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 amendment filed on 05/11/2026.
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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 05/11/2026 in reply to the previous Office action mailed on 02/10/2026 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11-12, and 23-37.
Claims Rejections
Initially, and with respect to claim 12, 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 USC § 112
The following are quotations of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 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, 2, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 24-29 and 31-37 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 second aluminum gallium nitride layer extending from the gate dielectric layer at the outer edge of the gate structure to the drain structure”. No architecture, disposition, and/or placement for the gate dielectric layer has been previously sufficiently recited recited in the claim, including that any part of the gate dielectric layer is disposed at any outer edge of the gate structure. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the gate dielectric layer at the outer edge of the gate structure” in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the third aluminum gallium nitride layer extending from the second aluminum gallium nitride layer at the outer edge of the gate structure to the drain structure”. No architecture, disposition, and/or placement for the second aluminum gallium nitride layer has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim, including that any part of the second aluminum gallium nitride layer is disposed at any outer edge of the gate structure, has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the second aluminum gallium nitride layer at the outer edge of the gate structure” in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the thick portion of the second aluminum gallium nitride layer extending from the third aluminum gallium nitride layer at the outer edge of the gate structure to the drain structure”. No architecture, disposition, and/or placement for the third aluminum gallium nitride layer has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim, including that any part of the third aluminum gallium nitride layer is disposed at any outer edge of the gate structure, has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the third aluminum gallium nitride layer at the outer edge of the gate structure” in the claim.
Claims 2, 4-5, 8, and 11-12 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
Claims 25-29 depend from claim 24 and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
Claims 32-37 depend from claim 31 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 and 23 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, 3e 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 source structure 316a and a drain structure 316b on the III-N layer;
a gate structure 322/320/318 between the source structure and the drain structure;
a first aluminum gallium nitride layer 310 over a portion of the III-N layer and extending from the source structure to the drain structure, the first aluminum gallium nitride layer having a first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., par.0033/ll.4-7), wherein the gate structure comprises a gate dielectric layer 318 on the first aluminum gallium nitride layer and a gate electrode 322 on the gate dielectric layer such that the gate electrode is not in contact with the first aluminum gallium nitride layer; and
a second aluminum gallium nitride layer 314 on the first aluminum gallium nitride layer in a region between an outer edge (rightmost edge of 322/320/318) of the gate structure and an edge (leftmost edge of 316b) of the drain structure proximal to the outer edge of the gate structure, the second aluminum gallium nitride layer extending to the drain structure, and 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 7.
Regarding claim 23, Dasgupta (see, e.g., figs. 2a, 3e, 3e’, and 5 and pars.0008, 0025/ll.1-7, 0057/ll.14-20, and 0059/ll.1-6) teaches:
an integrated circuit (IC) die (e.g., 1004) comprising the III-N layer 306, the source structure 316a, the drain structure 316b, the gate structure 322/320/318, the first aluminum gallium nitride layer 310, and the second aluminum gallium nitride layer 314; and
a power supply Battery coupled to the IC die (see, e.g., pars.0056/ll.6-10 and 0057/ll.1-9)
Claims 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moens (US 9,741,840).
Regarding claim 24, 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 or 106 (see, e.g., col.5/ll.11-13, 25, and 30-34);
a source structure 622 and a drain structure 624 on the III-N layer;
a gate structure 426/326/124 between the source structure and the drain structure;
a first aluminum gallium nitride layer 122 (see, e.g., col.5/ll.44) over a portion of the III-N layer and extending from the source structure to the drain structure, the first aluminum gallium nitride layer having a first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., col.5/ll.44), wherein the gate structure comprises a second aluminum gallium nitride layer 124 on the first aluminum gallium nitride layer, a gate dielectric layer 326 on the second aluminum gallium nitride layer, and a gate electrode 426 on the gate dielectric layer such that the gate electrode is not in contact with the first aluminum gallium nitride layer (see, e.g., cols.7/ll.14-18 and 33-34), the second aluminum gallium nitride layer having a second aluminum concentration (see, e.g., col.6/ll.5-6); and
a third aluminum gallium nitride layer 144 on the first aluminum gallium nitride layer in a region between an outer edge (rightmost edge of 326) of the gate structure and an edge (leftmost edge of 624) of the drain structure proximal to the outer edge of the gate structure, the third aluminum gallium nitride layer extending to the drain structure, the third aluminum gallium nitride layer having a third aluminum concentration (see, e.g., col.6/ll.10-11), wherein the third aluminum concentration is greater than each of the first aluminum concentration and the second aluminum concentration (see, e.g., cols.5/ll.44 and 6/ll.5-6 and 10-11)
