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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on Dec. 23rd 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-11 are examined in this office action. Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE with metallized gallium nitride AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING NITRIDE SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuyama et al. (US 20180019129), hereinafter Matsuyama.
Regarding claim 1, Matsuyama teaches a semiconductor device (Abstract) comprising:
a first gallium nitride region (fig. 1, n-type GaN layer 12; para. 0012), the first gallium nitride region (12) being an n-type semiconductor (n-type GaN); and
a second gallium nitride region (p-type GaN layer 14, p+ type region 16; para. 0044) in contact with the first gallium nitride region (12), the second gallium nitride region (16) being metallized gallium nitride (16 as an alloy layer with GaN in 14 for ohmic contact; para. 0028), the second gallium nitride region (16) containing a first element (16 has impurities Mg, Zn; para. 0045) being at least one element (Mg, Zn; para. 0045) selected from a group consisting of beryllium (Be), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), terbium (Tb), dysprosium (Dy), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), lutetium (Lu), vanadium (V), niobium (Nb), tantalum (Ta), and zinc (Zn).
Regarding claim 2, Matsuyama teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprising a metal electrode (fig. 1, electrode 60; para. 0044) in contact with the second gallium nitride region (16).
Regarding claim 3, Matsuyama teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a work function of the second gallium nitride region (fig. 1, 16 with Mg and Mg has a work function around 3.65 eV; para. 0045) is 3.7 eV or less.
Regarding claim 5, Matsuyama teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a concentration of the first element (fig. 1, Mg concentration at top of 16; para. 0066) in the second gallium nitride region (16) is 1 x1019 cm-3 or more (1E+21 cm−3; para. 0066).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hachigo et al. (US 20140225229).
Regarding claim 4, Matsuyama teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1 including the second gallium nitride region (fig. 1, 14, 16).
Matsuyama fails to explicitly teach a sheet resistance of the second gallium nitride region is 0.1 Ω/sq or less.
However, Hachigo teaches a sheet resistance of the second gallium nitride region (Hachigo: fig. 1, sheet resistance of group III-nitride-film 13; para. 0091, similar to 14, 16 of Kim) is 0.3 Ω/sq or less (Hachigo: 0.3 Ω/sq or less by changing thickness, TABLE 1), which overlaps the range of 0.1 Ω/sq or less.
Hachigo and Matsuyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GaN semiconductor devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified sheet resistance of the second gallium nitride region from 0.3 Ω/sq or less to 0.1 Ω/sq or less.
Doing so would realize a group III nitride composite substrate with a low sheet resistance and produced with a high yield (Hachigo: para. 0007). In addition, Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Claims 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama in view of Sakurai et al. (JP 2020025056 from IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuyama teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 1 including the first element (impurities).
Matsuyama fails to explicitly teach an amount of the first element bonded to gallium (Ga) is greater than an amount of the first element bonded to nitrogen (N).
However, Sakurai teaches an amount of the first element (Sakurai: acceptor element; para. 0003, similar to impurities of Matsuyama) bonded to gallium (Ga) (Sakurai: bond to Ga at nitrogen sites; para. 0004) is greater than (Sakurai: more easily for shortage of nitrogen due to nitrogen vacancies; para. 0004) an amount of the first element (Sakurai: acceptor element) bonded to nitrogen (N) (Sakurai: bond to N at Ga sites; para. 0004).
Sakurai and Matsuyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GaN semiconductors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an amount of the first element bonded to gallium (Ga) is greater than an amount of the first element bonded to nitrogen (N).
Doing so would realize a well-known result of ion implantation with low manufacturing cost. Furthermore, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuyama teaches a semiconductor device (Abstract) comprising:
a first gallium nitride region (fig. 1, n-type GaN layer 12; para. 0012), the first gallium nitride region (12) being an n-type semiconductor (n-type GaN); and
a second gallium nitride region (p-type GaN layer 14, p+ type region 16; para. 0044) in contact with the first gallium nitride region (12), the second gallium nitride region (16) containing a first element (16 has impurities Mg, Zn; para. 0045) being at least one element (Mg, Zn; para. 0045) selected from a group consisting of beryllium (Be), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), strontium (Sr), barium (Ba), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), terbium (Tb), dysprosium (Dy), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), lutetium (Lu), vanadium (V), niobium (Nb), tantalum (Ta), and zinc (Zn).
Matsuyama fails to explicitly teach an amount of the first element bonded to gallium (Ga) is greater than an amount of the first element bonded to nitrogen (N).
However, Sakurai teaches an amount of the first element (Sakurai: acceptor element; para. 0003, similar to ions of Kim) bonded to gallium (Ga) (Sakurai: bond to Ga at nitrogen sites; para. 0004) is greater than (Sakurai: more easily for shortage of nitrogen due to nitrogen vacancies; para. 0004) an amount of the first element (Sakurai: acceptor element) bonded to nitrogen (N) (Sakurai: bond to N at Ga sites; para. 0004).
Matsuyama and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GaN semiconductors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an amount of the first element bonded to gallium (Ga) is greater than an amount of the first element bonded to nitrogen (N).
Doing so would realize a well-known result of ion implantation with low manufacturing cost. Furthermore, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 8, Matsuyama in view of Sakurai further teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 7, further comprising a metal electrode (Matsuyama: fig. 1, electrode 60; para. 0044) in contact with the second gallium nitride region (Matsuyama: 16).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuyama in view of Sakurai further teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 7, wherein a work function of the second gallium nitride region (Matsuyama: fig. 1, 16 with Mg and Mg has a work function around 3.65 eV; para. 0045) is 3.7 eV or less.
Regarding claim 11, Matsuyama in view of Sakurai further teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 7, wherein a concentration of the first element (Matsuyama: fig. 1, Mg concentration at top of 16; para. 0066) in the second gallium nitride region (Matsuyama: 16) is 1 x1019 cm-3 or more (Matsuyama: 1E+21 cm−3; para. 0066).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama in view of Sakurai as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hachigo.
Regarding claim 10, Matsuyama in view of Sakurai teaches the semiconductor device according to claim 7 including the second gallium nitride region (Matsuyama: fig. 1, 14, 16).
Matsuyama in view of Sakurai fails to explicitly teach a sheet resistance of the second gallium nitride region is 0.1 Ω/sq or less.
However, Hachigo teaches a sheet resistance of the second gallium nitride region (Hachigo: fig. 1, sheet resistance of group III-nitride-film 13; para. 0091, similar to 14, 16 of Kim) is 0.3 Ω/sq or less (Hachigo: 0.3 Ω/sq or less by changing thickness, TABLE 1), which overlaps the range of 0.1 Ω/sq or less.
Hachigo, Sakurai and Matsuyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of GaN semiconductor devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified sheet resistance of the second gallium nitride region from 0.3 Ω/sq or less to 0.1 Ω/sq or less.
Doing so would realize a group III nitride composite substrate with a low sheet resistance and produced with a high yield (Hachigo: para. 0007). In addition, Here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP Chapter 2100-Section 2144.05-Optimization of Ranges).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-11 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 ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818