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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species II (claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, and 14-16) in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is improper as a search can be made without serious burden, even if Groups I and II are distinct or independent inventions. Groups I and II are both directed to a semiconductor device and that a search of Group I invariably encompasses Group II. Similarity a search of the product of Species II would invariably encompass all of claims 1-18. This is not found persuasive because the requirement is proper and necessary if the inventions listed are independent or distinct and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden, see paragraph 4 of the Office action mailed 10/25/2025. As pointed out, the product does not have to be produced by the same process to arrive at the product and the species recite mutually exclusive characteristics, there would at the least be an examination burden due to the different material claimed and the fact that the prior art of the product does not necessarily apply to the process (due to the product having different ways of being produced) or to the other species (due to their different mutually exclusive characteristics). Further, because of their different requirements (of the product vs. process and among the species) for their claim limitations, the searches would not be identical and would require searching in different manners as explained in the Office action mailed 10/25/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3, 6, 11, 13, 17, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group and/or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/28/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 4, there are errant marks (namely a “+” sign near the dotted line of Nd1 and a “1” or some other mark near the term “Nd1”). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in [0072], “x1012” should be amended to read -x1012-.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-4, "different for more" should be amended to read -different from more- . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Claim 8 recites that the third concentration lies in a range between 4e12 and 12e12 #/cm2 and the fourth concentration lies in a range between 0e12 and 4e12 #/cm2. However, concentration is measured in #/cm3, not #/cm2. Dosage is measured in #/cm2. It is unclear from the claim if dosage or concentration is meant to be claimed. The specification doesn’t expressly state a concentration in the correct units anywhere, but in [0072] of the specification as filed, the Ar+ implant dose is mentioned to be 5-10x1012 cm-2. The Examiner interprets that based on the units and the specification that the claim should recite “dose” and not concentration. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung et al (US 2019/0051741 and Tung hereinafter) in view of Wu et al (US 2007/0114569 and Wu hereinafter) in view of Yuan et al (US 2015/0255547 and Yuan hereinafter).
As to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 14-16: Tung discloses [claim 1] a multi-finger high-electron mobility transistor (HEMT) (Figs. 3, 4A, and 4B), comprising: a semiconductor body (Fig 4B; 1000; [0026]) comprising a channel layer (40; [0026]) configured to hold a two- dimensional electron gas (2DEG) (2DEG; [0026]), and a donor layer (50; [0026]) configured to supply electrons to form the 2DEG (inherently the donor layer in the HEMT performs this function); a plurality of gate fingers (Fig. 3; 90; [0025]); a plurality of drain fingers (Fig. 3; 80; [0025]); wherein each gate finger (Fig. 4B; 90 in each unit E1; [0026]) is associated with a respective first region (area of 40 directly under 90 in E1) of the channel layer (40) that is arranged underneath that gate finger (90 in E1), and a respective second region (area of 40 between 90 and 80 in E1) of the channel layer (40) that is arranged in between that respective first region (area of 40 directly under 90 in E1) and a drain finger (80 in E1) among the plurality of drain fingers (80) that is associated with the gate finger (90 in E1); [claim 7] wherein the HEMT is a GaN-based HEMT (Fig. 4B; GaN based materials for layers 40 and 50 and thus the device is a GaN-based HEMT; [0030]), and wherein the channel layer (40) comprises an AIxGa1-xN layer (40 can be GaN, which is where x=0; [0030]) and the donor layer (50) an AlyGa1-yN layer (50 can be AlyGa1-yN, with y between 0 and 1; [0030]), wherein x < y, wherein 0 <= x <= 0.10 (x=0 and y>0); [claim 12] wherein the HEMT is a GaN-based HEMT (Fig. 4B; GaN based materials for layers 40 and 50 and thus the device is a GaN-based HEMT; [0030]), wherein the channel layer (40) comprises an AIxGa1-xN layer (40 can be GaN, which is where x=0; [0030]) and the donor layer (50) an AlyGa1-yN layer (50 can be AlyGa1-yN, with y between 0 and 1; [0030]), wherein x < y, wherein 0 <= x <= 0.10 (x=0 and y>0); [claim 16] an electronic device comprising the HEMT as defined in claim 1 (Fig. 3 shows the HEMT), wherein the electronic device is a device out of the group consisting of GaN HEMTs configured as a stand-alone device (Fig. 3 can be a stand-alone device as it is shown by itself) or in cascode with a low-voltage switch and operating in either enhancement-mode or depletion-mode (these are the only two modes available and the HEMT of Fig. 3 will be one of these).
Tung fails to expressly disclose [claim 1] wherein the 2DEG in absence of any voltage applied to the HEMT in a part of the second region associated with a gate finger among the plurality of gate fingers has a concentration that is lowered, by ion-implanting and/or etching the donor layer, relative to a different part of the second region associated with the gate finger, respectively; [claim 2] wherein the concentration of the 2DEG is lowered by ion implantation; wherein the part of the donor layer corresponding to the part of second region associated with the gate finger among the plurality of gate fingers of which the 2DEG is lowered relative to the different part of the second region associated with the gate finger, respectively, comprises a third concentration of implanted ions, and wherein the part of the donor layer corresponding to the different part of the second region comprises a fourth concentration of implanted ions, wherein the third concentration is greater than the fourth concentration; [claim 5] further comprising one or more fieldplates associated with a gate finger among the plurality of gate fingers, wherein the one or more fieldplates are connected to a source or gate of the HEMT, and wherein the one or more fieldplates extend at least above respective segments of the second region associated with the gate finger; [claim 8] wherein the third concentration lies in a range between 4e12 and 12e12 #/cm2, and wherein the fourth concentration lies in a range between 0 and 4e12 #/cm2; [claim 10] further comprising one or more fieldplates associated with a gate finger among the plurality of gate fingers, wherein the one or more fieldplates are connected to a source or gate of the HEMT, and wherein the one or more fieldplates extend at least above respective segments of the second region associated with the gate finger; [claim 14] wherein the one or more fieldplates comprise a plurality of fieldplates, wherein the second region associated with the gate finger among the plurality of gate fingers comprises a plurality of different segments, each segment corresponding to a different number of fieldplates that extend above it; [claim 15] wherein the 2DEG concentration in absence of any voltage applied to the HEMT is not substantially lowered in a remaining part of the second region associated with the gate finger among the plurality of gate fingers.
Tung discloses a plurality of HEMT units E1 that each comprise a source, drain, and gate electrode.
Wu discloses in Fig. 3 and [0048]-[0050] a HEMT 50 comprising a source electrode 20, a drain electrode 22, and a gate electrode 24. The HEMT includes a buffer (channel) layer 16 in which a 2DEG 17 forms and a barrier (donor) layer 18. The barrier (donor) layer 18 includes doped regions 60 and 62 and an undoped region (area of 18 between 62 and 22), which is the claimed different region (left half of undoped region) and remaining part (right half of undoped region), where the 2DEG concentration is not lowered. The doped regions 60 and 62 have been doped with fluorine ions ([0050]) that are at a higher dopant concentration than that of the area of 18 undoped with fluorine ions. Yuan discloses in Fig. 28A and [0121] that when a barrier (donor) layer 2814 is doped with ions such as fluorine to form doped regions 2816, the fluorine doped regions will lower the 2DEG concentration formed in the HEMT.
Wu discloses in Fig. 3 that there are two fieldplates 44 and 54 for each gate 24, see [0046]-[0050]. The doped region 60 has both fieldplates over it and doped region 62 only has one fieldplate over it.
Yuan discloses in Figs. 28A and 28C that there are fieldplates 2808 associated with each gate 2818 and each fieldplate 2808 extends over the doped region 2816 in the donor (barrier) layer 2816. Yuan further discloses in Fig. 35 and [0130] that a dose of the fluorine ions in the doped region can be 1013 cm-2, which is within the claimed range of 4e12 and 1.2e13 cm-2 (as 12e12 is the same as 1.2e13). The dose for the undoped region of Wu is 0.
Given the teachings of Wu in view of Yuan, 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 Tung by employing the well-known or conventional features of HEMT fabrication, such as displayed by Wu in view of Yuan, by doping regions with a dose of ions within the claimed range of the donor (barrier) layer between the gate electrode and the drain region with fluorine ions while leaving at least one area in that region undoped and fieldplates connected to the gate electrode and overlying at least a portion of the doped region in order to enable a lower peak electrical field and a higher breakdown voltage ([0121] of Yuan) and enhance device performance ([0050] of Wu).
As to [claim 4] wherein the concentration of the 2DEG in absence of any voltage applied to the HEMT in a part of the second region associated with a gate finger among the plurality of gate fingers is different for more than two other parts of the second region associated with that gate finger, Wu discloses in [0040] that the region between the gate electrode 24 and the drain contact 22 can have multiple sections of different ion concentrations or different depths, which affects the concentration of the 2DEG. Therefore, as to [claim 14] wherein the 2DEG concentration in absence of any voltage applied to the HEMT differs among the plurality of different segments that have at least one fieldplate extending above them, when two different segments, such as 60 and 62 in Wu, which can have different concentrations as explained previously, have a different number of fieldplates overlapping them (60 has 2, namely 44 and 54, and 62 has 1, namely 54), the desired result of lowering the electrical field and improving device performance is achieved.
Therefore, given the teachings of Wu, 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 provide a plurality of doped regions with different ion concentrations and one undoped region in the donor (barrier) layer such that the 2DEG concentration is different corresponding to the ion concentration in the donor (barrier) layer in order to provide a desired electrical field and device performance ([0050] of Wu).
As to [claim 7] and [claim 12] where 0.10 <= y <= 0.50, Tung discloses in [0030] that y for the barrier (donor) layer 50 can be between 0 and 1. 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 choose the y-value such that it is within the claimed range since Tung discloses that a y-value that overlaps with the claimed range and the choice of a value within the claimed range would have required only routine skill in the art and the respective values of the claimed x and y would have affected the polarizations of the layers to create the 2DEG at the heterojunction ([0030]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung in view of Wu in view of Yuan as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of AtomicNumber (“List of Elements inOrder of Electronegativity χ” and AtomicNumber hereinafter).
Although the structure disclosed by Tung in view of Wu in view of Yuan shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 16 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
wherein ions used for the ion-implanting the donor layer are ions out of the group consisting of Argon ions, Nitrogen ions, Boron ions, Silicon ions, and Phosphorus ions.
Tung in view of Wu in view of Yuan discloses using ions with high electronegativity, such as fluorine or oxygen, see [0121] of Yuan.
AtomicNumber shows in the Table that nitrogen has an electronegativity greater than 3 and is the fourth highest.
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 choose nitrogen as the ion to modify the 2DEG concentration instead of fluorine or oxygen because as stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case in the instant case choosing one of the top high electronegativity ions from the list of AtomicNumber and Yuan; if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case an ion that can reduce the 2DEG concentration in the channel layer in desired regions,it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
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
4/13/2026
Prosecution Insights