With regards to other language recited in claim 24, see the comments stated above in paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 24, 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 or 106 (see, e.g., col.5/ll.11-13, 25, and 30-34);
a source structure 622 and a drain structure 624 on the III-N layer;
a gate structure 426/326/124 between the source structure and the drain structure;
a first aluminum gallium nitride layer 124 (see, e.g., col.6/ll.5-6) over a portion of the III-N layer and extending from the source structure to the drain structure, the first aluminum gallium nitride layer having a first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., col.5/ll.44), wherein the gate structure comprises a second aluminum gallium nitride layer 122 (see, e.g., col.5/ll.44) on the first aluminum gallium nitride layer, a gate dielectric layer 326 on the second aluminum gallium nitride layer, and a gate electrode 426 on the gate dielectric layer such that the gate electrode is not in contact with the first aluminum gallium nitride layer (see, e.g., cols.7/ll.14-18 and 33-34), the second aluminum gallium nitride layer having a second aluminum concentration (see, e.g., col.5/ll.44); and
a third aluminum gallium nitride layer 144 on the first aluminum gallium nitride layer in a region between an outer edge (rightmost edge of 326) of the gate structure and an edge (leftmost edge of 624) of the drain structure proximal to the outer edge of the gate structure, the third aluminum gallium nitride layer extending to the drain structure, the third aluminum gallium nitride layer having a third aluminum concentration (see, e.g., col.6/ll.10-11), wherein the third aluminum concentration is greater than each of the first aluminum concentration and the second aluminum concentration (see, e.g., cols.5/ll.44 and 6/ll.5-6 and 10-11)
With regards to other language recited in claim 24, see the comments stated above in paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 31, Moens (see, e.g., fig. 8 and cols.5/ll.59-61 and 6/ll.11-12) 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 or 106 (see, e.g., col.5/ll.11-13, 25, and 30-34);
a source structure 622 and a drain structure 624 on the III-N layer;
a gate structure 426/326/122/124/142 between the source structure and the drain structure;
a first aluminum gallium nitride layer 144 (see, e.g., col.6/ll.10-11) over a portion of the III-N layer and extending from the source structure to the drain structure, the first aluminum gallium nitride layer having a first aluminum concentration (see, e.g., col.6/ll.10-11);
a second aluminum gallium nitride layer 124/142 (see, e.g., col.5/ll.45-46 and 6/ll.5-6) over the portion of the III-N layer and extending from the source structure to the drain structure, the second aluminum gallium nitride layer having a second aluminum concentration (see, e.g., col.6/ll.5-6), wherein the gate structure comprises a third aluminum gallium nitride layer 122 on a thin portion of the second aluminum gallium nitride layer, a gate dielectric layer 326 on the third aluminum gallium nitride layer, and a gate electrode 426 on the gate dielectric layer such that the gate electrode is not in contact with the first aluminum gallium nitride layer (see, e.g., cols.7/ll.14-18 and 33-34), the third aluminum gallium nitride layer having a third aluminum concentration (see, e.g., col.5/ll.44), wherein a thick portion of the second aluminum gallium nitride layer is over a region between an outer edge (rightmost edge of 326) of the gate structure and an edge (leftmost edge of 624) of the drain structure proximal to the outer edge of the gate structure, the thick portion of the second aluminum gallium nitride layer extending to the drain structure, and wherein the second aluminum concentration is greater than each of the first aluminum concentration and the third aluminum concentration (e.g., 30% vs. 15% vs. 1%) (see, e.g., cols.5/ll.44 and 6/ll.5-6 and 10-11)
With regards to other language recited in claim 31, see the comments stated above in paragraph 9.
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 2, 4-5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta.
Regarding claim 2, Dasgupta shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 15-16 above). Dasgupta (see, e.g., pars.0033/ll.4-7 and 0034/ll.8-10) further shows that the first aluminum concentration is not more than 15% aluminum (e.g., 5% aluminum) and 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. “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 and 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.
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 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 27-30 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 27-30 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
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 27-30 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claims 25-26, 28, and 32-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moens.
Regarding claim 25, Moens (see, e.g., col.5/ll.45-46 and 6/ll.10-11 and paragraphs 19-20 above) shows that the first aluminum concentration is not more than 15% aluminum (e.g., 1% aluminum) and that the third 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 more than 15% aluminum and 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 27-30 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 26, Moens (see, e.g., cols.5/ll.45-46 and 6/ll.10-11 and paragraphs 19-20 above) shows that a ratio of the third 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 27-30 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 28, Moens (see, e.g., cols.5/ll.52 and 6/ll.11-12 and paragraphs 21-22 above) shows that the first aluminum gallium nitride layer 124 has a thickness almost in the range of 2 to 5 nm and the third aluminum gallium nitride layer 144 has a thickness in the range of 7 to 13 nm.
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).
However, 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 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 27-30 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 32, Moens (see, e.g., col.5/ll.45-46 and 6/ll.10-11) shows that the first aluminum concentration is not more than 15% aluminum and that the third aluminum concentration is not less than 25% 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 and 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 27-30 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 33, 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 close to not less than four.
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).
However, 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 27-30 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 34, Moens (see, e.g., col.5/ll.45-46 and 6/ll.10-11) shows that the first aluminum concentration is close to not more than 10% aluminum and that the third aluminum concentration is close to not less than 40% aluminum.
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).
However, 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 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 Moens. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 27-30 with respect to claim 2 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
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 15-16 above). Furthermore, Dasgupta teaches that the Dasgupta’s structure further comprises 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasgupta in view of Huang and Gossner (US 2020/0411505).
Regarding claim 12, Dasgupta shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 15-16 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 3-4 and 62 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).
Claims 27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moens in view of Huang.
Regarding claim 27, Moens shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 19-20 above). Furthermore, Moens teaches that the Moen’s transistor structure further comprises a fourth layer 164 or 104 comprising aluminum nitride (see, e.g., cols.ll.11-19 and 6/ll.34), wherein the first aluminum gallium nitride layer 122 is on the fourth layer, and the fourth layer is on the III-N layer 102 or 106. Since Moens teaches that Moens’s fourth layer comprises aluminum nitride alone (see, e.g., col.6/ll.34), 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 Moens, teaches various purity levels of aluminum nitride to be equally suitable for use as a fourth 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 Moen’s fourth layer, or to use another corresponding purity of aluminum nitride, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art for their use as fourth 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).
Regarding claim 35, Moens shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 23-24 above). Furthermore, Moens teaches that the Moen’s transistor structure further comprises a fourth layer 164 or 104 comprising aluminum nitride (see, e.g., cols.ll.11-19 and 6/ll.34), wherein the first aluminum gallium nitride layer 144 is on the fourth layer, and the fourth layer is on the III-N layer 102 or 106. Since Moens teaches that Moens’s fourth layer comprises aluminum nitride alone (see, e.g., col.6/ll.34), 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 Moens, teaches various purity levels of aluminum nitride to be equally suitable for use as a fourth 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 Moen’s fourth layer, or to use another corresponding purity of aluminum nitride, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art for their use as fourth 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 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moens in view of Huang and Gossner.
Regarding claim 29, Moens shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 19-20 above). Furthermore, Moens teaches that the III-N layer 106 comprises substantially pure gallium nitride (see, e.g., col.5/ll.33-34). Additionally, Moens (see, e.g., col.5/ll.20) shows that the III-N layer aids in the epitaxial growth of various features in Moens’s structure. Moens, however, fails to specify that the source and drain structures are epitaxial to the III-N layer.
However, it is noted that Moens shows all structural aspects of the transistor structure according to the claimed invention (see paragraphs 3-4 and 62 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 Moens’s III-N layer, Huang, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Moens, 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 Moens’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 Moens, 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 Moens. That is, the source and drain structures of both Moens 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).
Regarding claim 36, Moens shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 23-24 above). Furthermore, Moens teaches that the III-N layer 106 comprises substantially pure gallium nitride (see, e.g., col.5/ll.33-34). Additionally, Moens (see, e.g., col.5/ll.20) shows that the III-N layer aids in the epitaxial growth of various features in Moens’s structure. Moens, however, fails to specify that the source and drain structures are epitaxial to the III-N layer.
However, it is noted that Moens shows all structural aspects of the transistor structure according to the claimed invention (see paragraphs 3-4 and 82 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 Moens’s III-N layer, Huang, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Moens, 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 Moens’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 Moens, 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 Moens. That is, the source and drain structures of both Moens 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).
Claims 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moens in view of Dasgupta and Then (US 2020/0066890).
Regarding claim 30, Moens shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 19-20 above). Moens (see, e.g., fig. 8) further shows that Moens’s transistor structure comprises the III-N layer 102 or 106 (see, e.g., col.5/ll.11-13, 25, and 30-34), the source structure 622, the drain structure 624, the gate structure 426/326/124, the first aluminum gallium nitride layer 122 (see, e.g., col.5/ll.44), and the third aluminum gallium nitride layer 144. Moens (see, e.g., col.11/ll.26-32) further discloses that the device of Moens can include further modifications within the scope of the device, but fails to specify that these modifications may include integrating the aforementioned features into an IC die and having a power supply coupled to the IC die. Dasgupta, possessing a similar transistor structure to Moens, teaches that integrating a transistor structure comprising a substantially similar structure to Meons (i.e., comprising a III-N layer, a source structure, a drain structure, a gate structure, a first aluminum gallium nitride layer, and a third aluminum gallium nitride layer) into an integrated circuit die may facilitate the processing of electronic data from the registers and/or memory and the transformation of said electronic data into other electronic data that may also be stored in registers and/or memory and can expand the external communication capabilities of the device (see, e.g., Dasgupta: figs. 3e and 5 and pars.0058-0060). Furthermore, Dasgupta teaches that a power supply (e.g., Battery) may be coupled to such an integrated circuit die, wherein such a coupled element may expand the utilizations and integration capabilities of the transistor structure depending on the desired application of the device (see, e.g., Dasgupta: par.0057). Additionally, Then, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar structure to Moens, teaches that coupling a power supply (e.g., Battery) to an IC die containing a device structure similar to the aforementioned features provides an efficient pathway for current to be supplied to the overall device and may allow for longer operative lifetimes (see, e.g., Then: pars.0107-0108 and 0111)
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Moens to include the aforementioned features in an IC die, as taught by Dasgupta, so as to facilitate the processing, storing, and transformation of data from the device of Moens whilst expanding the external communication capabilities of the transistor structure and device Moens. Furthermore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple a power supply to such an IC die, as taught by Dasgupta and Then, so as to expand and modulate the utilizations and integration capabilities of the transistor structure in accordance with desired applications of the device while simultaneously providing an efficient pathway for power to be supplied to the overall device while promoting longer operative lifetimes.
Regarding claim 37, Moens shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 22-23 above). Moens (see, e.g., fig. 8) further shows that Moens’s transistor structure comprises the III-N layer 102 or 106 (see, e.g., col.5/ll.11-13, 25, and 30-34), the source structure 622, the drain structure 624, the gate structure 426/326/122/124/142, the first aluminum gallium nitride layer 144, and the second aluminum gallium nitride layer 124/142. Moens (see, e.g., col.11/ll.26-32) further discloses that the device of Moens can include further modifications within the scope of the device, but fails to specify that these modifications may include integrating the aforementioned features into an IC die and having a power supply coupled to the IC die. Dasgupta, possessing a similar transistor structure to Moens, teaches that integrating a transistor structure comprising a substantially similar structure to Meons (i.e., comprising a III-N layer, a source structure, a drain structure, a gate structure, a first aluminum gallium nitride layer, and a second aluminum gallium nitride layer) into an integrated circuit die may facilitate the processing of electronic data from the registers and/or memory and the transformation of said electronic data into other electronic data that may also be stored in registers and/or memory and can expand the external communication capabilities of the device (see, e.g., Dasgupta: figs. 3e and 5 and pars.0058-0060). Furthermore, Dasgupta teaches that a power supply (e.g., Battery) may be coupled to such an integrated circuit die, wherein such a coupled element may expand the utilizations and integration capabilities of the transistor structure depending on the desired application of the device (see, e.g., Dasgupta: par.0057). Additionally, Then, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar structure to Moens, teaches that coupling a power supply (e.g., Battery) to an IC die containing a device structure similar to the aforementioned features provides an efficient pathway for current to be supplied to the overall device and may allow for longer operative lifetimes (see, e.g., Then: pars.0107-0108 and 0111)
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Moens to include the aforementioned features in an IC die, as taught by Dasgupta, so as to facilitate the processing, storing, and transformation of data from the device of Moens whilst expanding the external communication capabilities of the transistor structure and device Moens. Furthermore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to couple a power supply to such an IC die, as taught by Dasgupta and Then, so as to expand and modulate the utilizations and integration capabilities of the transistor structure in accordance with desired applications of the device while simultaneously providing an efficient pathway for power to be supplied to the overall device while promoting longer operative lifetimes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments made on page 7 of “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed on 05/11/2026, have overcome the objections to the drawings made in the previous Office action mailed on 02/10/2026. Accordingly, the objections to the drawings put forth in the previous Office action are hereby withdrawn.
With regards to the claims, Applicant argues:
Dasgupta fails to disclose or render obvious a gate dielectric layer on a first aluminum gallium nitride layer and a gate electrode on the gate dielectric layer such that the gate electrode is not in contact with the first aluminum gallium nitride layer, as claimed. Therefore, independent claim 1 as amended is patentable over Dasgupta.
The Examiner responds:
Dasgupta shows these features of the claimed invention. See, for example, paragraphs 15-16 above and figures 2a and 3e of Dasgupta, wherein Dasgupta teaches a gate dielectric layer 318 on a first aluminum gallium nitride layer 310 and a gate electrode 322 on the gate dielectric layer such that the gate electrode is not in contact with the first aluminum gallium nitride layer.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
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
Prosecution Insights