e.g. 30 nm, Abstract).
7. The device of claim 1, wherein each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures has a lateral thickness at least an order of magnitude lower than heights of the plurality of nanostructures (see e.g. 30 nm, Abstract, for the wall thickness; see e.g. 500 nm thickness, Results and discussion section).
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2009/0001416 A1 (“Chua”).
Chua teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image2.png
334
488
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chua teaches:
1. A device comprising:
a substrate (see e.g. para 26);
a buffer layer (see e.g. “low-temperature GaN nucleation layer 12”, see e.g. para 26) supported by the substrate; and
a plurality of nanostructures supported by the substrate, each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures being shaped as a wall extending outward from the substrate, wherein the walls of the plurality of nanostructures are interconnected to define a set of voids, each void of the set of voids extending outward from the substrate, andwherein the buffer layer is disposed between the substrate and each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures (see e.g. para 27-29, wherein a porous-Si-doped GaN layer is formed on the nucleation layer, and an InGaN layer is formed thereon, resulting in a porous structure shown in e.g. Fig. 7).
5. The device of claim 1, wherein each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures comprises a GaN layer and an InGaN layer supported by the GaN layer (see e.g. para 27-29, wherein a porous-Si-doped GaN layer is formed on the nucleation layer, and an InGaN layer is formed thereon, resulting in a porous structure shown in e.g. Fig. 7).
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 of this title, 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) 2, 4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong.
Re claim 2, Zhong teaches claim 1, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the buffer layer comprises a “plurality of interconnected islands that define voids in the buffer layer”.
However, the AlN buffer layer was grown by MBE, see Methods section, and it is well known that molecular beam epitaxy grows layers epitaxially but is not as uniform as methods such as atomic layer epitaxy. As such, MBE results in a structure that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as “interconnected islands” that could define voids.
Applicant also grows their AlN buffer layer on a silicon substrate by molecular beam epitaxy (see e.g. para 24). Because the process is substantially similar, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the AlN structure to be substantially similar. One of ordinary skill in the art would anticipate that if the network grown on the AlN has an interconnected network with voids, they would expect some structure in the AlN to have a similar interconnected structure with voids.
Furthermore, Applicant has not placed any limitations on the geometry of the “islands” or the voids therebetween.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Re claims 4, 6, and 7, these claims were rejected in the 102 rejections above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to optimize the buffer layer thickness (claim 4), lateral thickness of the nanostructures (claim 6), and thus the ratio of the heights of the nanostructures to the lateral thickness (claim 7) to arrive at the claimed distances and ratios. This is because Zhong discloses a range of nanowall thicknesses (30-200 nm, see e.g. Abstract), a range of network hole widths of 50 to 100 nm (see Results and discussion section) or 30-60 nm (see Results and discussion section), a range of N-to-Ga ratio that causes the widths of the nanowalls to increase from 30 to 200 nm as the ratio decreases (see Results and discussion section). Thus, the geometric dimensions disclosed are essentially all results-effective variables that are tied together and would have been obvious to investigate and optimize during routine experimentation.
While the cited prior art does not explicitly disclose the particular claimed values or range of values, the teachings therein would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to discover the claimed value during routine experimentation and optimization. Because of the above-noted result-effective variables, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add the claimed value(s) to the invention, because it/they would have been discovered during routine experimentation and optimization of the underlying result-effective variable. See, for example, MPEP 2144.05, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Regarding the result-effective variables, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
The applicant has not disclosed that the claimed value(s) is/are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce(s) an unexpected result, or is/are otherwise critical. To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular value or range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art value or range. See, e.g., Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed.Cir. 1984); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Ornitz, 351 F.2d 1013, 147 USPQ 283 (CCPA 1965); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of US 2020/0161504 A1 (“Fimland”).
Zhong teaches claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures is doped p-type.
Fimland teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Zhong wherein each nanostructure of the plurality of nanostructures is doped p-type (see e.g. para 173).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Fimland, including the doping type of the GaN nanostructures, to the invention of Zhong. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of allowing for the device (which is unlimited in its scope, meaning it could be for light-emission, light-detection, or formation of structures like transistors, diodes, etc.) to be a photodetector, wherein the dopant type allows for the light absorption to be in a specific wavelength range (see e.g. para 173).
Conclusion
Conclusion / Prior Art
The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited.
US 2015/0372186 A1 (“Cha”) teaches nanostructure GaN/InGaN light emitting devices (see e.g. para 77).
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights