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 .
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 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.
Status of the application
This office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filled on 04/07/2026. Claims 1-3 are pending for this examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s reply filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered and considered. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the shift in grounds of rejection detailed below. The shift in grounds of rejection renders Applicant’s arguments moot.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/06/2026 has been entered. An action on the RCE follows.
Claim Rejection- 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OKA et al (US 2016/0163792 A1; hereafter OKA) in view of KUME et al (US 2022/0084907 A1; hereafter KUME) and further in view of YEN et al (US 2018/0233466 A1; hereafter YEN).
PNG
media_image1.png
437
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. OKA discloses a Schottky barrier diode, comprising:
an n-type semiconductor layer (Fig 1, n-type semiconductor layer 112, Para [ 0052, 0187]) comprising a gallium oxide-based semiconductor (n-type semiconductor layer 112, Para [ 0052, 0187]);
an insulating film comprising SiO2 (Fig 1, insulating film 130, Para [0053-0057]) and covering a portion of an upper surface of the n- type semiconductor layer (Fig 1, semiconductor layer 112, Para [ 0052, 0187]), the insulating film (Fig 1,insulating film 130, Para [0053- 0057]) comprising a first layer ( insulating layer 132, Para [0053- 0057]) in contact with the n-type semiconductor layer (Fig 1, semiconductor layer 112, Para [ 0052, 0187]) and a second layer ( insulating layer 134, Para [0053- 0057]) on the first layer ( insulating layer 132) and
an anode electrode (anode electrode 150, Para [ 0050]) which is connected to the upper surface of the n-type semiconductor layer (Fig 1, n-type semiconductor layer 112, Para [ 0052, 0187]) to form a Schottky junction ( Para [ 0059]) with the n-type semiconductor layer (Fig 1, n-type semiconductor layer 112, Para [ 0052, 0187]) and at least a portion of an edge of the anode (anode electrode 150, Para [ 0050]) is located on the second layer of the insulating film (Fig 1, insulating film 130, Para [0053-0057]).
But OKA does not disclose explicitly second layer having a higher density than the first layer, and wherein both the first and second layers are SiO2 films, and wherein a refractive index of the first layer is lower than a refractive index of the second layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, KUME discloses second layer having a higher density than the first layer, and wherein both the first and second layers are SiO2 films (claims [5-6]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine OKA in light of KUME teaching “second layer having a higher density than the first layer, and wherein both the first and second layers are SiO2 films (claims [5-6])” for further advantage such as reliable device by using well-known material. The applicant is reminded, in this regard, that it has been held that a mere selection of known materials generally understood to be suitable to make a device, the selection of the particular material being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious. See In re Leshin 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). (See. MPEP.2144.07)
But OKA and KUME do not disclose explicitly wherein a refractive index of the first layer is lower than a refractive index of the second layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, YEN discloses wherein a refractive index of the first layer is lower than a refractive index of the second layer (Para [ 0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine OKA and KUME in light of YEN teaching “wherein a refractive index of the first layer is lower than a refractive index of the second layer (Para [ 0016])” for further advantage such as high quality and reliable Schottky device by using well-known material which incorporate different refractive index.
Regarding claim 2. OKA and KUME in light of YEN discloses the Schottky barrier diode according to claim 1, YEN further discloses wherein the refractive index of the first layer is not more than 1.44, and wherein the refractive index of the second layer is not less than 1.46 (Para [ 0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine OKA and KUME in light of YEN teaching “wherein the refractive index of the first layer is not more than 1.44, and wherein the refractive index of the second layer is not less than 1.46 (Para [ 0016])” for further advantage such as high quality and reliable Schottky device by using well-known material which incorporate different refractive index.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Regarding claim 3. OKA and KUME in light of YEN discloses the Schottky barrier diode according to claim 1, OKA further discloses wherein side surfaces of the first ( Fig 1, insulating layer 132, Para [0053- 0057]) and second layers (Fig 1, insulating layer 134, Para [0053- 0057]) of the insulating film (Fig 1, insulating film 130, Para [0053-0057]) on the anode electrode (Fig 1, anode electrode 150, Para [ 0050]) side are inclined so as to face obliquely upward (Fig 1, anode electrode 150, Para [ 0050]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights