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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species I (fig. 2), A1 and B1, with claims 1-8 and 10-16 indicated by Applicant to read thereon, in the reply filed on 6/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions (method & device) and/or species are readily evaluated in one search without placing undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive for reasons deemed to be of record and because the inventions and/or species would require a diverse field of search since their different classification has already been established. It would require undue burdensome search to examine all inventions/species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
While Examiner acknowledges that Applicant indicated that claims 7-8, 12-13 and 15-16 read on the elected Species, claims 7-8 are drawn to non-elected species B2 and are hereby withdrawn from further consideration therefor. Similarly, claims 12-13 are drawn to non-elected Species II (fig. 3) and are hereby withdrawn from further consideration therefor. Additionally, claims 15-16 are drawn to non-elected specie III (fig. 4) and are hereby withdrawn from further consideration therefor.
Claims 7-9, 12-13 and 15-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/8/2026.
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 1-6, 10-11 and 14 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.
Re claim 1, the phrase “a back barrier layer having a second lattice constant, wherein the second lattice constant is the maximum lattice constant in the back barrier layer” is unclear and indefinite. It is not clear how back barrier layer as described in the description of the invention can have a characteristic lattice constant as required by the instant claim. Furthermore, the phrase “the maximum lattice constant in the back barrier layer” lacks antecedent basis. And/or it is also unclear as to what is the maximum lattice constant and/or its value etc.
Re claim 1, the phrase “wherein the third lattice constant is the minimum lattice constant in the stress management layer” is unclear and indefinite. It is not clear how stress management layer as described in the description of the invention can have a characteristic lattice constant as required by the instant claim. Furthermore, the phrase “the minimum lattice constant in the stress management layer” lacks antecedent basis. And/or it is also unclear as to what is the minimum lattice constant and/or it’s value etc.
Re claim 10, the phrase “the growth direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 11, the phrase “the growth direction” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claim 14, the phrase “wherein the front barrier layer comprises AlxGa1-yN where x≥15%” is unclear and indefinite (e.g., what is “y” etc.).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schultz et al., US Pub. No. 2017/0250273A1.
Re claim 1. Schultz et al. disclose a high electron mobility transistor (HEMT) comprising: a silicon carbide substrate 12 (e.g., fig. 3, paragraph 41); a AlN nucleation layer 14 having a first lattice constant (e.g., fig. 3 and paragraph 45); a AlGaN back barrier layer 20 having a second lattice constant, wherein the second lattice constant is the maximum lattice constant in the back barrier layer (e.g., fig. 3 and paragraph 45); a channel layer 22 (e.g., fig. 3 and paragraph 45); a front barrier layer 24 which forms a two-dimensional electron gas in the channel layer (e.g., fig. 3 and paragraph 44); and a stress management layer (e.g., GaN buffer layer 16) having a third lattice constant which is larger than the first lattice constant and the second lattice constant, wherein the stress management layer 16 is positioned between the nucleation layer 14 and the back barrier layer 20, and wherein the third lattice constant is the minimum lattice constant in the stress management layer (this is the intrinsic properties of the material; implicit feature of a GaN layer as compared to the AlN nucleation layer and the AlGaN back barrier layer), see figs. 1-4 and pages 1-8 for more details.
Re claims 2. The HEMT of claim 1, wherein the stress management layer 16 is depleted of charge carriers (this is the intrinsic property of the GaN material etc.). Furthermore, it should be noted that a recitation of the intended use and/or function of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use and/or function, then it meets the claim.
Re claim 3. The HEMT of claim 1, wherein the stress management layer 16 is depleted of all charge carriers (this is the intrinsic property of the GaN material etc.). Furthermore, it should be noted that a recitation of the intended use and/or function of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use and/or function, then it meets the claim.
Re claim 4. The HEMT of claim 1, wherein the back barrier layer comprises aluminium- gallium nitride or indium aluminium nitride (e.g., fig. 3 and paragraph 45).
Re claim 5. The HEMT of claim 4, wherein at least a portion of the back barrier layer comprises AlxGa1-xN where x is less than 4% (e.g., 1%; see paragraph 55, especially -below 10%).
Re claim 6. The HEMT of claim 4, wherein at least a portion of the back barrier layer comprises AlxGai-xN where x is approximately 1% (e.g., 1%; see paragraph 55, especially -below 10%).
Re claim 11. The HEMT of claim 1, wherein the back barrier layer is between 0.1µm and 10 µm (e.g., 125nm, see paragraph 45) thick in the growth direction.
Re claim 14. The HEMT of claim 1, wherein the front barrier layer comprises AlxGa1-yN where x≥15% (e.g., 25-35%, fig. 3 & paragraph 45).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz et al., US Pub. No. 2017/0250273A1.
The thickness range of claim 10 is considered to involve routine optimization while has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As noted in In re Aller, the selection of reaction parameters such as thickness, temperature and concentration etc. would have been obvious:
“Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art...such ranges are termed Acritical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where 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 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the requisite art before the invention was made would have used any thickness range suitable to the device of Schultz et al. in order to optimize the performance of the device/layer. Further in this regard, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e. - 1nm and 200nm thick) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/JACK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights