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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic priority based on provisional application 63/510,166 filed on June 26, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 10/08/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. This objection specifically refers to the Non-Patent Literature documents titled "Kinetic Aspects in the Vapour Phase Epitaxy of III-V Compounds", and “GaAs Metalorganic Vapour Phase Epitaxial Overgrowth over nm-Sized Tungsten Wires.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanser et al. (US 20150279675 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hanser et al. teaches a method for smoothing a surface, the method comprising:
a first depositing onto a first surface 2914 of a first layer 2912, resulting in the forming of a second layer 2916 on the first surface 2914 (Fig. 29 : 2912, 2914, 2916, paragraph 0257),
wherein: the first surface 2914 has a first surface feature height, the second layer 2916 comprises a second surface 2918 having a second surface feature height that is less than the first surface feature height (Fig. 29: 2912, 2914, 2916, 2918, paragraph 0257, Claim 68),
Note that in Fig. 29, the surface feature height of surface 2918 is less than the surface feature height of surface 2914.
the first depositing is performed using hydride vapor phase epitaxy (HVPE) (see paragraph 0257),
the first layer 2912 comprises a first III-V alloy or an alloy comprising a Group IV element (i.e., AlxGayInzN, see, paragraph 0268),
and the second layer 2916 comprises a second III-V alloy or an alloy comprising a Group IV element (i.e., AlxGayInzN, see, paragraph 0268).
Regarding Claim 2, Hanser et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the first III-V alloy comprises a first Group III element comprising at least one of boron, aluminum, gallium, indium, or thallium, and the first III-V alloy comprises a first Group V element comprising at least one of nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, antimony, or bismuth (paragraph 0268).
Regarding Claim 4, Hanser et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the second III-V alloy comprises a second Group III element comprising at least one of boron, aluminum, gallium, indium, or thallium, and the second III-V alloy comprises a second Group V element comprising at least one of nitrogen, phosphorus, arsenic, antimony, or bismuth (paragraph 0268).
Regarding Claim 10, Hanser et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first depositing is performed using at least one of a first precursor comprising the first Group III element, a second precursor comprising the first Group V element, and a first carrier gas (see paragraph 0252, NH3 as the second precursor comprising the first Group V element Nitrogen).
Regarding Claim 20, Hanser et al. teaches a composition comprising:
a first layer 2912 comprising a surface characterized by a first surface feature height (Fig. 29: 2912, paragraph 0257);
and a second layer 2916 comprising a surface characterized by a second surface feature height (Fig. 29: 2916, paragraph 0257),
wherein: the first layer 2912 is positioned adjacent to and in contact with the second layer 2916,
and the second surface feature height is less than the first surface feature height (paragraph 0257, Claim 68).
Note that in Fig. 29, the surface feature height of surface 2918 is less than the surface feature height of surface 2914.
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 6-9, 11-13, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanser et al. (US 20150279675 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Hanser et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface feature height is less than 0.0005 µm (paragraph 0062).
Note that while Hanser et al. fails to explicitly teach a range between 1 µm and 100 µm, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in dimensions will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimension is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed first surface height range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range through routine optimization and have the first surface feature height between 1 µm and 100 µm.
Regarding Claim 7, Hanser et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface feature height is less than 0.0005 µm (paragraph 0062).
Note that while Hanser et al. fails to explicitly teach a range between 1 µm and 20 µm, according to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in dimensions will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such dimension is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed first surface height range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range through routine optimization and have the first surface feature height between 1 µm and 20 µm.
Regarding Claim 8, Hanser et al. fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second surface feature height is less than or equal to about 1 µm.
However, Hanser et al. teaches the 2918 is substantially pit free implying the second surface feature height is nearly 0 µm (see paragraph 0257), which falls within the claimed region. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 9, Hanser et al. fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 8, wherein the second surface feature height is between 0.1 µm and 1 µm.
However, Hanser et al. teaches the 2918 is substantially pit free implying the second surface feature height is nearly 0 µm (see paragraph 0257), which is close to the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I) , a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding Claim 11, Hanser et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first depositing is performed at a first pressure between 0.01 atm and 2.0 atm (see paragraph 0302).
Note that according to paragraph 0302, in one embodiment, the reactor pressure is about 100-760 Torr, equivalent to 0.132 – 1 atm, which falls within the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 12, Hanser et al. fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first depositing is performed at a first temperature between 500 °C and 800 °C.
However, Hanser et al. teaches the first depositing is performed at a first temperature between 900 °C and 1100 °C (paragraph 0051). According to MPEP § 2144.05 (II-A), differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed temperature range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the range through routine optimization and have the first depositing performed at a first temperature between 500 °C and 800 °C.
Regarding Claim 13, Hanser et al. teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the first precursor and the second precursor are supplied to provide a first ratio of the first Group V element to the second Group III element (V/III) is between 0.1 (0.1 to 1.0) and 20 (20 to 1.0) (see paragraph 0051).
Note that according to paragraph 0051, a first ratio of the first Group V element to the second Group III element (V/III) is between 10 to 50, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 16, Hanser et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface has an offcut between zero degrees and 30 degrees (0259).
In an implementation, according to paragraph 0259, the first surface has an off-cut between 0° to 10°, which overlaps the claimed range. According to MPEP § 2144.05 (I), “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 19, Hanser et al., in a different embodiment teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
a second depositing onto the second surface 1316 of the second layer 1216, resulting in the forming of a third layer 1220 on the second surface 1316 (Fig. 13: 1316, 1216, 1220, paragraph 0166),
wherein: the third layer 1220 comprises a third surface having a third surface feature height that is less than the second surface feature height (Fig. 13: 1220, Claim 68, paragraph 0166),
Note that surface 1320 is pit-free compared to surface 1316 and thus, the surface feature height of 1320 will be zero and therefore less than that of the surface 1316 (see Claim 68, paragraph 0166).
the second depositing is performed using hydride vapor phase epitaxy (HVPE), and the third layer comprises a third III-V alloy (paragraph 0268).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the different embodiments of Hanser et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention as recited in Claim 6. Doing so would enable the formation of smoother surfaces.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanser et al. (US 20150279675 A1), as applied to Claim 4 above, further in view of Ptak et al. (US 20200091354 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Hanser et al. fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 4, wherein the first III-V alloy comprises at least one of GaAs or InP.
However, Ptak et al. teaches a method for smoothing a surface, wherein the first III-V alloy comprises at least one of GaAs or InP (see paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Hanser et al. and Ptak et al. in order to have the first III-V alloy comprises at least one of GaAs or InP. Doing so would enable smoother surfaces with fewer defects rendered by the near-lattice-matched growth of GaAs as opposed to GaN.
Regarding Claim 5, Hanser et al. fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 4, wherein the second III-V alloy comprises at least one of GaAs, GaInP, AlGaAs, AlInP, AlGaInP, GaInNAs, or GaInNAsSbBi.
However, Ptak et al. teaches a method for smoothing a surface, wherein the second III-V alloy comprises at least one of GaAs, GaInP, AlGaAs, AlInP, AlGaInP, GaInNAs, or GaInNAsSbBi (see paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Hanser et al. and Ptak et al. in order to have the second III-V alloy comprise at least one of GaAs, GaInP, AlGaAs, AlInP, AlGaInP, GaInNAs, or GaInNAsSbBi. Doing so would enable smoother surfaces with fewer defects rendered by the near-lattice-matched growth of GaAs as opposed to GaN.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanser et al. (US 20150279675 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Oida et al. (JP H07302740 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Hanser et al. fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface is characterized by a substrate having an orientation comprising at least one of a (100) orientation, a 211 orientation, or steps on a spalled substrate having a (110) orientation.
However, Oida et al. teaches a method for smoothing a surface, wherein the first surface is characterized by a substrate having an orientation comprising at least one of a (100) orientation, a 211 orientation, or steps on a spalled substrate having a (110) orientation (see page 5, lines 20-23 in English Translation of Oida et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Hanser et al. and Oida et al. in order to have the first surface characterized by a substrate having an orientation comprising at least one of a (100) orientation, a 211 orientation, or steps on a spalled substrate having a (110) orientation. Doing so would yield a first layer with a good surface morphology, as recognized by Oida et al. (see page 2, lines 28-34, in English Translation of Oida et al.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanser et al. (US 20150279675 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Sheen (US 20110136281 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Hanser et al. fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface is characterized by a (100) orientation, a (111) orientation, a (211) orientation, a (311) orientation, or a (110) orientation.
However, Sheen teaches a method of forming a heterostructure, wherein the first surface (of first layer 418) is characterized by a (100) orientation, a (111) orientation, a (211) orientation, a (311) orientation, or a (110) orientation (Fig. 4B: 418, see paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Hanser et al. and Sheen in order to have the first surface characterized by a (100) orientation, a (111) orientation, a (211) orientation, a (311) orientation, or a (110) orientation. Doing so would enable the formation of epitaxial layers with optimized properties such as carrier mobility, crystal quality relevant for different semiconductor applications.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanser et al. (US 20150279675 A1), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Noetzel et al. (US 5714765).
Regarding Claim 17, Hanser et al. fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface has a substantially corrugated surface comprising at least one of {n11} facets or {110} facets and n is an integer value between 1 and 5, inclusively.
However, Noetzel et al. teaches a method of forming a heterostructure, wherein the first surface has a substantially corrugated surface comprising at least one of {n11} facets or {110} facets and n is an integer value between 1 and 5, inclusively (column 2, lines 55-65, column 3, lines 11-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of Hanser et al. and Noetzel et al. in order to have the first surface have a substantially corrugated surface comprising at least one of {n11} facets or {110} facets and n is an integer value between 1 and 5, inclusively. By doing so, the ridges and valleys of the corrugated surface would promote preferential lateral overgrowth to produce a smoother surface.
Regarding Claim 18, Noetzel et al. teaches wherein the facets comprise {211} facets (column 2, lines 65-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham, can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 06/26/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights