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
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 13-20 are allowable. The restriction requirement between species, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 7/30/25, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of species is withdrawn. Claims 4-7 are directed to species no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claims 4-7 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.
Claim 4 states the composition percentage changes “linearly” (in lines 1-2). Claim 4 depends on claim 1. Parent claim 1 states that the composition percentage changes non-linearly (“decreases with an epitaxial depth…the decrease decelerating with depth….) Thus, it is unclear how the composition percentage can simultaneously be changing linearly, according to claim 4, and non-linearly, according to parent claim 1. Claims 5-7 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 4.
Claim 5 states the composition percentage changes “linearly” (in lines 1-2). Claim 5 depends on claim 4 which depends on claim 1. Parent claim 1 states that the composition percentage changes non-linearly (“decreases with an epitaxial depth…the decrease decelerating with depth….) Thus, it is unclear how the composition percentage can simultaneously be changing linearly, according to claim 5, and non-linearly, according to parent claim 1.
Claim 6 states the composition percentage changes “linearly” (in lines 1-2). Claim 6 depends on claim 4 which depends on claim 1. Parent claim 1 states that the composition percentage changes non-linearly (“decreases with an epitaxial depth…the decrease decelerating with depth….) Thus, it is unclear how the composition percentage can simultaneously be changing linearly, according to claim 6, and non-linearly, according to parent claim 1.
Claim 7 states the composition percentage changes “linearly” (in lines 1-2). Claim 7 depends on claim 4 which depends on claim 1. Parent claim 1 states that the composition percentage changes non-linearly (“decreases with an epitaxial depth…the decrease decelerating with depth….) Thus, it is unclear how the composition percentage can simultaneously be changing linearly, according to claim 7, and non-linearly, according to parent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9-11, and 13-19 are allowed.
Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitation the barrier semiconductor layer is formed of a second semiconductor material that is a compound semiconductor material comprising multiple different elements, wherein for at least some of a thickness of the barrier semiconductor layer, a composition percentage of at least one of the multiple different elements decreases with an epitaxial depth within the barrier semiconductor layer, the decrease decelerating with depth, and beginning from a percentage greater than 50 percent in combination with the other elements of the claim. Claims 9-11 and 13-15 depends on claim 1.
Claim 16 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitation the barrier semiconductor layer is formed of a second semiconductor material that is a compound semiconductor material comprising multiple different elements, wherein for at least part of the epitaxial growth of the barrier semiconductor layer, a composition of at least one of the multiple different elements is adjusted so as to decreases with time of epitaxial growth and thus decreasing with epitaxial depth, the decrease decelerating with time and epitaxial depth, and beginning from a percentage greater than 50 percent in combination with the other elements of the claim. Claims 17-19 depend on claim 16.
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 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 REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 4/6/2026
Prosecution Insights