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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment on 01/29/2026. Currently, claims 1 and 3-30 are pending in the application. Claim 2 is cancelled.
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 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 of this title, 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 and 3-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mieczkowski et al (US 20110227089 A1) in view of Wohlmuth (US 20060027840 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses a transistor device comprising:
a semiconductor body (410’, [0031]); and
a non-ohmic contact (150, schottky contact, [0031]) on the semiconductor body, wherein the non-ohmic contact comprises:
a first layer (160”) on the semiconductor body;
a protection layer (184”) on a surface of the first layer opposite the semiconductor body; and
a contact layer (170”) on a surface of the protection layer opposite the first layer wherein the non-ohmic contact is free of platinum (when Pt is not used).
Mieczkowski does not explicitly teach that the first layer is a phonon scattering layer, wherein the phonon scattering layer comprising ruthenium (Ru).
However, Wohlmuth is a pertinent art which teaches a monolithically integrated D-mode/E-mode FET devices, wherein a schottky contact is formed with a semiconductor body. Wohlmuth teaches that metals that may be used as the initial metal layer deposited on the exposed surface of the barrier layer 107 in forming E-mode gate contact 111 include, for instance, iridium (Ir), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), rhodium (Ro), and rhenium (Re). The subsequently-deposited layers of material used to form the remainder the E-mode gate contact 111 may be selected from electrically-conductive materials such as: tungsten (W), tungsten-silicide (WSi), titanium (Ti), gold (Au), platinum (Pd), palladium (Pd), molybdenum (Mo), iridium (Ir), tantalum (Ta), tantalum nitride (TaN), aluminum (Al), and hybrid combinations of these materials ([0063]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ruthenium (Ru) instead of Ni, Pt or Ir in the first layer (160”, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski) of the non-ohmic contact layer of Mieczkowski according to the teaching of Wohlmuth, wherein the non-ohmic contacts is free of platinum when alternative material is used instead of platinum in the device of Mieczkowski in order to form an improved device with lower cost, further it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material such as ruthenium instead of other materials as listed by Mieczkowski (Figure 7) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Further, the limitation “the first layer is a phonon scattering layer” does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth which teaches the structure as claimed and the material as specified in the applicant specification, wherein the structure is capable of performing the above function. Moreover, it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, The Examiner notes that where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. (In re Swinehart and Sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971)).
Regarding claim 3, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses that the transistor device of claim 1, wherein the phonon scattering layer (160”) further comprises at least one of rhenium (Re), rhodium (Rh), niobium (Nb), palladium (Pd), osmium (Os), or iridium (Ir).
Regarding claims 4-10, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth does not explicitly teach that the transistor device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the phonon scattering layer is in a range of about 5 nm to about 35 nm. Or
The transistor device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the protection layer is in a range of about 5 nm to about 40 nm. Or
The transistor device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the contact layer is greater than about 100 nm. Or
The transistor device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a first thickness of the phonon scattering layer to a second thickness of the protection layer is about 1:1. Or
The transistor device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a first thickness of the phonon scattering layer to a second thickness of the protection layer is about to 1:2. Or
The transistor device of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a first thickness of the phonon scattering layer to a second thickness of the protection layer is about 1:3. Or
The transistor device of claim 2, wherein a thickness of the phonon scattering layer is in a range of about 5 nm to about 35 nm, a thickness of the protection layer is in a range of about 5 nm to about 40 nm, and a thickness of the contact layer is greater than about 100 nm.
However, Mieczkowski teaches that some embodiments, the nickel layer 160' may be between about 10 .ANG. and about 1,000 .ANG. thick and, in some embodiments, may be about 150 .ANG. thick. The tantalum layer 184' and the platinum layer 182' may each be between about 100 .ANG. and about 2,000 .ANG. thick and, in some embodiments, may each be about 200 .ANG. thick. The gold layer 170' may be between about 3,000 .ANG. and about 10,000 .ANG. thick and, in some embodiments, may be about 6,000 .ANG. thick ([0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art in order to form a device with high performance and lower manufacturing cost, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further, 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). 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. In re Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 11-12, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses that the transistor device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor body (410”) comprises one or more Group III nitride epitaxial layers, wherein the one or more Group III nitride epitaxial layers comprises at least one of a gallium nitride layer and an aluminum gallium nitride layer ([0031).
Regarding claim 13, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses that the transistor device of claim 11, further comprising: a silicon carbide substrate, wherein the semiconductor body (410”) is on a surface of the silicon carbide substrate ([0019]).
Regarding claim 14, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses that the transistor device of claim 1, wherein the transistor device comprises a gallium nitride (GaN) based high-electron mobility transistor (HEMT) ([0019]).
Regarding claim 15, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth teach that the transistor device of claim 1, wherein the protection layer (184”) comprises titanium (Ti) ([0063] of Wohlmuth teaches Ti is an alternative meta of Ta or W of Mieczkowski in 184”) and the contact layer comprises gold (Au) (170”, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski).
Regarding claim 16, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses that the transistor device of claim 1, wherein the non-ohmic contact forms a Schottky junction with the semiconductor body ([0031]).
Regarding claim 17, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses a transistor device comprising:
a semiconductor body (160”, [0031]);
a gate electrode (150, [0024]), a source electrode (322, [0023]), and a drain electrode (324, [0023]) on the semiconductor body; and
wherein the gate electrode (150) comprises:
a first layer (160”) on the semiconductor body;
a first protection layer (184”) on a surface of the first layer opposite the semiconductor body;
a second protection layer (182”) on the surface of the first protection layer opposite the first layer;
a diffusion barrier layer (182”, top one) on the surface of the protection layer opposite the second protection layer; and
a contact layer (170”, [0032]) on the surface of the diffusion barrier layer opposite the protection layer.
Mieczkowski does not teach that the first layer (160”) is ruthenium (Ru).
However, Wohlmuth is a pertinent art which teaches a monolithically integrated D-mode/E-mode FET devices, wherein a schottky contact is formed with a semiconductor body. Wohlmuth teaches that metals that may be used as the initial metal layer deposited on the exposed surface of the barrier layer 107 in forming E-mode gate contact 111 include, for instance, iridium (Ir), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), rhodium (Ro), and rhenium (Re). The subsequently-deposited layers of material used to form the remainder the E-mode gate contact 111 may be selected from electrically-conductive materials such as: tungsten (W), tungsten-silicide (WSi), titanium (Ti), gold (Au), platinum (Pd), palladium (Pd), molybdenum (Mo), iridium (Ir), tantalum (Ta), tantalum nitride (TaN), aluminum (Al), and hybrid combinations of these materials ([0063]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ruthenium (Ru) instead of Ni, Pt or Ir in the first layer (160”, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski) the gate electrode of Mieczkowski according to the teaching of Wohlmuth in order to form an improved device with lower cost, further it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material such as ruthenium instead of other materials as listed by Mieczkowski (Figure 7) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claims 18-22, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth does not explicitly teach that the transistor device of claim 17, wherein a thickness of the layer of ruthenium (Ru) is in a range of about 5 nm to 35 nm. Or
The transistor device of claim 17, wherein a thickness of the protection layer is in a range of about 5 nm to about 20 nm. Or
The transistor device of claim 17, wherein a thickness of the diffusion barrier layer is in a range of about 5 nm to about 20 nm. Or
The transistor device of claim 17, wherein a thickness of the contact layer is greater than about 100 nm. Or
The transistor device of claim 17, wherein a thickness of the layer of ruthenium (Ru) is about 5 nm, a thickness of the first protection layer is about 15 nm, a thickness of the second protection layer is about 10 nm, a thickness of the diffusion barrier layer is about 20 nm, and a thickness of the contact layer is greater than 100 nm.
However, Mieczkowski teaches that some embodiments, the nickel layer 160' may be between about 10 .ANG. and about 1,000 .ANG. thick and, in some embodiments, may be about 150 .ANG. thick. The tantalum layer 184' and the platinum layer 182' may each be between about 100 .ANG. and about 2,000 .ANG. thick and, in some embodiments, may each be about 200 .ANG. thick. The gold layer 170' may be between about 3,000 .ANG. and about 10,000 .ANG. thick and, in some embodiments, may be about 6,000 .ANG. thick ([0031]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the above claimed ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art in order to form a device with high performance and lower manufacturing cost, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Further, 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). 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. In re Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 23, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth does not explicitly teach that the transistor device of claim 22, wherein the first protection layer comprises a material having a stress that is opposite a stress of the layer of ruthenium.
However, the above limitation does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth which teaches the structure as claimed and the material as specified in the applicant specification, wherein the structure is capable of performing the above function. Moreover, it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, The Examiner notes that where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. (In re Swinehart and Sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971)).
Regarding claim 24, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth teach that the transistor device of claim 22, wherein the first protection layer (184”) comprises titanium (Ti) ([0063] of Wohlmuth teaches Ti is an alternative meta of Ta or W of Mieczkowski in 184”).
Regarding claim 25, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth does not explicitly teach that the transistor device of claim 22, wherein the second protective layer obstructs diffusion of atoms from the contact layer.
However, the above limitation does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth which teaches the structure as claimed and the material as specified in the applicant specification, wherein the structure is capable of performing the above function. Moreover, it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, The Examiner notes that where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. (In re Swinehart and Sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971)).
Regarding claims 26-27, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses that the transistor device of claim 17, wherein the semiconductor body (410”) comprises one or more Group III nitride epitaxial layers, wherein the one or more Group III nitride epitaxial layers comprises at least one of a gallium nitride layer and an aluminum gallium nitride layer ([0031]).
Regarding claim 28, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses that the transistor device of claim 17, further comprising: a silicon carbide substrate, wherein the semiconductor body is on a surface of the silicon carbide substrate ([0023]).
Regarding claim 29, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski discloses that the transistor device of claim 17, wherein the transistor device comprises a gallium-nitride (GaN) based high-electron mobility transistor HEMT ([0019]).
Regarding claim 30, Figure 7 of Mieczkowski in view of Wohlmuth teach that the transistor device of claim 17, wherein the second protection layer (182”) comprises titanium (Ti) ([0063] of Wohlmuth teaches Ti as an alternative to Pt, W, Mo of Mieczkowski), the diffusion barrier layer (182”) comprises platinum (Pt) and the contact layer (170”) comprises gold (Au).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 17, filed on 01/29/2026, have been fully considered but arguments are moot because newly added limitation to the claim (s) requires a new ground of rejection necessitated by amendments.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights