DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed July 23, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 31, “a liner profile” should be replaced with “a linear profile” to be consistent with the limitation “the linear profile” recited on line 36. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5, 22, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because (a) the invention recited in claim 1 is directed to a drawing or an illustration shown in Fig. 10 of current application rather than being directed to an actual variable capacitance element structure, and thus is directed to an abstract idea that cannot be realized by one of ordinary skill in the art, (b) more specifically, the limitation “a reference line parallel to the two-dimensional electron gas layer” recited on line 28 of the amended claim 1 appears to be derived from the alleged two-dimensional electron gas layer 120 shown in Fig. 10 of current application,
PNG
media_image1.png
646
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(c) however, the first semiconductor layer 103 and the second semiconductor layer 104 of current application, between which the alleged two-dimensional electron gas layer 120 of current application is disposed, would exhibit an uneven interface similar to the interface of the GaN layer and the AlGaN layer shown in Fig. 7 of Charles et al. (“The Characterization and Optimization of GaN Cap Layers and SiN Cap Layers on AlGaN/GaN HEMT Structures Grown on 200mm GaN on Silicon,” Physica Status Solidi B 255 (2018) 1700406), which is indicated by the two arrows illustrated below, and
PNG
media_image2.png
282
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(d) therefore, the amended claim 1 reciting the limitation “a reference line parallel to the two-dimensional electron gas layer” recited on line 28 corresponds to the illustration of Fig. 10 of current application rather than an actual structure of a two-dimensional electron gas layer having a corrugated top and bottom surface as shown by Charles et al., and the amended claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea that cannot be realized by one of ordinary skill in the art since the limitation cited above requires a zero surface roughness for the top and bottom surface of the two-dimensional electron gas layer since otherwise “a reference line parallel to the two-dimensional electron gas layer” is not unambiguously defined. Claims 5, 22, 23 and 27 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 5, 22, 23 and 27 also fail to comply with the 35 USC 101 requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 22, 23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
(1) Regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose “a distance defined between (i) a reference line … and (ii) a liner [sic] profile connecting the first end position and the second end position has an overall decreasing profile in the first direction from the second terminal toward the first electrode such that an entirety of the bottom surface of the first electrode is located along or above the linear profile and defines an overall decreasing (emphases added)” recited on lines 35-36, because (a) Applicants did not use or define the phrase “overall decreasing” in the original disclosure, and therefore, there is no unambiguous definition of the phrase “overall decreasing”, (b) the former phrase “overall decreasing” may not be unambiguous in conjunction with the phrase a liner [sic] profile” or a linear profile, but the latter phrase “overall decreasing” does not have any specific meaning since it can imply (i) an overall decrease in a linear pattern, (ii) an overall decrease in a sawtooth pattern, (iii) an overall decrease in a sinusoidal pattern, (iv) an overall decrease in a logarithmic pattern, (v) an overall decrease in a quadratic pattern, etc., and (b) therefore, the amended claim 1 is much broader than the original disclosure without Applicants’ specifically defining what the phrase “overall decreasing” implies.
(2) Further regarding claim 1, Applicants did not originally disclose that “a thickness of the insulating layer has an overall decreasing profile in the first direction from the second terminal toward the first electrode (emphasis added)”, because as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejection, Applicants did not use or define the phrase “overall decreasing” in the original disclosure.
Claims 5, 22, 23 and 27 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 5, 22, 23 and 27 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 22, 23 and 27 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 the amended claim 1 is directed to the elected species shown in Fig. 10 of current application, because (a) the amended claim 1 recites “a distance defined between (i) a reference line … and (ii) a liner [sic] profile connecting the first end position and the second end position has an overall decreasing profile in the first direction from the second terminal toward the first electrode” on lines 27-35, (b) however, this newly limitation appears to be directed to the embodiments shown in Figs. 1-3 of current application, where there is an actual linear profile connecting the first and second end position of the first electrode 107, while the elected species shown in Fig. 10 of current application does not exhibit the claimed linear profile, and (c) therefore, it appears that the amended claim 1 is directed to a nonelected species.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear how “a distance defined between (i) a reference line … and (ii) a liner [sic] profile connecting the first end position and the second end position has an overall decreasing profile in the first direction from the second terminal toward the first electrode” as recited on lines 27-35, and then “an entirety of the bottom surface of the first electrode is located along or above the linear profile” as recited on lines 35-36, because (a) these two limitations are linked with the phrase “such that” on line 35, (b) the definition of “a distance” does not have anything to do with the configuration of “an entirety of the bottom surface of the first electrode” being “located along or above the linear profile” especially when “a distance” is merely a concept rather than an actual distance between two features of two tangible objects in the elected species shown in Fig. 10 of current application, and (c) in other words, if arguendo the amended claim 1 is directed to the elected species shown in Fig. 10 of current application, “a distance” is not a distance between the first electrode 107 and the two-dimensional electron gas layer 120, but rather an imaginary distance between a line associated with the bottom surface of the first electrode 107 and the two-dimensional electron gas layer 120, and therefore, the two limitations cited above do not appear to agree with each other, not to mention being awkward to be connected with each other with the phrase “such that”.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, it is not clear what the limitation “therebetween” in the limitation “an entirety of the bottom surface of the first electrode is located along or above the linear profile and defines an overall decreasing interval therebetween along the first direction from the second terminal toward the first electrode (emphasis added)” recited on lines 35-38 suggests, because (a) it is not clear whether “therebetween” suggests between “an entirety of the bottom surface of the first electrode” and “the linear profile”, which appears to be a grammatically correct usage of the word “therebetween”, (b) however, this interpretation of the word “therebetween” does not describe Applicants’ originally disclosed invention, especially the invention shown in Fig. 10 of current application, since as illustrated below with the additional line, this claimed interval does not constitute “an overall decreasing interval” between “an entirety of the bottom surface of the first electrode” 107 and “the linear profile”, and (c) therefore, it is not clear what the word “therebetween” suggests in the limitation cited above.
PNG
media_image3.png
640
518
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 22, 23 and 27 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 5, 22, 23 and 27 are also indefinite.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dalapati et al., “Investigation of AlGaN/GaN high electron mobility transistors on Silicon (111) substrates employing multi-stacked strained layer superlattice structures,” Superlattices and Microstructures 147 (2020) 106709.
Ji et al., “Effect of backside dry etching on the device performance of AlGaN/GaN HEMTs,” Nanotechnology 32 (2021) 355203.
Lu et al., “High-Performance Integrated Dual-Gate AlGaN/GaN Enhancement-Mode Transistor,” IEEE ELECTRON DEVICE LETTERS 31 (2010) pp. 990-992.
Cho et al., “High-mobility two-dimensional electron gases at AlGaN/GaN heterostructures grown on GaN bulk wafers and GaN template substrates,” Applied Physics Express 12 (2019) 121003.
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 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 on (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 August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights