DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed 6/18/2026.
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1 and 10 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2024, 10/1/2024 and 12/2/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being 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.
Claims 9 and 18 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 9 recites the limitation “the number of the low carbon concentration layer” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the number of the low carbon concentration layer” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Isobe et al. (US 2017/0256637 A1, hereinafter “Isobe”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe, specifically the overall configuration shown in Figure 4 with the detailed view of element 100 shown in Figure 2B, disclose a nitride semiconductor substrate, comprising a nitride semiconductor thin film 22/25/100 (collectively 22, 25 and 100) formed on a substrate 10 (“substrate”- ¶0012), wherein
the nitride semiconductor thin film includes a stress-relaxing layer 22 (“layer… alleviate the stress”- ¶0042) formed on the substrate 10 and a carbon-doped GaN layer 100 (“buffer layer”, which includes carbon-doped GaN- ¶¶0012, 0024-0025; see Fig. 2B) formed on the stress-relaxing layer 22, and
the GaN layer 100 comprises high carbon concentration layers 40 (“C—GaN layer”- ¶¶0016, 0024) and a low carbon concentration layer 50 (“ud-GaN layer”, which has carbon concentration- ¶¶0022, 0025), the low carbon concentration layer 50 being sandwiched between the high carbon concentration layers 40 and having a lower carbon concentration by 75 % or more than the high carbon concentration layers 50, since the carbon concentration ranges disclosed for layers 40, 50, respectively, (¶¶0024-0025) includes values which satisfies the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose wherein the low carbon concentration layer 50 has a film thickness of 10 nm to 40 nm (¶0025), which anticipates the claimed range of “200 nm or less”.
Regarding claim 5, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose wherein the substrate 10 is a silicon substrate (¶0013), or a substrate having a silicon thin film on a surface layer.
Regarding independent claim 10, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe, specifically the overall configuration shown in Figure 4 with the detailed view of element 100 shown in Figure 2B, disclose a method for producing a nitride semiconductor substrate, comprising a nitride semiconductor thin film 22/25/100 (collectively 22, 25 and 100) formed on a substrate 10 (“substrate”- ¶0012), wherein
when a stress-relaxing layer 22 (“layer… alleviate the stress”- ¶0042) on the substrate 10 and a carbon-doped GaN layer 100 (“buffer layer”, which includes carbon-doped GaN- ¶¶0012, 0024-0025; see Fig. 2B) on the stress-relaxing layer 22 are formed as the nitride semiconductor thin film,
high carbon concentration layers 40 (“C—GaN layer”- ¶¶0016, 0024) and a low carbon concentration layer 50 (“ud-GaN layer”, which has carbon concentration- ¶¶0022, 0025) are formed as the GaN layer 100, the low carbon concentration layer 50 being sandwiched between the high carbon concentration layers 40 and having a lower carbon concentration by 75 % or more than the high carbon concentration layers 40, since the carbon concentration ranges disclosed for layers 40, 50, respectively, (¶¶0024-0025) includes values which satisfies the claimed range.
Regarding claim 13, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose wherein the low carbon concentration layer 50 has a film thickness of 10 nm to 40 nm (¶0025), which anticipates the claimed range of “200 nm or less”.
Regarding claim 14, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose wherein the substrate 10 is a silicon substrate (¶0013), or a substrate having a silicon thin film on a surface layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2-3, 7, 11-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Isobe.
Regarding claim 2, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose wherein the carbon concentration in the high carbon concentration layers 40 is 1x1018 atoms/cm3 to 3x1019 atoms/cm3 (¶0024), which overlaps the claimed range of “7x1017 atoms/cm3 or more and 1 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)).
Regarding claim 3, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose wherein the carbon concentration in the low carbon concentration layer 50 is 1x1016 atoms/cm3 to 1x1017 atoms/cm3 (¶0025), which overlaps the claimed range of “1 x1015 atoms/cm3 or more and 5x1017 atoms/cm3 or less”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)).
