CTNF 18/126,630 CTNF 83153 DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to Application filed March 27, 2023. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicants' election with traverse of Group I and Species A drawn to the embodiment shown in Fig. 2 of current application, claims 1-9 and 21-26, in the reply filed on August 18, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that “The election is made with traverse at least because the Office has failed to demonstrate that a serious search or examination burden would be placed upon the Office if the election was not required”, and that “Fig. 3 merely provides additional details regarding some of the layers shown in Fig. 2.” This is not found persuasive because (a) “a serious search or examination burden” is not a standard of restriction between method claims and device claims, and rather, “a serious search or examination burden” is a standard of restriction between distinct species claims, (b) Applicants do not provide any evidence that “a serious search or examination burden” would not be placed upon the Office, (c) while original claims 10 and 14 may read on the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 of current application, original claims 10 and 14 do not read on the embodiment shown in Fig. 2 of current application since, as Fig. 2 of current application clearly shows, the conduction band edge 204 and the valence band edge 208 are both smooth and continuous, see the circled region in the illustration below, and therefore, the two-dimensional electron hole gas cannot be contained and confined as recited in claims 10 and 14 for the elected embodiment shown in Fig. 2 of current application since containing and confining two-dimensional hole gas require discrete energy barriers along the valence band edge, which would be exhibited by abrupt changes and interruptions of the valence band edge contrary to the smooth and continuous valence band edge 208 shown in Fig. 2 of current application , and (d) also, the linear or curvilinear gradient function recited in claims 12 and 13 are described with respect to the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 of current application in the original specification, while Applicants were silent on the shape of the gradient function for the embodiment shown in Fig. 2 of current application. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. PNG media_image1.png 524 346 media_image1.png Greyscale Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a metal concentration matrix” recited on line 2 of claim 5 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim, because as discussed below under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, it is not clear what “a metal concentration matrix” refers to, and thus what it looks like, and how it is structured. No new matter should be entered. 06-22 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. (1) Regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the material composition of the doped interface layer recited on line 5 is before “a dopant” and/or “a metal” recited on line 6 is/are introduced, because (a) Applicants do not claim “a doped interface layer” per se , but rather claim “a doped interface layer” “comprising a dopant and a metal having a metal concentration”, (b) therefore, without knowing what the material composition of the doped interface layer is before the dopant and/or metal is/are introduced, it is not clear which element contained in the doped interface layer is “a dopant”, and which element contained in the doped interface layer is “a metal”, especially when the term “a dopant” does not necessarily suggest a dopant that alters a conductivity type or a value of a conductivity , (c) for example, a p-type GaN layer doped with Mg can be doped with Al to form a p-type AlGaN layer doped with Mg even though Al does not alter the conductivity type of the p-type GaN layer, or an AlGaN layer can be doped with Mg to form a p-type AlGaN layer, while Mg and Al are both metallic elements , (d) therefore, “a dopant” can be “a metal” and “a metal” can be “a dopant”, depending on what the material composition of the doped interface layer recited on line 5 is before “a dopant” and/or “a metal” recited on line 6 is/are introduced. (2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear what “a metal” recited on line 6 refers to, because (a) Applicants claim that “the metal of the doped interface layer comprises aluminum” in claim 2, but an element of aluminum or an aluminum atom/ion bonded to, for example, a gallium or a nitrogen atom in an AlGaN layer is not “a metal” since Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “metal” as “any of various opaque, fusible, ductile, and typically lustrous substances that are good conductors of electricity and heat, form cations by loss of electrons, and yield basic oxides and hydroxides” , (b) while a block or a foil of aluminum is “a metal”, an aluminum atom covalently bonded to a gallium or nitrogen atom is not exactly “a metal”, and (c) rather, an aluminum atom covalently bonded to a gallium or nitrogen atom is a metallic element/atom rather than “a metal” itself. (3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “a metal concentration that follows a gradient function” recited on lines 6-7 suggests, because (a) it is not clear how “a gradient function” is defined, and whether “a gradient function” is observed in the claimed semiconductor structure, or in a plurality of semiconductor structures, one of which is the claimed semiconductor structure, (b) Applicants claim “the metal concentration of the doped interface layer” on line 2 of claim 4, which appears to imply that the doped interface layer may be uniformly doped since otherwise “the metal concentration of the doped interface layer” recited in claim 4 lacks the antecedent basis as discussed below, (c) in addition, Applicants also claim that “the gradient function is a ratio of aluminum in the AlGaN of the doped interface layer to aluminum in the AlGaN of the barrier layer” on lines 6-7 of claim 9, which appears to suggest that “the gradient function” is not exactly a function, but rather a value since “a ratio of aluminum in the AlGaN of the doped interface layer to aluminum in the AlGaN of the barrier layer” should be a single value, and (d) it is not clear whether “a gradient function” is defined in a direction from the channel layer to the gate electrode, from the gate electrode to the channel layer, or in a direction perpendicular to the direction from the channel layer to the gate electrode. (4) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the term “a metal concentration” recited on line 6 refers to, because (a) it is not clear whether “a metal concentration” is (i) a number of metallic atoms/elements per cm 3 , (ii) a number of metallic atoms/elements per cm 2 , (iii) a number of metallic atoms/elements with respect to an entirety of the atoms constituting the doped interface layer including the dopant and the metal, or (iv) a number of metallic atoms/elements with respect to, for example, Group III and V elements only when the doped interface layer is based on a GaN-based semiconductor material such as AlGaN, and (b) depending on how the term “a metal concentration” is defined, “a gradient function” recited on lines 6-7 may or may not be met by a doped interface layer. (5) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the term “a gradient function” recited on lines 6-7 refers to, because (a) it appears that there can be more than one definitions of “a gradient function” in view of the original disclosure and claim 3, (b) in other words, “a gradient function” can simply be a gradient function of the metal concentration itself however it is defined, but claim 3 recites that “the gradient function is a ratio of the metal concentration to the barrier metal concentration”, (c) in this case, it is not clear whether a semiconductor structure would read on claim 1 when there is “a gradient function” of the metal concentration vertically or laterally measured and observed in the claimed doped interface layer, but the barrier layer does not have the claimed barrier metal concentration , for example, the barrier layer can be formed of BN or boron nitride, or BGaN or boron gallium nitride, while the doped interface layer can be formed of AlGaN doped with Mg, in which case, “a gradient function” may not be unambiguously defined at all, and (d) if the term “a gradient function” is only defined as recited in claim 3, claim 1 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements, see MPEP § 2172.01, and the omitted element is: the definition of “a gradient function” as recited in claim 3 . (6) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “a metal concentration that follows a gradient function from a highest metal concentration to a lowest metal concentration” recited on lines 6-7 suggests, because (a) the limitation appears to suggest that there is a single gradient function for the metal concentration for the doped interface layer , (b) however, as indicated in the Table of Fig. 3 of current application, see Graded p-Al Y GaN, it does not appear that the gradient function displays exactly a monotonous increase from a highest metal concentration to a lowest metal concentration from the barrier layer formed of Al X GaN to the p-GaN layer since the positions B, M and C have overlapping ranges of the Al concentration, and (c) therefore, it is not clear what the limitation “a metal concentration that follows a gradient function from a highest metal concentration to a lowest metal concentration” suggests, whether the claim limitation can be met, for example, by a sinusoidal profile or a sawtooth profile of the metal concentration, and whether claim 1 is directed to a nonelected species shown in Fig. 3 of current application. (7) Still further regarding claim 1, it is not clear whether limitation “a metal concentration that follows a gradient function from a highest metal concentration to a lowest metal concentration” recited on lines 6-7 refers to an actual metal concentration profile of the doped interface layer, or a designed or intended metal concentration profile of the doped interface layer, which may not be present and observed in the claimed semiconductor structure, because (a) as Fig. 2 of Oishi et al. (US 10,559,679) and Fig. 3 of Chiu et al. (“Dynamic Behavior Improvement of Normally-Off p-GaN High-Electron-Mobility Transistor Through a Low-Temperature Microwave Annealing Process,” Journal of the Electron Devices Society 7, (2019) pp. 984-989) show, even though one of ordinary skill in the art tries to obtain a uniform aluminum concentration in the AlGaN electron supply layer, an actual aluminum concentration varies irregularly due to diffusion of aluminum atoms in the AlGaN electron supply layer, (b) furthermore, aluminum atoms that should have been contained only in the AlGaN electron supply layer of Oishi et al. and Chiu et al. also diffuse into the neighboring component layers, and (c) therefore, even if one tries to achieve a concentration profile of “a metal concentration that follows a gradient function from a highest metal concentration to a lowest metal concentration” as recited on lines 6-7 in the claimed doped interface layer, the metal concentration, if the metallic element is aluminum as recited in claim 2, would fluctuate inside the claimed doped interface layer, and (d) therefore, the claimed “gradient function” would not be present and observed from the claimed doped interface layer of the semiconductor structure in reality. Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-9 are also indefinite. (8) Regarding claim 3, it is not clear how the barrier layer can comprise “the metal” as recited on lines 1-2, because (a) as discussed above, while the doped interface layer recited on line 5 of claim 1 may comprise a metallic element/atom, the doped interface layer does not comprise “a metal”, (b) even if “the metal” implies “the metallic element” or “the metallic atoms”, the metallic element/atom contained in the doped interface layer cannot be included in the barrier layer, and (c) rather, the barrier layer may comprise an element/atom that is of the same species with the metallic element/atom contained in the doped interface layer. (9) Further regarding claim 3, it is not clear what the limitation “the gradient function is a ratio of the metal concentration to the barrier metal concentration” recited on lines 2-3 refers to, because (a) it is not clear whether “the barrier metal concentration” is a constant throughout the barrier layer, or “the barrier metal concentration” is an average barrier metal concentration or a total barrier metal concentration, and (b) it is not clear what “the metal concentration” refers to a single metal concentration, which is a straightforward interpretation of “the metal concentration”, or a profile of a plurality of metal concentrations exhibited by the doped interface layer. Claims 4-6 depend on claim 3, and therefore, claims 4-6 are also indefinite. (10) Regarding claim 4, it is not clear what “the metal concentration of the doped interface layer” recited on line 2 refers to, because (a) unless “a metal concentration” of the doped interface layer recited on line 6 of claim 1 is a uniform metal concentration of the doped interface layer, the limitation “the metal concentration of the doped interface layer” lacks the antecedent basis since there would be numerous metal concentrations of the doped interface layer, and (b) however, Applicants claim “a gradient function” of the metal concentration on lines 6-7 of claim 1, and therefore, it is not clear what “the metal concentration of the doped interface layer” recited on line 2 refers to, and where it is measured. (11) Also regarding claim 4, it is not clear whether the “atoms of the doped interface layer” recited on line 3 refers to all the “atoms of the doped interface layer” or some of the “atoms of the doped interface layer” excluding the dopant recited on line 6 of claim 1, because (a) depending on how the “atoms of the doped interface layer” is defined, a single doped interface layer may or may not meet the claim limitation of claim 4, and (b) if arguendo the claimed metal is a main component of the doped interface layer, the metal concentration is usually, if not always, measured or calculated with respect to other main components of the doped interface layer where the dopant is not a main component. (12) Further regarding claim 4, it is not clear whether the “atoms of the barrier layer” recited on line 5 refers to all the “atoms of the barrier layer” or some of the “atoms of the barrier layer” excluding a dopant or dopants, because depending on how the “atoms of the barrier layer” is defined, a single barrier later may or may not meet the claim limitation of claim 4. (13) Regarding claim 5, it is not clear what “a metal concentration matrix” recited on line 2 refers to, because (a) it is not clear whether the term “a metal concentration matrix” implies that the metallic elements are bonded and grouped together inside the claimed doped interface layer, and (b) if that is the case, it is not clear what the “gradient function” of the metal concentration recited on lines 6-7 of claim 1 refers to since it appears that there would be some local peaks of the metal concentration inside the doped interface layer where the metal concentration matrix is located rather than the “gradient function” of the metal concentration “from a highest metal concentration to a lowest metal concentration” as recited on lines 6-7 of claim 1. (14) Also regarding claim 5, it is not clear how “a metal concentration matrix” of the doped interface layer can extend “into a top portion of the barrier layer and a bottom portion of the doped layer” as recited on lines 1-3, because (a) Applicants claim that the doped interface layer is “formed between the barrier layer and the doped layer” on line 5 of claim 1, and (b) therefore, the limitation cited above is contradictory to the limitation recited on line 5 of claim 1 since, when the doped interface layer extends into the top portion of the barrier layer and the bottom portion of the doped layer, the doped interface layer is not formed between the barrier layer and the doped layer. (15) Further regarding claim 5, it is not clear what the phrase “at least some of the metal concentration matrix” recited on lines 3-4 refers to, because (a) it is not clear whether the metal concentration matrix, which is already indefinite as discussed above, is not the only one metal concentration matrix, but there can be a plurality of metal concentration matrices since otherwise there would not be “at least some of the metal concentration matrix”, and (b) in this case, it is not clear how the “gradient function” of the metal concentration recited on lines 6-7 of claim 1 can be satisfied since it appears that there should be a plurality of metal concentration matrices, and therefore the claimed metal concentration would follow some random distribution rather than the “gradient function” contradictory to claim 1 unless Applicants can precisely locate each and every metal concentration matrix inside the doped interface layer . (16) Still further regarding claim 5, it is not clear what “the ratio of the metal concentration to the barrier metal concentration” recited on lines 4-5 refers to, because (a) unless “a metal concentration” of the doped interface layer recited on line 6 of claim 1 and “a barrier metal concentration” recited on line 2 of claim 3 are both uniform concentrations and thus constants, the limitation “the ratio of the metal concentration to the barrier metal concentration” lacks the antecedent basis since there would be numerous metal concentrations of the doped interface layer, and numerous barrier metal concentrations of the barrier layer, and (b) however, Applicants claim “a gradient function” of the metal concentration on lines 6-7 of claim 1, and Applicants do not claim what “a barrier metal concentration” recited on line 2 of claim 3 refers to, and therefore, it is not clear what “the ratio of the metal concentration to the barrier metal concentration” refers to, and where it is measured. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, and therefore, claim 6 is also indefinite. (17) Regarding claim 9, it is not clear what the limitation “the gradient function is a ratio of aluminum in the AlGaN of the doped interface layer to aluminum in the AlGaN of the barrier layer” recited on lines 6-7 refers to, because (a) “a ratio of aluminum in the AlGaN of the doped interface layer to aluminum in the AlGaN of the barrier layer” should be a single value rather than a plurality of values, and (b) therefore, it appears that there is discrepancy between the term “gradient function” recited on lines 6-7 of claim 1 and the phrase “a ratio of aluminum in the AlGaN of the doped interface layer to aluminum in the AlGaN of the barrier layer” recited on lines 6-7 of claim 9. (18) Regarding claims 22 and 24, claims 22 and 24 including the limitation “a metal” recited on line 2 are indefinite for the same reasons stated above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3, 8, 9, 21-23, 25 and 26, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Bisi et al. (WO 2022/031465) Regarding claims 1-3, 8 and 9, Bisi et al. disclose a semiconductor structure (Fig. 4C), comprising: a barrier layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16a) ([0066]) over a channel layer (15) ([0058]), because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim what the barrier layer refers to, what it is formed of, what it does, and how efficiently the barrier layer functions as a barrier against an unspecified phenomenon or event, and (b) one of Applicants’ originally disclosed barrier layer materials is AlGaN, which is the material composition of the layer 16a disclosed by Bisi et al.; a doped layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16c) over the barrier layer; a gate electrode (23) ([0058]) over the doped layer; and a doped interface layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16b), formed between the barrier layer and the doped layer, comprising a dopant (lines 9-13 of [0066]) and a metal (Al and/or Mg in Al x Ga 1-x N doped with Mg) ([0039]) having a metal concentration (concentration of Al and/or Mg) that follows a gradient function from a highest metal concentration to a lowest metal concentration (lines 9-11 of [0066]), because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim which side or layer has the highest metal concentration, and which side or layer has the lowest metal concentration, and (b) the decreasing p-type dopant concentration disclosed by Bisi et al. would be a decreasing concentration of Mg or Mg + Al even if an Al concentration is constant (claim 1), wherein the metal of the doped interface layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16b) comprises aluminum and the metal concentration of the doped interface layer comprises an aluminum concentration (claim 2), the barrier layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16a) comprises the metal (Mg and/or Al) having a barrier metal concentration and the gradient function is a ratio of the metal concentration to the barrier metal concentration, which is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections (claim 3), the channel layer (15) comprises a first IlI-V compound ([0033]); the barrier layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16a) comprises a second IlI-V compound; the doped interface layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16b) comprises a third III-V compound and a dopant (lines 9-13 of [0066]); and the doped layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16c) comprises a fourth III-V compound and the dopant (lines 9-13 of [0066]) (claim 8), and the channel layer (15) comprises un-doped gallium nitride (UID GaN) ([0033]); the barrier layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16a) comprises aluminum gallium nitride (AlGaN); the doped interface layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16b) comprises p-type AlGaN and a dopant (lines 9-13 of [0066]); and the doped layer (Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16c) comprises p-type GaN and the dopant (lines 9-13 of [0066]), because (a) AlGaN is a solid solution of GaN and AlN, and (b) therefore, the Al x Ga 1-x N layer 16c comprises p-type GaN, wherein the gradient function is a ratio of aluminum in the AlGaN of the doped interface layer to aluminum in the AlGaN of the barrier layer, which is indefinite as discussed above (claim 9). Please refer to the explanations of the corresponding limitations or elements above . Regarding claims 21-23, 25 and 26, Bisi et al. disclose a semiconductor structure (Fig. 4C), comprising: a barrier layer (14 or 16a) ([0033]); a source electrode (21) ([0038]) over the barrier layer; a drain electrode (22) over the barrier layer (14 or 16a), because the preposition “on” does not necessarily suggest “directly over”; a doped interface layer (16a, 16b, 16c, or two or all of 16a-16c) laterally between the source electrode and the drain electrode and over the barrier layer; and a gate electrode (23) over the doped interface layer (claim 21), the doped interface layer (16a, 16b, 16c, or two or all of 16a-16c) comprises a metal (Mg or Mg + Al) (magnesium in [0039]); and a concentration of the metal at a first surface of the doped interface layer facing the barrier layer (14 or 16a) is greater than the concentration of the metal at a second surface of the doped interface layer facing the gate electrode (23), because (a) Bisi et al. disclose that “For example, the p-type dopant concentration can consecutively decrease from the first discrete layer 16a proximal to the III-N channel layer to the final discrete layer distal to the III-N channel layer towards the gate electrode” on lines 9-11 of paragraph [0066], and (b) therefore, the magnesium disclosed in paragraph [0039] of Bisi et al. would decrease from the layer 16a to the layer 16c (claim 22), comprising: a doped layer (16c) laterally between the source electrode (21) and the drain electrode (22) and between the doped interface layer (16a and/or 16b) and the gate electrode (23) (claim 23), comprising: a channel layer (15) under the barrier layer (16a) (claim 25), wherein the source electrode (21), the doped interface layer (16a, 16b, 16c, or two or all of 16a-16c), and the drain electrode (22) (electrically) contact the barrier layer (14 or 16a) (claim 26) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 21-23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 10,014,402) Regarding claims 21-23, 25 and 26, Chen et al. disclose a semiconductor structure (Fig. 1L), comprising: a barrier layer (130) (col. 4, lines 24-27); a source electrode (174) (col. 7, lines 26-27) over the barrier layer; a drain electrode (176) over the barrier layer (130); a doped interface layer (140a and/or 140b) (col. 4, line 66 - col. 5, line 3, and col. 5, lines 34-36) laterally between the source electrode and the drain electrode and over the barrier layer; and a gate electrode (172) (col. 7, line 24) over the doped interface layer (claim 21), the doped interface layer (composite layer of 140a and 140b) comprises a metal (Al); and a concentration of the metal at a first surface of the doped interface layer facing the barrier layer (130) is greater than the concentration of the metal at a second surface of the doped interface layer facing the gate electrode (172), because (a) Chen et al. disclose that the layer 140a can be p-GaN or p-AlGaN, and the layer 140b can be p-GaN or p-AlGaN, and (b) therefore, Chen et al. disclose four configurations, i.e. a p-GaN layer over a p-GaN layer, a p-AlGaN layer over a p-GaN layer, a p-GaN layer over a p-AlGaN layer, and a p-AlGaN layer over a p-AlGaN layer, and the third configuration of a p-GaN layer over a p-AlGaN layer would satisfy the claim limitation of claim 22 (claim 22), comprising: a doped layer (140b) laterally between the source electrode (174) and the drain electrode (176) and between the doped interface layer (140a) and the gate electrode (172) (claim 23), comprising: a channel layer (120) (col. 3, line 42) under the barrier layer (130) (claim 25), wherein the source electrode (174), the doped interface layer (140a and/or 140b), and the drain electrode (176) (electrically) contact the barrier layer (130) (claim 26) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 10,014,402) The teachings of Chen et al. are discussed above . Chen et al. further disclose for the semiconductor structure of claim 21 that the doped interface layer (140a and/or 140b) and the barrier layer (130) comprise a metal (Al); a concentration of the metal in the doped interface layer is between about 0 and 5 percent of atoms of the doped interface layer, because (a) as discussed above, Chen et al. disclose four configurations, i.e. a p-GaN layer over a p-GaN layer, a p-AlGaN layer over a p-GaN layer, a p-GaN layer over a p-AlGaN layer, and a p-AlGaN layer over a p-AlGaN layer, and (b) when at least one of the layers 140a and 140b is p-GaN, the concentration of the metal in the doped interface layer would be between about 0 and 5 percent of atoms of the doped interface layer. Chen et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the concentration of the metal in the barrier layer is between about 10 and 30 percent of atoms of the barrier layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the concentration of the metal in the barrier layer can be between about 10 and 30 percent of atoms of the barrier layer, because (a) the concentration of the metal or the Al content in the barrier layer should be controlled and optimized to obtain desired band alignment between the channel layer 120 and the barrier layer 130 to obtain desired density of the two dimensional electron gas at the interface of the channel layer 120 and the barrier layer 130, which would control and improve electrical and electronic characteristics of the semiconductor device . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lordi et al. (US 2024/0047516) Varley et al. (US 12,142,642) Shiue et al. (US 2017/0278960) Iucolano (US 11,538,922) Lin et al. (US 12,132,103) Chen et al. (US 8,866,192) Lidow et al. (US 8,436,398) Cao et al. (US 10,622,455) Hikita et al. (US 7,816,707) Kinoshita et al. (US 9,842,905) Ueda et al. (US 8,076,698) Cao et al. (US 11,121,245) Nishimori et al. (US 9,099,351) Gupta et al. (US 11,973,138) Bisi et al. (US 2023/0299190) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM 6:00 PM EST. 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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. /JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 /J.K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 September 22, 2025 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 2 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 3 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 4 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 5 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 6 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 7 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 8 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 9 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 10 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 11 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 12 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 13 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 14 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 15 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 16 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 17 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 18 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 19 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 20 Art Unit: 2815 Application/Control Number: 18/126,630 Page 21 Art Unit: 2815