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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (wo2022/004046) English translation 2023/0119023.
The Sakai et al reference teaches a single crystal aluminum nitride substrate and methods of growing, note, entire reference. The substrate has two main surfaces, one surface being an Al polar surface and the opposite surface being a N polar surface, note fig.1 The end of the substrate has an inclined surface. The surface is created by chamfering it. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the dimensions of the chamfered incline. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the dimensions of the incline in the Sakai et al reference in order to reduce cracks and stress in the substrate.
With regards to claim 3, the Sakai et al reference teaches a AlGaN layer with Ga between 0 and 1 on top of the substrate, note para 092.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (wo2022/004046) English translation 2023/0119023.
The Sakai et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the carbon amount. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the amount of carbon in the substrate in the Sakai et al reference in order to have the desired properties in the substrate.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (wo2022/004046) English translation 2023/0119023 in view of Kanyandekwe et al (J. or Crystal Growth).
The Sakai et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the layers on the substrate being graded. However, the Kanyandekwe et al reference teaches that layers on the AlN substrate can be graded, note figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Sakai et al reference by the teachings of the Kanyandekwe et al reference to have graded layers in order to have the desired LED.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (wo2022/004046) English translation 2023/0119023 in view of Toru et al (2019093255)
The Sakai et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the layers on the substrate. However, the Toru et al reference teaches that layers on the AlN substrate in order of a PVT-AIN layer formed by a PVT method [0113]. The PVT-AIN layer having a lower surface as the second surface figure 2 and figure 4 and then an HVPE-AIN layer formed on an upper surface of the PVT-AIN layer by a HVPE method (0116). The HVPE-AIN layer having an upper surface as the first surface , figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Sakai et al reference by the teachings of the Toru et al reference to have set layers on the substrate in order to grow the desired device.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (wo2022/004046) English translation 2023/0119023 in view of Toru et al (2019093255)
The Sakai et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the inclined dimensions between the substrate and layers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the dimensions of the incline in the combined references in order to have a uniform growth surface between all grown layers and substrate.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (wo2022/004046) English translation 2023/0119023 in view of Toru et al (2019093255)
The Sakai et al and Toru et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the dimensions of the grown layers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the dimensions of the grown layers in the combined references in order to create the LED.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (wo2022/004046) English translation 2023/0119023 in view of Toru et al (2019093255) and Kanyandekwe et al (J. or Crystal Growth).
The Sakai et al and Toru et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the layers include a graded layer.. However, the Kanyandekwe et al reference teaches that layers on the AlN substrate can be graded with a AlN layer, note figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Sakai et al reference by the teachings of the Kanyandekwe et al reference to have graded layers in order to have the desired LED.
Examiner’s Remarks
Claims 13 and 14 stand allowable over the art of record, as the prior art does not teach nor render obvious the instantly claimed method noting the acid immersion step after growth and chamfering.
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in AlN growth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights