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 without traverse of Species III, claims 17-20, and withdrawing claims 1-16, in the reply filed on January 11, 2026, is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,239,348. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 17-20, Patent ’348 [Claims 9-16] discloses the limitations of the claims, including
forming a GaAs base region;
forming an InGaP emitter region;
forming a GaAs emitter cap region;
forming an emitter base stack, wherein the emitter base stack comprises the GaAs emitter cap region, the InGaP emitter region, and the GaAs base region; and
forming a collector region,
wherein:
the transistor is a NPN heterojunction bipolar transistor;
the InGaP emitter region comprises one of: an ordered phase or disordered phase or mixed phase;
the InGaP emitter region is lattice matched or near latticed matched to GaAs; and
the GaAs base region is wafer bonded to the collector region.
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(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0262634) [Hereafter “Murayama”] in view of Mishra et al. (U.S. Pub. 2008/0296617) [Hereafter “Mishra”].
Regarding claim 17, Murayama [Figs.4-6] discloses a method of manufacturing a transistor, the method comprising:
forming a GaAs base region [133] [Para.46];
forming an InGaP emitter region [134] [Para.46];
forming a GaAs emitter cap region [141] [Para.47];
forming an emitter base stack [130], wherein the emitter base stack comprises the GaAs emitter cap region, the InGaP emitter region, and the GaAs base region [Figs.4-6]; and
forming a collector region,
wherein:
the transistor is a NPN heterojunction bipolar transistor [Fig.4];
the InGaP emitter region comprises one of: an ordered phase or disordered phase or mixed phase [Paras.19,62];
the InGaP emitter region is lattice matched or near latticed matched to GaAs [Para.49 discloses crystal growth of the laminated layers].
Murayama fails to explicitly disclose the GaAs base region is wafer bonded to the collector region. However, Mishra [Fig.2] [Paras.38,42] discloses the base region [212] is wafer bonded to the collector region [204]. It would have been obvious to include wherein the base region is wafer bonded to the collector region, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 18-19, Murayama and Mishra disclose wafer bonding the collector region to the GaAs base region. Murayama fails to explicitly disclose
the collector region comprising a GaN collector region;
collector region comprising a SiC collector region.
However, Mishra [Fig.2] discloses wherein
the collector region comprising a GaN collector region [20];
collector region comprising a SiC collector region [214].
It would have been obvious to include the materials for the collector region as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 20, Murayama fails to explicitly disclose wherein the GaAs base region to the InGaP emitter region has a conduction band offset less than 0.2 eV. However, Marayama discloses the need to elleviate a conduction band offset to obtain an efficient HBT. It would have been obvious to provide wherein the GaAs base region to the InGaP emitter region has a conduction band offset less than 0.2 eV, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898