Attorney Docket Number: 01.AE6111-US
Filing Date: 12/19/2022
Claimed Priority Date: none
Inventors: Vora et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed on 12/19/2022.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Drawings
Quotes from the specification are from the published application US 2024/0204091.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because, for example, reference characters "103", "104", "105", "106", "108" and "303", "304", "305", "306", "316", "317", "318" have both been used to designate a material stack in figures 5B-5D. See figures 5B-5D, in which the application claims that the structures are formed from the device material stack 500 shown in figure 5A (see, e.g., pars.0063-0065), yet fails to include any reference number included in device material stack 500, instead including reference numbers from a material stack representative of different embodiments of the invention (e.g., material stack 100 of figure 1).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 8-9 of claim 1, “the second aluminum gallium nitride layer having second aluminum concentration” should read “the second aluminum gallium nitride layer having a second aluminum concentration”
In lines 2-3 of claim 6, “the third aluminum gallium nitride layer having third aluminum concentration” should read “the third aluminum gallium nitride layer having a third aluminum concentration”
In lines 10-11 of claim 19, the language, indentation, and punctuation render unclear whether the limitation “a power supply coupled to the IC die” is intended to be claimed as part of the transistor structure recited in line 2 or the system recited in line 1. I.e., it is unclear whether the “; and” at the end of line 10 and indentation of line 11 intend to include the limitation “a power supply coupled to the IC die” in the recitations of the transistor structure components of lines 2-10 or the system components of line 1.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner reads the limitation “a power supply coupled to the IC die” as a component of the system recited in line 1. The applicant is recommended to review the language, indentation, and punctuation of the claim to ensure the clarity and intent of the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be added.
Claims Rejections
Initially, and with respect to claims 12 and 18, note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe,
even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935).
Note that the applicants have the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first gallium nitride layer”. No distinct “first gallium nitride layer” or first layer composed of specifically “gallium nitride” alone has been recited in the claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the III-N layer between the gate structure and the drain structure”. No orientation or arrangement of the III-N layer, the gate structure, and the drain structure, including whether the III-N layer is between the gate structure and the drain structure, has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the III-N layer between the gate structure and the drain structure” in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the third aluminum gallium nitride layer”. No “third aluminum gallium nitride layer” has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the III-N layer between the gate structure and the drain structure”. No orientation or arrangement of the III-N layer, the gate structure, and the drain structure, including whether the III-N layer is between the gate structure and the drain structure, has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the III-N layer between the gate structure and the drain structure” in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the first and second gallium nitride layers”. No distinct “first gallium nitride layer” and “second gallium nitride layer” or first and second layers composed of specifically “gallium nitride” alone have been recited in the claim or in any parental claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the first and second gallium nitride layers” in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the third aluminum gallium nitride layer”. No “third aluminum gallium nitride layer” has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim or in any parental claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 11 and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
Claims 14-18 depend from claim 13 and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
Claims 20-22 depend from claim 19 and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, 13-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dasgupta (US 2020/0403092).
Regarding claim 1, Dasgupta (see, e.g., figs. 2a and 3e) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a transistor structure (see, e.g., par.0025/ll.1-7) comprising:
a group III-nitride (III-N) layer 306 (see, e.g., par.0042/ll.3);
a gate structure 322/320/318, a source structure 316a, and a drain structure 316b coupled to the III-N layer; and
a multilayer stack 308/310/312/314 over the III-N layer in a region between an outer edge of the gate structure (rightmost edge of 322/320/318) and an edge (leftmost edge of 316b) of the drain structure proximal to the outer edge of the gate structure
wherein the multilayer stack 308/310/312/314 comprises:
a first aluminum gallium nitride layer 310 having a first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., par.0033/ll.4-7); and
a second aluminum gallium nitride layer 314, the second aluminum gallium nitride layer having a second aluminum concentration greater than the first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., par.0034/ll.8-14 and 0101)
With regards to other language recited in claim 1, see the comments stated above in paragraph 11.
Regarding claim 13, Dasgupta (see, e.g., figs. 2a and 3e) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a transistor structure (see, e.g., par.0025/ll.1-7) comprising:
a group III-nitride (III-N) layer 306 (see, e.g., par.0042/ll.3);
a gate structure Gate Stack (see, e.g., pars.0026/ll.1-8 and 0038), a source structure 316a, and a drain structure 316b coupled to the III-N layer; and
a first aluminum gallium nitride layer 314 over at least a portion of the III-N layer, the first aluminum nitride layer having a first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., par.0034/ll.8-10)
wherein the gate structure Gate Stack comprises (see, e.g., par.0018/ll.6-10):
a second aluminum gallium nitride layer 310 adjacent to the III-N layer 306, the second aluminum gallium nitride layer having a second aluminum concentration less than the first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., par.0034/ll.8-14 and 0101);
a gate dielectric layer 318; and
a gate electrode 322 on the gate dielectric layer
With regards to other language recited in claim 13, see the comments stated above in paragraphs 12-13.
Regarding claim 19, Dasgupta (see, e.g., figs. 2a, 3e, and 5) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a system 1000 comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) die (e.g., 1004) comprising a transistor structure (see, e.g., pars.0025/ll.1-7, 0057/ll.14-20, and 0059/ll.1-6), the transistor structure comprising:
a group III-nitride (III-N) layer 306 (see, e.g., par.0042/ll.3);
a gate structure Gate Stack (see, e.g., pars.0026/ll.1-8 and 0038), a source structure 316a, and a drain structure 316b coupled to the III-N layer;
a first aluminum gallium nitride layer 314 over at least a portion of the III-N layer, the first aluminum nitride layer having a first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., par.0034/ll.8-10)
a second aluminum gallium nitride layer 310 on the first aluminum gallium nitride layer, the second aluminum gallium nitride layer having a second aluminum concentration less than the first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., par.0034/ll.8-14 and 0101); and
a power supply Battery coupled to the die (see, e.g., pars.0056/ll.6-10 and 0057/ll.1-9)
With regards to other language recited in claim 19, see the comments stated above in paragraph 14. With regards to the limitation “a power supply coupled to the die”, see the comments stated above in paragraph 5.
Regarding claim 2, Dasgupta (see, e.g., par.0033/ll.4-7) shows that the first aluminum concentration is not more than 15% aluminum (e.g., 5% aluminum).
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed concentration, i.e., not more than 15% aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentration or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Dasgupta (see, e.g., par.0034/ll.8-10) shows that the second aluminum concentration is not less than 25% aluminum (e.g., 40% aluminum).
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentration, i.e., not less than 25% aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 4, Dasgupta (see, e.g., pars.0033/ll.4-7 and 0034/ll.8-10) shows that a ratio of the second aluminum concentration to the first aluminum concentration is not less than four (e.g., a ratio of 40% aluminum of the second concentration to 5% aluminum of the first concentration is not less than 4).
Nevertheless, differences in ratios and concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed ratio, i.e., not less than four, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 5, Dasgupta (see, e.g., pars.0033/ll.4-7 and 0034/ll.8-10) shows that the first aluminum concentration is not more than 10% aluminum and the second aluminum concentration is not less than 40% aluminum.
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentrations, i.e., not more than 10% aluminum and not less than 40% aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 9, Dasgupta (see, e.g., figs. 2a and 3e) shows that the first aluminum gallium nitride layer 310 extends from the edge (leftmost edge of 322/320/318) of the drain structure 316b, under the gate structure 322/320/318, to an edge (rightmost edge of 316a) of the source structure 316a proximal to the gate structure.
Regarding claim 10, Dasgupta (see, e.g., figs. 2a and 3) shows that the second aluminum gallium nitride layer 314 is absent under the gate structure 322/320/318.
Regarding claim 11, Dasgupta (see, e.g., pars.0033/ll.4-5 and 0034/ll.5-9) shows that the first aluminum gallium nitride layer 310 has a thickness in the range of 2 to 5 nm and the second aluminum gallium nitride layer 314 has a thickness in the range of 7 to 13 nm.
Furthermore, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, differences in thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed thicknesses, i.e., in the range of 2 to 5 nm and in the range of 7 to 13 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta. See also the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 14, Dasgupta (see, e.g., par.0033/ll.4-7) shows that the second aluminum concentration is not more than 15% aluminum (e.g., 5% aluminum).
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentration, i.e., not more than 15% aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 15, Dasgupta (see, e.g., par.0034/ll.8-10) shows that the first aluminum concentration is not less than 25% aluminum (e.g., 40% aluminum).
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentration, i.e., not less than 25% aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 16, Dasgupta (see, e.g., pars.0033/ll.4-7 and 0034/ll.8-10) shows that a ratio of the first aluminum concentration to the second aluminum concentration is not less than four (e.g., a ratio of 40% aluminum of the first concentration to 5% aluminum of the second concentration is not less than 4).
Nevertheless, differences in ratios and concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed ratio, i.e., not less than four, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 17, Dasgupta (see, e.g., pars. par.0033/ll.4-7 and 0034/ll.8-10) shows that the second aluminum concentration is not more than 10% aluminum and the first aluminum concentration is not less than 40% aluminum.
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentrations, i.e., not more than 10% aluminum and not less than 40% aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 20, Dasgupta (see, e.g., pars. par.0033/ll.4-7 and 0034/ll.8-10) shows that a ratio of the first aluminum concentration to the second aluminum concentration is not less than four (e.g., a ratio of 40% aluminum of the first concentration to 5% aluminum of the second concentration is not less than 4).
Nevertheless, differences in ratios and concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed ratio, i.e., not less than four, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Dasgupta. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 21, Dasgupta (see, e.g., figs. 2a and 3e) shows that the transistor structure comprises a multilayer stack 308/310/312/314 over the III-N layer in a region between an outer edge of the gate structure (rightmost edge of Gate Stack) and an edge (leftmost edge of 316b) of the drain structure 316b proximal to the outer edge of the gate structure, the multilayer stack comprising layers (e.g., 310, 314). With regards to other language recited in claim 21, see the comments stated above in paragraph 15.
Regarding claim 22, Dasgupta (see, e.g., figs. 2a and 3e and par.0018/ll.6-10) shows that the gate structure Gate Stack comprises the second aluminum gallium nitride layer 310, a gate dielectric layer 318, and a gate electrode 322 on the gate dielectric layer. With regards to other language recited in claim 22, see the comments stated above in paragraph 16.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moens (US 9,741,840).
Regarding claim 1, Moens (see, e.g., fig. 8) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a transistor structure (see, e.g., col.1/ll.14-17) comprising:
a group III-nitride (III-N) layer 102 (e.g., aluminum nitride) (see, e.g., col.5/ll.11-13);
a gate structure 426/326/124, a source structure 622, and a drain structure 624 coupled to the III-N layer; and
a multilayer stack 142/144 over the III-N layer in a region between an outer edge of the gate structure (rightmost edge of 326) and an edge (leftmost edge of 624) of the drain structure proximal to the outer edge of the gate structure
wherein the multilayer stack 142/144 comprises:
a first aluminum gallium nitride layer 142 having a first aluminum concentration (e.g., 1% aluminum) (see, e.g., col.5/ll.45-46); and
a second aluminum gallium nitride layer 144 (see, e.g., col.6/ll.10-11), the second aluminum gallium nitride layer having a second aluminum concentration greater than the first aluminum concentration (e.g., 30% aluminum) (see, e.g., cols.5/ll.45-46 and 6/ll.10-11)
With regards to other language recited in claim 1, see the comments stated above in paragraph 11.
Regarding claim 2, Moens (see, e.g., col.5/ll.45-46) shows that the first aluminum concentration is not more than 15% aluminum (e.g., 1% aluminum).
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentration, i.e., not more than 15% aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Moens. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 3, Moens (see, e.g., col.6/ll.10-11) shows that the second aluminum concentration is not less than 25% aluminum (e.g., 30% aluminum).
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentration, i.e., not less than 25% aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Moens. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 4, Moens (see, e.g., cols.5/ll.45-46 and 6/ll.10-11) shows that a ratio of the second aluminum concentration to the first aluminum concentration is not less than four (e.g., a ratio of 30% aluminum of the second concentration to 1% aluminum of the first concentration is not less than 4).
Nevertheless, differences in ratios and concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed ratio, i.e., not less than four, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Moens. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 6, Moens (see, e.g., fig. 8) shows that the gate structure 426/326/124 comprises:
a third aluminum gallium nitride layer 124 adjacent to the III-N layer 102, the third aluminum gallium nitride layer having a third aluminum concentration less than the second aluminum concentration (e.g., 10%) (see, e.g., col.6/ll.5-6);
a gate dielectric layer 326 (see, e.g., col.7/ll.21-23) on the third aluminum gallium nitride layer; and
a gate electrode 426 on the gate dielectric layer
Regarding claim 7, Moens (see, e.g., col.6/ll.3-6) shows that the third aluminum concentration is not more than 15% aluminum (e.g., 10% aluminum).
Nevertheless, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are critical. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentration, i.e., not more than 15% aluminum, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Moens. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 28-31 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta in view of Huang (US 2022/0406905).
Regarding claim 8, Dasgupta shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 22-23 above). Furthermore, Dasgupta teaches that the multilayer stack 308/310/312/314 further comprise a third layer 308 comprising aluminum nitride (see, e.g., par.0018/ll.7), wherein the first aluminum gallium nitride layer 310 is on the third layer and the third layer is on the III-N layer 306. Since Dasgupta teaches that Dasgupta’s third layer comprises aluminum nitride alone (see, e.g., par.0018/ll.7), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such a layer would comprise substantially pure aluminum nitride. Furthermore, Huang, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Dasgupta, teaches various purity levels of aluminum nitride to be equally suitable for use as a third layer in a transistor structure (see, e.g., Huang: par.0033/ll.1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use substantially pure aluminum nitride in Dasgupta’s third layer, or to use another corresponding purity of aluminum nitride, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art for their use as third layer materials, as taught by Huang, and because selecting among known equivalents for their known intended use would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta in view of Huang and Gossner (US 2020/0411505).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Dasgupta shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 22-25 above). Furthermore, Dasgupta teaches that the III-N layer 306 comprises gallium nitride (see, e.g., pars.0014/ll.3-4 and 0042/ll.1-3). Since Dasgupta teaches that Dasgupta’s III-N layer comprises gallium nitride alone (see, e.g., pars.0014/ll.3-4 and 0042/ll.1-3), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that such a layer would comprise substantially pure gallium nitride. Furthermore, Dasgupta (see, e.g., figs. 3a-3c and par.0043/ll.15-17) shows that the source 316a and drain 316b structures are epitaxial to the III-N layer.
However, it is noted that Dasgupta shows all structural aspects of the transistor structure according to the claimed invention (see paragraphs 22-25 and 73 above), and that the “epitaxial” method steps necessary such that the source and drain structures are “epitaxial to” the III-N layer are intermediate steps that do not affect the structure of the final device.
Additionally, to evidence further support regarding the use of substantially pure gallium nitride in Dasgupta’s III-N layer, Huang, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Dasgupta, teaches various purity levels of gallium nitride to be equally suitable for use as a III-N layer in a transistor structure (see, e.g., Huang: par.0028/ll.8-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to use substantially pure gallium nitride in Dasgupta’s III-N layer, or to use another corresponding purity of gallium nitride, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art for their use as III-N layer materials, as taught by Huang, and because selecting among known equivalents for their known intended use would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additionally, to evidence further support regarding source and drain structures epitaxial to a III-N layer, Gossner, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Dasgupta, teaches that source and drain structure epitaxial to a III-N layer function equivalently to source and drain structures formed by any other process (see, e.g., Gossner: pars.0032/ll.23-25 and 0040/ll.12-15).
Gossner is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that source and drain structures epitaxial to an III-N layer would be equivalent to source and drain structures formed through another process and having another relation to a III-N layer, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the transistor structure of Dasgupta. That is, the source and drain structures of both Dasgupta and Gossner would yield the predictable result of providing suitable source and drain semiconductor structures capable of supporting current flow in a transistor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either source and drain structures epitaxial to an III-N layer, as taught by Gossner, or source and drain structures formed through another process and having another relation to an III-N layer, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing suitable source and drain semiconductor structures capable of supporting current flow in a transistor device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814