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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 3/10/2026 in which claim 1 was amended and claims 11-14 were added.
Claims 1-14 are pending with claims 6-10 remaining withdrawn and claims 1-5 and 11-14 presented for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki et al (US 2009/0289264 and Matsuki hereinafter) in view of Okumura (US 2020/0303541 and Okumura hereinafter).
As to claims 1, 2, and 4: Matsuki discloses [claim 1] a semiconductor device (Fig. 1; [0022]) comprising: a drift region (2; [0023]) of a first conductivity type (n-type; [0023]) that is made of a semiconductor (SiC; [0022]); a body region (3; [0023]) of a second conductivity type (p-type; [0023]) that is made of a semiconductor (SiC; [0022]) and is disposed on the drift region (2); a source region (4; [0023]) of the first conductivity type (n-type; [0023]) that is separated from the drift region (2) by the body region (3); an insulated gate (comprising 8 and 9; [0025]) that faces a portion of the body region (3) that is located between the drift region (2) and the source region (4); a source electrode (10; [0028]) that is electrically connected to the body region (3) and the source region (4); and a body contact region (6 is interpreted to be the claimed body contact region as it comprises the same claimed conductivity type and is arranged as claimed; [0025]) that is in contact with a side surface (upper side surface of 3 that interfaces with the side surface of 6 below 4 is the claimed side surface) of the body region (3) and has a second conductivity type (p-type; [0025]) impurity concentration higher (6 has a concentration of p+, which is higher than concentration p of the body region; [0023]-[0025]) than a second conductivity type (p-type; [0023]-[0024]) impurity concentration (p concentration; [0024]) of the body region (3), wherein the source region is made of a deposited film (the claim is directed to a product and “deposited film” is a product-by-process limitation and is given little patentable weight, see MPEP 2113; the structure of Matsuki, namely a doped semiconductor layer 4, is the same as the structure that would result from the claimed process limitation and thus the claim limitation is met), and the source region (4) is in contact with an upper surface (top surface) of the body contact region (6), is interposed between the body contact region (6) and the source electrode (10), and separates the body contact region (6) from the source electrode (10; claim doesn’t state that there is only one body contact region or that there is no doped body contact region in contact with the source electrode; as the claim states “comprising” it is only required that there is at least one region interpreted to be a body contact region that meets the claimed limitation and doesn’t preclude the presence of other separate body contact regions); [claim 2] wherein the source region (4) has a carrier concentration of 1 x 1019 cm-3 or higher (the carrier concentration is provided by the dopant nitrogen, which has a concentration of 1 x 1020 cm-3 - 1 x 1021 cm-3; [0024]); [claim 4] wherein the source region (4) is interposed between the body region (3) and the source electrode (10).
Matsuki fails to expressly disclose [claim 1] where the semiconductor device is a nitride semiconductor device; the drift region is made of a nitride semiconductor; the body region is made of a nitride semiconductor.
Matsuki discloses that the semiconductor material is SiC for forming the MOSFET, see [0022].
Okumura discloses in [0099] that for MOSFETs similar to that of Matsuki, GaN semiconductor materials can be used instead of SiC. Therefore, instead of SiC for the drift and body regions, GaN can be used.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to substitute GaN for SiC in the device of Matsuki using the teachings of Okumura as the two are art-recognized equivalent materials to be used as wide bandgap semiconductor materials in MOSFET design ([0099]) and would allow for the device to be used in ultra-high voltage elements ([0042]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Okumura as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of de Souza et al (US 2019/0006466 and de Souza hereinafter).
Although the structure disclosed by Matsuki in view of Okumura shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 8 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the source region is made of indium tin oxide.
Matsuki in view of Okumura discloses a GaN based (III-V) semiconductor device.
de Souza discloses a MOSFET that can be formed on a nitride-based (III-V) substrate/layers, see [0002] and [0015], wherein the source region (30) is made of indium tin oxide (ITO; [0031]).
Therefore, given the teachings of de Souza, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Matsuki in view of Okumura by employing the well-known or conventional features of MOSFET fabrication, such as displayed by de Souza, by employing a source region comprising ITO in order to provide a transistor with high mobility without loss of performance to the device ([0038]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Okumura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomita et al (JP 2020057636 and Tomita hereinafter; a machine translation is used as an English language equivalent).
Although the structure disclosed by Matsuki in view of Okumura shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 8 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the body region has a hydrogen concentration of 1×1018 cm-3 or less.
Matsuki in view of Okumura discloses a GaN based (III-V) semiconductor device.
Tomita discloses a nitride-based (III-V) semiconductor device wherein the body region (Fig. 1; 36; page 2, second paragraph) has a hydrogen concentration of 1×1018 cm-3 or less (5×1016 cm-3; page 2, next to last paragraph).
Therefore, given the teachings of Tomita, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Matsuki in view of Okumura by employing the well-known or conventional features of MOSFET fabrication, such as displayed by Tomita, by employing a body region having a hydrogen concentration within the claimed range in order to provide a transistor with a high-quality body region and be able to precisely control the threshold voltage (Abstract and page 5, second paragraph).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Okumura in view of Bakeroot (US 2022/0406926 and Bakeroot hereinafter).
As to claims 11-13: Matsuki discloses [claim 11] a semiconductor device (Fig. 1; [0022]) comprising: a drift region (2; [0023]) of a first conductivity type (n-type; [0023]) that is made of a semiconductor (SiC; [0022]); a body region (3; [0023]) of a second conductivity type (p-type; [0023]) that is made of a semiconductor (SiC; [0022]) and is disposed on the drift region (2); a source region (4; [0023]) of the first conductivity type (n-type; [0023]) that is separated from the drift region (2) by the body region (3); an insulated gate (comprising 8 and 9; [0025]) that faces a portion of the body region (3) that is located between the drift region (2) and the source region (4); a source electrode (10; [0028]) that is electrically connected to the body region (3) and the source region (4), wherein the source region is made of a deposited film (the claim is directed to a product and “deposited film” is a product-by-process limitation and is given little patentable weight, see MPEP 2113; the structure of Matsuki, namely a doped semiconductor layer 4, is the same as the structure that would result from the claimed process limitation and thus the claim limitation is met); [claim 12] wherein the source region (4) has a carrier concentration of 1 x 1019 cm-3 or higher (the carrier concentration is provided by the dopant nitrogen, which has a concentration of 1 x 1020 cm-3 - 1 x 1021 cm-3; [0024]); [claim 13] wherein the source region (4) is interposed between the body region (3) and the source electrode (10).
Matsuki fails to expressly disclose [claim 11] where the semiconductor device is a nitride semiconductor device; the drift region is made of a nitride semiconductor; the body region is made of a nitride semiconductor.
Matsuki discloses that the semiconductor material is SiC for forming the MOSFET, see [0022].
Okumura discloses in [0099] that for MOSFETs similar to that of Matsuki, GaN semiconductor materials can be used instead of SiC. Therefore, instead of SiC for the drift and body regions, GaN can be used.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to substitute GaN for SiC in the device of Matsuki using the teachings of Okumura as the two are art-recognized equivalent materials to be used as wide bandgap semiconductor materials in MOSFET design ([0099]) and would allow for the device to be used in ultra-high voltage elements ([0042]).
Matsuki in view of Okumura fail to expressly disclose [claim 11] the source region is made of at least one selected from the group consisting of indium gallium nitride, aluminum gallium nitride, and indium aluminum gallium nitride.
Matsukin in view of Okumura disclose a GaN based FET with a source region comprising GaN.
Bakeroot discloses in Fig. 2 a GaN based FET 100 where the source region 118 comprises GaN 120 and AlGaN 122 such that [claim 11] the source region (118; [0052] and [0062]) is made of (interpreted to mean comprises) at least one selected from the group consisting of indium gallium nitride, aluminum gallium nitride, and indium aluminum gallium nitride (layer 122, which makes up a part of 118, can be AlGaN; [0052]).
Therefore, given the teachings of Bakeroot, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Matsuki in view of Okumura by employing the well-known or conventional features of FET fabrication, such as displayed by Bakeroot, by employing a source region comprising AlGaN in order to provide a transistor with enhanced control over the breakdown voltage ([0016]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuki in view of Okumura in view of Bakeroot as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tomita.
Although the structure disclosed by Matsuki in view of Okumura in view of Bakeroot shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 12 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the body region has a hydrogen concentration of 1×1018 cm-3 or less.
Matsuki in view of Okumura in view of Bakeroot discloses a GaN based (III-V) semiconductor device.
Tomita discloses a nitride-based (III-V) semiconductor device wherein the body region (Fig. 1; 36; page 2, second paragraph) has a hydrogen concentration of 1×1018 cm-3 or less (5×1016 cm-3; page 2, next to last paragraph).
Therefore, given the teachings of Tomita, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Matsuki in view of Okumura in view of Bakeroot by employing the well-known or conventional features of MOSFET fabrication, such as displayed by Tomita, by employing a body region having a hydrogen concentration within the claimed range in order to provide a transistor with a high-quality body region and be able to precisely control the threshold voltage (Abstract and page 5, second paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 11-14 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 JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (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 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.
JOSEPH C. NICELY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights