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 .
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 16-17, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koehler et al (US Publication No. 2024/0097064) in view Conway et al (US Publication No. 2019/0131482).
Regarding claim 16, Koehler discloses a photoconductive semiconductor switch triggered by irradiation of focused light or laser light Fig 2A-2B comprising (a) a plate of a semi-insulating group III nitride crystal having a top surface and a bottom surface ¶0046,(b) a bottom electrode Fig 2A, 204A on the bottom surface;(c) a photo-active electrically conductive region Fig 2B, 216B inside the plate and exposed to the top surface Fig 2B,(d) a top electrode Fig 2B, 206B electrically connected to the electrically conductive region Fig 2B. Koehler discloses all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the electrically conductive region and the top electrode. Whereas Conway discloses wherein a first shortest distance from an edge of the top surface to an adjacent boundary of the electrically conductive region is more than a thickness of the plate Fig 1, a second shortest distance from the edge of the top surface to the top electrode is more than the thickness of the plate Fig 1, and the top electrode has a surface area on the electrically conductive region that is less than 10% of a surface area of the electrically conductive region Fig 1. Koehler and Conway are analogous art because they are directed to photoconductive switch and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Koehler because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Koehler and incorporate the teachings of Conway to improve device performance ¶0018-0019.
Regarding claim 17, Koehler discloses wherein the electrically conductive region is n-type and contains a donor impurity ¶0047.
Regarding claim 23, Koehler discloses wherein the donor impurity comprises silicon ¶0048.
Regarding claim 25, Koehler discloses wherein the semi- insulating group III nitride is GaN¶0046-0048.
Regarding claim 27, Koehler discloses wherein the dislocation density of the GaN is less than 5 x 105 cm-2. ¶0056 and 0070. 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 dislocation density, 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 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 29, 30, 33 and 35, Koehler discloses a light source positioned to irradiate and activate the electrically conductive area Fig 2A-2B.
Claims 18-19, 26, 28, 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koehler et al (US Publication No. 2024/0097064) in view Conway et al (US Publication No. 2019/0131482) and in further view of Teague et al (US Publication No. 2022/0209028).
Regarding claim 18, Koehler discloses all the limitations but silent on the dopant. Whereas Teague discloses wherein the plate contains manganese¶0040. Koehler and Teague are analogous art because they are directed to photoconductive switch and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Koehler because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dopant type of Koehler and incorporate the teachings of Teague as an alternative dopant known in the art. Also, 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 concentration of the dopant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Regarding claim 19, Koehler discloses wherein the donor impurity comprises silicon ¶0048
Regarding claim 26, Koehler discloses wherein the semi- insulating group III nitride is GaN¶0046-0048.
Regarding claim 28, Koehler discloses wherein the dislocation density of the GaN is less than 5 x 105 cm-2. ¶0056 and 0070. 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 dislocation density, 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 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 34 and 36, Koehler discloses a light source positioned to irradiate and activate the electrically conductive area Fig 2A-2B.
Claims 20-22, 24, 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koehler et al (US Publication No. 2024/0097064) in view Conway et al (US Publication No. 2019/0131482) and in further view of Teague et al (US Publication No. 2022/0209028) and Wraback et al (US Publication No. 2011/0198515).
Regarding claims 20 and 24, Koehler discloses all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the GAN. Whereas Wraback discloses wherein the top surface is a nitrogen face of the semi-insulating group III nitride crystal and the bottom surface is a group III face of the semi-insulating group III nitride crystal ¶0069. Koehler and Wraback are analogous art because they are directed to photoconductive switch and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Koehler because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Koehler and incorporate the teachings of Wraback to improve device performance ¶0069.
Regarding claim 21, Koehler discloses wherein the semi- insulating group III nitride is GaN¶0046-0048.
Regarding claim 22, Koehler discloses wherein the dislocation density of the GaN is less than 5 x 105 cm-2. ¶0056 and 0070. 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 dislocation density, 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 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Koehler discloses a light source positioned to irradiate and activate the electrically conductive area Fig 2A-2B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571 272 1670. 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.
/CHRISTINE A ENAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