Regarding claim 7, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose a total film thickness of the nitride semiconductor thin film 22/25/100.
Isobe does not expressly disclose wherein the total film thickness of the nitride semiconductor thin film is 10 µm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to form the total film thickness of the nitride semiconductor thin film within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 11, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose wherein the carbon concentration in the high carbon concentration layers 40 is 1x1018 atoms/cm3 to 3x1019 atoms/cm3 (¶0024), which overlaps the claimed range of “7x1017 atoms/cm3 or more and 1 x 1021 atoms/cm3 or less”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)).
Regarding claim 12, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose wherein the carbon concentration in the low carbon concentration layer 50 is 1x1016 atoms/cm3 to 1x1017 atoms/cm3 (¶0025), which overlaps the claimed range of “1 x1015 atoms/cm3 or more and 5x1017 atoms/cm3 or less”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)).
Regarding claim 16, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe disclose a total film thickness of the nitride semiconductor thin film 22/25/100.
Isobe does not expressly disclose wherein the total film thickness of the nitride semiconductor thin film is 10 µm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to form the total film thickness of the nitride semiconductor thin film within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isobe in view of Brawley et al. (US 2014/0312424 A1, hereinafter “Brawley”).
Regarding claim 6, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe discloses wherein an AlN layer 20 (“buffer layer… AlN layer”- ¶0014) is formed on the silicon substrate 10.
Isobe does not expressly disclose wherein a crystal axis orientation of the silicon substrate and the silicon thin film is <111>.
Figure 3 of Brawley discloses a silicon substrate 202 (“silicon substrate”- ¶0060) and a AlN layer 302 (“aluminum nitride layer”- ¶0060) formed on the silicon substrate 202, wherein a crystal axis orientation of the silicon substrate 202 is <111> (¶0060).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isobe such that a crystal axis orientation of the silicon substrate is <111> as taught by Brawley for the purpose of utilizing a suitable and well-known type of silicon substrate and corresponding crystal orientation, which is an orientation of silicon readily used to grow aluminum nitride, as known to those skilled in the art (Brawley ¶0060).
Regarding claim 15, Figures 2B and 4 of Isobe discloses wherein an AlN layer 20 (“buffer layer… AlN layer”- ¶0014) is formed on the silicon substrate 10.
Isobe does not expressly disclose wherein a crystal axis orientation of the silicon substrate and the silicon thin film is <111>.
Figure 3 of Brawley discloses a silicon substrate 202 (“silicon substrate”- ¶0060) and a AlN layer 302 (“aluminum nitride layer”- ¶0060) formed on the silicon substrate 202, wherein a crystal axis orientation of the silicon substrate 202 is <111> (¶0060).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Isobe such that a crystal axis orientation of the silicon substrate is <111> as taught by Brawley for the purpose of utilizing a suitable and well-known type of silicon substrate and corresponding crystal orientation, which is an orientation of silicon readily used to grow aluminum nitride, as known to those skilled in the art (Brawley ¶0060).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17 and 19 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.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record including Isobe, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein a half-value width of a (0002) plane of the GaN layer is 315 arcsec or less”.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record including Isobe, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein a half-value width of a (0002) plane of the GaN layer is 315 arcsec or less”.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art of record including Isobe, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the carbon concentrations in the low carbon concentration layer and the high carbon concentration layers are controlled by adjusting a film formation temperature”.
Claims 9 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record including Isobe, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the high carbon concentration layers and the low carbon concentration layer are alternately formed as the GaN layer, and the number of the low carbon concentration layer sandwiched between the high carbon concentration layers is two or more”.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art of record including Isobe, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the high carbon concentration layers and the low carbon concentration layer are alternately formed as the GaN layer, and the number of the low carbon concentration layer sandwiched between the high carbon concentration layers is two or more”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ramer et al. (US 2016/0099345 A1), which discloses a nitride semiconductor substrate comprising a GaN layer comprising low and high carbon concentration layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights