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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re claim 9, lines 4-5, the phrase “wherein the p-type semiconductor layer comprises a vertical sidewall” was not described in the original specification. Note: Figures are NOT drawn to scale.
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 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, US Pub. No. 2021/0083083 A1.
Re claim 9, Huang discloses a high electron mobility transistor (HEMT), comprising: a buffer layer 15/14/13/12 on a substrate 11 (i.e., fig. 6A-1/2 or fig. 10A-1/2); a barrier layer 16 on the buffer layer (i.e., fig. 6A-1/2 or fig. 10A-1/2); a p-type semiconductor layer 26 (i.e, the lower portion of the 26, see fig. 6A-1/2 or fig. 10A-1/2) on the barrier layer; and a gate electrode layer 26 (i.e, the upper portion of the 26, see fig. 6A-1/2 or fig. 10A-1/2) on the p-type semiconductor layer, wherein the gate electrode comprises an inclined sidewall (i.e, fig. 6A-1/2 or fig. 10A-1/2), also see figs. 4A-4D, see figs. 1-42And pages 1-17 for more details.
Although the exact recitation “wherein the p-type semiconductor layer comprises a vertical sidewall” was not mentioned by Huang. However, Re the shape/profile of the sidewall, The court held that the configuration of the claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to use select any suitable sidewall shape/profile (e.g., vertical) in the device of Huang in order to provide the desired device configuration etc. Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed process/arrangement (i.e. - vertical sidewall) 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).
Re claim 10. : The HTEMT of claim 9, wherein the gate electrode comprises a trapezoid (i.e., fig. 6A-1/2 or fig. 10A-1/2).
Re claim 11. : The HTEMT of claim 9, wherein a bottom surface of the gate electrode is less than a top surface of the gate electrode (i.e., fig. 6A-1/2 or fig. 10A-1/2).
Re claim 12.: The HTEMT of claim 9, wherein the buffer layer 15 comprises gallium nitride (GaN) (i.e., paragraph 121 etc.).
Re claim 13. : The HTEMT of claim 9, wherein the barrier layer 16 comprise AlxGa1.xN (i.e., paragraph 121 etc.).
Re claim 14. The HTEMT of claim 9, wherein the p-type semiconductor layer comprises p-type gallium nitride (pGaN) (i.e., paragraph 120 etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons herein above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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