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 .
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 1-4, 7-8, 11-12, 15, 18 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Patent No.: US 10,964,788 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen et al. discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: an active region comprising one or more active semiconductor cells (Col. 4, L 48 – Col. 5, L 8; Fig. 5 – active region comprising channel layer 106); a metallization structure on the active region (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – metallization structure comprising source electrode 128); and wherein the metallization structure comprises a beryllium alloy (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – metallization structure comprising source electrode 128; source electrode 128 is potentially formed of a beryllium alloy, such as beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure is one or more of a contact, interconnect, or bonding pad for the semiconductor device (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – metallization structure comprising source contact such as source electrode 128).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen, as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure further comprises copper (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – metallization structure comprising source electrode 128; source electrode 128 is potentially formed of a beryllium alloy, such as beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure further comprises aluminum (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – this prior art teaches that “the material of the source electrode 128 includes metal, such as aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), nickel-iron (NiFe) alloy, beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy, the like, or a combination thereof”; in other words source contact could be potentially formed of ternary beryllium alloy including aluminum).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a ternary beryllium alloy (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – this prior art teaches that “the material of the source electrode 128 includes metal, such as aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), nickel-iron (NiFe) alloy, beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy, the like, or a combination thereof”; in other words source contact could be potentially formed of ternary beryllium alloy).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen et al., as applied to claim 7, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the ternary beryllium alloy comprises aluminum, beryllium, and a ternary element, wherein the ternary element comprises silver, copper, magnesium, silicon, titanium, vanadium, or zinc (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – this prior art teaches that “the material of the source electrode 128 includes metal, such as aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), nickel-iron (NiFe) alloy, beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy, the like, or a combination thereof”; in other words source contact could be potentially formed of ternary beryllium alloy).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the semiconductor device further comprises a passivation layer (Col. 11, L 21 – 39; Fig. 5 – passivation layer 138 (protective layer)).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen et al., as applied to claim 11, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the passivation layer comprises silicon nitride (Col. 11, L 21 – 39).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise a wide band gap semiconductor (Col. 4, L 5 – 38 – silicon carbide or aluminum nitride or gallium nitride).
Regarding Claim 18, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more Group III-nitride based high electron mobility transistor devices (Col. 4, L 5- Col. 5, L 8).
Regarding Claim 35, Chen et al. discloses a method, comprising: depositing a metallization structure on an active region comprising one or more wide band gap semiconductor cells (Col. 4, L 48 – Col. 5, L 8; Fig. 5 – active region comprising channel layer 106; Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – metallization structure comprising source electrode 128); and wherein the metallization structure comprises a beryllium alloy (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – metallization structure comprising source electrode 128; source electrode 128 is potentially formed of a beryllium alloy, such as beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (Patent No.: US 10,964,788 B1), as applied to claim 1, further view of Zhou et al. (“Precipitation behavior and properties of aged Cu-0.23Be-0.84Co alloy” - 2015)
Regarding Claim 5, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose
the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a range of about 0.1% beryllium to about 3% beryllium.
However, Zhou et al. teaches the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a range of about 0.1% beryllium to about 3% beryllium (Page 920; Introduction Section – this prior art teaches Cu-Be alloys are widely used in the components of electronics industry wherein the alloy comprises 0.2 – 2.0 wt% Be; this alloy has good electrical and thermal conductivity, high strength and hardness and low elastic modulus). Zhou et al. teaches that beryllium prominently affects the properties of Cu-Be alloys. For example, the strength increases with increased beryllium content; however, the electrical and thermal properties worsen with increased beryllium content. Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a range of about 0.1% beryllium to about 3% beryllium. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a range of about 0.1% beryllium to about 3% beryllium, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, does not explicitly disclose
the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a range of about 0.2% beryllium to about 0.5% beryllium.
However, Zhou et al. teaches the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a range of about 0.2% beryllium to about 0.5% beryllium (Page 920; Introduction Section – this prior art teaches Cu-Be alloys are widely used in the components of electronics industry wherein the alloy comprises 0.2 – 2.0 wt% Be; this alloy has good electrical and thermal conductivity, high strength and hardness and low elastic modulus). Zhou et al. teaches that beryllium prominently affects the properties of Cu-Be alloys. For example, the strength increases with increased beryllium content; however, the electrical and thermal properties worsen with increased beryllium content. Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a range of about 0.2% beryllium to about 0.5% beryllium. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a range of about 0.2% beryllium to about 0.5% beryllium, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen et al., as applied to claim 7, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the ternary beryllium alloy comprises aluminum, beryllium, and a ternary element, ((Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – this prior art teaches that “the material of the source electrode 128 includes metal, such as aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), nickel-iron (NiFe) alloy, beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy, the like, or a combination thereof”; in other words source contact could be potentially formed of ternary beryllium alloy))
Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose
the semiconductor device, wherein the ternary element comprises cobalt. However, Zhou et al. teaches the semiconductor device, wherein the ternary element comprises cobalt (Page 920; Introduction Section – this prior art teaches Cu-Be alloys with a small amount of cobalt are widely used, wherein the alloy has good electrical and thermal conductivity, high strength and hardness and low elastic modulus). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Zhou et al. to adapt the semiconductor device, wherein the ternary element of Chen et al. comprises cobalt in order to form an electrical contact with proper hardness and electrical and thermal properties.
