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
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaudo et al. (US 2005/0009310).
Considering claim 1, Vaudo teaches a large-area semi-insulating gallium nitride substrate with a dopant of Mn, etc. (abstract). The GaN comprises a deep acceptor dopant (Paragraph 43) and comprises one or more of Mn, etc. with Mn being a particularly preferred material (Paragraph 46) and the trapped donor impurities can become thermally active at high operating temperatures and the activation energy of the deep acceptor is greater than 0.35 eV and more preferably greater than 0.75 eV (Paragraph 45).
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed GaN substrate this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Vaudo as this is considered a combination of conventionally known deep acceptor dopant in an amount to achieve an activation energy of greater than 0.35 eV and most preferably greater than 0.75 eV overlapping that which is claimed and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. While not expressly taught as according to the claimed expression, Vaudo teaches open-ended activation energy ranges and where this is at high temperatures overlapping that which is claimed and the method by which the activation energy is measured is not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2113. Further, the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 2, Vaudo teaches where the activation energy is preferably greater than 0.75 eV (Paragraph 45). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 3-4, Vaudo teaches an overlapping activation energy as that which is claimed as outlined above and the method by which the value is measured is not considered to render a patentable distinction, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2113 and 2144.05.
Considering claim 5, Vaudo teaches examples where the concentration of deep acceptor is 3×1016 - 7×1016 atoms (Paragraph 82) overlapping that which is claimed and the temperature at which it is measured is not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art. See MPEP 2113 and 2144.05.
Considering claim 6, in addition to the disclosure as outlined above, Vaudo teaches where the resistance of the doped GaN substrate is greater than 105 Ωcm (Paragraph 36) and while not disclosed at 900 K, this range overlaps and renders obvious that which is claimed, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 7 and 14, Vaudo teaches Mn as a dopant (Paragraph 46).
Considering claims 8, 12, and 16-20, Vaudo teaches a substantially identical deep acceptor as that which is claimed and therefore is considered to meet the claimed p-type carrier as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claims 9 and 15, Vaudo teaches where the dislocation density is not in excess of 1×107 (Paragraph 52). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 10-11, Vaudo does not expressly teach the claimed positive correlation or carrier mobility ratio, but teaches where Mn is a preferred dopant (Paragraph 46) and teaches a substantially identical deep acceptor as that which is claimed and therefore is considered to meet the claimed positive correlation and/or carrier mobility ratio as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 13, Vaudo teaches where the GaN substrate is semi-insulating (Paragraph 12), where the deep acceptor is Mn (Paragraph 46) and teaches a substantially identical deep acceptor as that which is claimed and therefore is considered to meet the claimed carrier mobility as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dwilinski et al. (US 2002/0192507 and US 2010/0327292), D’Evelyn (US 2011/0220912), and Enatsu et al. (US 2021/0384336) teach Mn doped GaN similar to that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights