DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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 1, 3, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2024/0030336) in view of Sun (US 2014/0042440).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a p-GaN high-electron-mobility transistor, comprising: a buffer layer (Fig.1, numeral 14) stacked on a substrate (12); a channel layer (16) stacked on the buffer layer (14); a supply layer (180 stacked on the channel layer (16), wherein a source (28a) and a drain (30) are electrically connected to the channel layer (16) and the supply layer (18), respectively; a doped layer (22R1); (22R2) ( [0045]) stacked on the supply layer (18), wherein a gate (24) is located on the doped layer (22R1), wherein the dopant is any one of alkaline earth metals ([0050]; note: the limitaiton “formed by doping….” is a product -by-process limitaiton. And according to MPEP 2113, I; "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).).
Ito does not disclose a hydrogen barrier layer covering the supply layer and the doped layer, wherein the hydrogen barrier layer is doped with fluorine, wherein a material of the hydrogen barrier layer includes fluorine-doped silicon dioxide, fluorine-doped gallium oxide, or fluorine-doped aluminum oxide.
Ito however discloses a passivation layer (26) covering the supply layer (18) and the doped layer (22R1), (22R2). And Sun discloses a passivation (Fig. 6B, numeral 410 [0061]) wherein the passivation layer is doped with fluorine ([0031]; [0061]), wherein a material of the hydrogen barrier layer includes fluorine-doped silicon dioxide, fluorine-doped gallium oxide, or fluorine-doped aluminum oxide ([0031]). And because a passivation layer doped with fluorine is made from the same material as Applicant’s invention ([0031]; note: aluminum oxide) it inherently has the same hydrogen barrier properties.
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ito with Sun to have a hydrogen barrier layer covering the supply layer and the doped layer, wherein the hydrogen barrier layer is doped with fluorine, wherein a material of the hydrogen barrier layer includes fluorine-doped aluminum oxide for the purpose of improving electrode performance (Sun, [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Ito discloses wherein the doped layer is a p-GaN layer formed by doping a GaN material with a dopant, and wherein the dopant is magnesium ([0050]; note: the limitaiton “formed by doping….” is a product -by-process limitaiton. And according to MPEP 2113, I; "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).).
Regarding claims 4-7, Ito in view of Sun discloses wherein a fluorine-containing gas is introduced in a process of growing the hydrogen barrier layer through deposition, wherein the fluorine-containing gas is carbon tetrafluoride, trifluoromethane, difluoromethane, or fluoromethane, wherein the deposition is atomic layer deposition, physical vapor deposition, or chemical vapor deposition; wherein the fluorine-containing gas is introduced at a flow rate of 5-100 cm3/min (note: the limitation “wherein a fluorine-containing gas is introduced in a process of growing the hydrogen barrier..” is a product -by-process limitaiton. And according to MPEP 2113, I; "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). And because hydrogen barrier layer is the same as hydrogen barrier layer of Applicant’s invention, this limitaiton is considered to be met.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891