Claims 10, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (Patent No.: US 10,964,788 B1), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a source contact, a drain contact, or a gate contact for a HEMT (Col. 3, L 62 – Col. 4, L 4, Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – this prior art specifically teaches details of source contact and drain contact of a HEMT device; the contacts are potentially formed of a beryllium alloy, such as beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy). Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose
the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a source contact, a drain contact, or a gate contact for a MOSFET.
In short, Chen et al. teaches materials used for contacts, such as source contacts, drain contacts etc. for a HEMT-type device whereas the instant application teaches potential materials for source contacts, drain contacts etc. for MOSFET type. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed that the source or drain contact materials used by Chen for HEMTs could also be potentially used for the source and drain contacts for a MOSFET device.
Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a source contact, a drain contact, or a gate contact for a MOSFET. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the semiconductor device, wherein the metallization structure comprises a source contact, a drain contact, or a gate contact for a MOSFET, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Regarding Claim 16, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more gallium nitride-based HEMTs (Col. 3, L 62 – Col. 4, L 4, Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – this prior art specifically teaches details of source contact and drain contact of a gallium nitride-based HEMT device; the contacts are potentially formed of a beryllium alloy, such as beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy). Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose
the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based MOSFETs.
In short, Chen et al. teaches materials used for contacts, such as source contacts, drain contacts etc. for a gallium nitride-based HEMT-type device whereas the instant application teaches potential materials for source contacts, drain contacts etc. for a silicon carbide-based MOSFETs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed that the source or drain contact materials used by Chen for HEMTs could also be potentially used for the source and drain contacts for a silicon carbide-based MOSFET device.
Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based MOSFETs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based MOSFETs, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Also, it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Regarding Claim 17, Chen et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more GaN-based HEMTs (Col. 4, L 5- Col. 5, L 8). Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose
the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based Schottky diodes.
In short, Chen et al. teaches the semiconductor device, wherein a metallization structure comprising beryllium is formed on an active region wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more gallium nitride based HEMT (Col. 4, L 5- Col. 5, L 8). This prior art does not explicitly mention the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based Schottky diodes. Metallization structure comprising beryllium is known to yield certain benefits. Adding beryllium to copper in metallization structures increases strength and hardness and yields low elastic modulus and is beneficial in HEMTs as well as in Schottky diodes.
Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based Schottky diodes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based Schottky diodes, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Regarding Claim 19, Chen et al. discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: an active region comprising one or more gallium nitride-based HEMTs (Col. 4, L 5 – Col. 5, L 8; Fig. 5 – active region comprising channel layer 106); a metallization structure on the active region, the metallization structure comprising a bonding pad associated with a source contact or a drain contact for the semiconductor device (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – metallization structure comprising source electrode 128; presence of bonding pad implied); and wherein the metallization structure comprises beryllium (Col. 8, L 25 – Col. 9, L 50; Fig. 5 – metallization structure comprising source electrode 128; source electrode 128 is potentially formed of a beryllium alloy, such as beryllium-copper (BeCu) alloy). Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose
the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based MOSFETs.
In short, Chen et al. teaches materials used for contacts, such as source contacts, drain contacts etc. for a gallium nitride-based HEMT-type device whereas the instant application teaches potential materials for source contacts, drain contacts etc. for a silicon carbide-based MOSFETs. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed that the source or drain contact materials used by Chen for HEMTs could also be potentially used for the source and drain contacts for a silicon carbide-based MOSFET device.
Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based MOSFETs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the semiconductor device, wherein the one or more active semiconductor cells comprise one or more silicon carbide-based MOSFETs, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to employ/use a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, products) in the same way is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Also, it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen et al. (Patent No.: US 10,964,788 B1), as applied to claim 11, further in view of Weyers (Pub. No.: US 2020/0243505 A1)
Regarding Claim 13, Chen et al., as applied to claim 11, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the passivation layer comprises silicon nitride.
(Col. 11, L 21 – 39). Chen et al. does not explicitly disclose
the semiconductor device, wherein the passivation layer comprises a polymer.
However, Weyers teaches the semiconductor device, wherein the passivation layer comprises a polymer (Par. 0031; Fig. 6 – this prior art teaches that a passivation layer such as a polyimide may be arranged over the gate and source pads). In a nutshell, Chen et al. teaches the passivation layer comprises silicon nitride. Weyers, on the other hand teaches that the passivation layer comprises a polymer. In other words, use of silicon nitride as well as polymers in passivation layers have been well-documented before this invention was effectively filed. Chen et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the semiconductor device, wherein the passivation layer comprises a polymer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adapt the semiconductor device, wherein the passivation layer comprises a polymer, since it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Chen et al., as applied to claim 13, discloses
the semiconductor device, wherein the polymer comprises polyimide (Weyers - Par. 0031).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments made to the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
02/08/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893