DETAILED ACTION
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 8-12, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krames et al. (PGPub US 2007/0069225) in view of Wagner et al. (PGPub US 2009/0220801).
Regarding applicants’ claim 8, Krames et al. disclose a light emitting device comprising a substrate and a patterned silicon carbide seed layer (#16) (paragraph 0021, 0024 and 0026 and figure 9). The patterned seed layer comprises a plurality of tiles with each section of the pattern being a tile. Krames et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose the seed layer to be a monocrystalline seed layer of SiC-6H material, however Wagner et al. disclose growth of 6H-type single crystal SiC for use in high performance electronic devices (paragraph 0002). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to use the high quality 6H-SiC material disclosed by Wagner et al. as the SiC material for the seed layer in the light emitting device of Krames et al. where the 6H-SiC material of Wagner et al. is of high quality and is for use in high performance electronic devices.
Regarding applicants’ claim 9, the host substrate may be selected from materials including a silicon material (Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to select from the materials disclosed by Krames et al. including silicon materials.
Regarding applicants’ claims 10, 11 and 20, Krames et al. disclose forming the seed layer on a growth substrate and then attached by bonding layer to the host substrate (paragraph 0042). Applicants’ requirement that the interface is detachable is a functional requirement. Given the existence of the bonding layer and the breadth of the processes by which the detachment can be carried out (claim 11), the layered structure disclosed by Krames et al. is capable of being detached by one or more of laser debonding, chemical attack, or mechanical stress.
Regarding applicants’ claim 12, the addition of two or more wafers is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. The bonding layer is a detachable interface as discussed above with respect to claims 12, 11 and 20. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to duplicate the semiconductor substrate and seed layers where the joining of more than one substrate results in the production of additional light emitting devices where the joining of additional substrates is not shown to produce new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding applicants’ claim 16, Krames et al. do not disclose an exact range of spacing within the pattern for the seed layer, however the discovery of a workable range for the spacing is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. While Krames et al. do not disclose a spacing the pattern of Krames et al. inherently possess a spacing. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to discover a workable range of spacing for the patterned seed layer. Absent a showing of criticality such as unexpected results, the claimed range is not found to distinguish over a workable range as determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding applicants’ claim 18, the seed layer be formed as strips (paragraph 0034).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 allowed. Krames et al. (PGPub US 2007/0069225) disclose a light emitting device including a substrate and a patterned seed layers (tiles) as discussed above with respect to claim 8, however Krames et al. do not disclose a plurality of monocrystalline AlN material layers where each monocrystalline layer of AlN material of the plurality of monocrystalline layers of AlN material is disposed on a respective tile of the plurality of tiles. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the light emitting device of Krames et al. to include a plurality of layers of monocrystalline AlN material on the plurality of tiles formed by the patterned seed layer.
Claims 13-15, 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 applicants’ claims 13-15, Krames et al. (PGPub US 2007/0069225) disclose a light emitting device including a substrate and a patterned seed layers (tiles) as discussed above with respect to claim 8, however Krames et al. do not disclose a substrate that is silicon-on-insulator substrate comprising a silicon oxide layer between a silicon substrate and a silicon layer. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the light emitting device of Krames et al. to modify the substrate of Krames et al. to comprise silicon-on-insulator substrate comprising a silicon oxide layer between a silicon substrate and a silicon layer.
Regarding applicants claims 17 and 19, Krames et al. (PGPub US 2007/0069225) disclose a light emitting device including a substrate and a patterned seed layers (tiles) as discussed above with respect to claim 8, but do not disclose a pattern which includes a tile having a size of shape that differs from the other tiles. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the light emitting device of Krames et al. to modify the pattern of Krames et al. to form a pattern where a tile differs in size or shape form the other tiles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights