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 action is responsive to application No. 18259942 filed on 06/29/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it contains the limitation “p+diamond”.
To correct typographical error the examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “p+ diamond”.
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 5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “The field effect transistor according to 4 claim 1”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: It is unclear if claim 5 depends on claim 1 or claim 4.
For the purpose of the examination, claim 5 is considered to be dependent on claim 1.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 4, 7 (pending resolution claim objection) are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (independent claim 1), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yokota et al. (US 2005/0127373).
With respect to dependent claim 4, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “a recovery electrode which is an independent electrode different from the source electrode, the drain electrode, and the gate electrode, and is configured to recover circuit characteristics by at least one of recovery of defects through thermal recovery or drawing out charges”.
With respect to dependent claim 7, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “further comprising a recovery electrode which is an independent electrode different from the source electrode, the drain electrode, and the gate electrode, and is configured to recover circuit characteristics by at least one of recovery of defects through thermal recovery or drawing out charges”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokota et al. (US 2005/0127373).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yokota et al. teach a field effect transistor comprising:
a non-doped diamond layer (Fig. 4, element 42, paragraph 0064) which has a hydrogen-terminated surface;
first and second p+ diamond layers (Fig. 4, elements 43a & 43b, paragraph 0064) which are formed on the non-doped diamond layer and sandwich a hydrogen-terminated region (Fig. 4, region between elements 43a & 43b);
a source electrode (Fig. 4, element 47, paragraph 0065) which is formed on the first p+ diamond layer and is made of metal;
a drain electrode (Fig. 4, element 48, paragraph 0065) which is formed on the second p+ diamond layer and is made of metal;
an insulating layer (Fig. 4, element 49, paragraph 0065) which is formed on the hydrogen-terminated region of the non-doped diamond layer; and
a gate electrode (Fig. 4, element 50, paragraph 0065) which is formed on the insulating layer,
a mutual conductance being equal to or higher than 0.5 mS/mm at room temperatures, after an X-ray is applied for an amount of 5 MGy (This is an intended use recitation. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claim 5, Yokota et al. teach wherein, after application of an X-ray for an amount of 5 MGy, a leak current of the gate electrode is 10.sup.−6 times as large as an operation drain current at the maximum (This is an intended use recitation. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et al. (US 2005/0127373) in view of Miyazaki et al. (US 2019/0348284).
Regarding claim 2, Yokota et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Yokota et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein, the insulating layer includes aluminum oxide.
Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known aluminum oxide insulating layer as shown by Miyazaki et al. in paragraph 0049, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Yokota et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Yokota et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein, each of the source electrode, the drain electrode, and the gate electrode includes at least one of ruthenium, iridium, platinum, or molybdenum.
Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known electrode material such as platinum as shown by Miyazaki et al. in paragraph 00666, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, Yokota et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Yokota et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein, each of the source electrode, the drain electrode, and the gate electrode includes at least one of ruthenium, iridium, platinum, or molybdenum.
Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known electrode material such as platinum as shown by Miyazaki et al. in paragraph 00666, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Yokota et al. teach wherein, after application of an X-ray for an amount of 5 MGy, a leak current of the gate electrode is 10.sup.−6 times as large as an operation drain current at the maximum (This is an intended use recitation. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHED AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-3477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 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 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.
/SHAHED AHMED/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights