DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the response filed on 12/16/25.
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 § 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 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25, and 49 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.
Claims 1, 8-9, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 49 recite the term “about”. The term "about" is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite; it is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “About” is defined as "almost or nearly—used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claims are rejected 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.
Claims 2-3, 5, 8-13, 15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25 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 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-11, 25, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kub et al. (U.S. 2017/0358670 A1; “Kub”) as evidenced by teaching reference Graebner (“Thermal Conductivity of Diamond.” In: Pan, L.S., Kania, D.R. (eds) Diamond: Electronic Properties and Applications. The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. Springer, Boston, MA, 1995) and/or Kardys (“What is the Ultimate Dielectric Material? Diamond Materials, Part 4”, 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Kub discloses a semiconductor device, comprising:
A Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) ([0031]);
A gate contact (118, Fig. 7) on the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) ([0031]);
A field plate (702, Fig. 7) overlapping the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) ([0082]); and
A thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) overlapping the gate contact (118, Fig. 7) ([0048]), the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) between the field plate (702, Fig. 7) and the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7), the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) directly contacting the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) (when optional diamond nucleation layer 116 and optional first dielectric 114 are omitted; [0052]).
Kub discloses the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) is a diamond layer ([0048]) and diamond has a thermal conductivity of at least about 80 W/(m·k) (See e.g., Graebner, 7.1 Introduction).
Regarding claim 8, Kub discloses the thermally conductive passivation layer is a diamond layer (122, Fig. 7) ([0048]) and diamond has a dielectric constant within the range of about 3.9 and about 30 (see e.g., Kardys, p 6).
Regarding claim 9, Kub discloses the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) is a diamond layer ([0048]) and diamond has a breakdown field strength of about 3 MC/cm or greater (see e.g., Kardys, p 6-7).
Regarding claim 10, Kub discloses the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) is a diamond layer ([0048]).
Regarding claim 11, Kub discloses the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) implicitly has a thickness ([0048]) but does not disclose that thickness is between 50 nm and 300 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a thermally conductive passivation layer thickness of between 50 nm and 300 nm, 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.
Regarding claim 25, Kub discloses the semiconductor device comprises a high electron mobility transistor device ([0082]).
Regarding claim 49, Regarding claim 1, Kub discloses a method comprising:
Forming a Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) ([0031]);
Forming a gate contact (118, Fig. 7) on the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) ([0031]);
Forming a field plate (702, Fig. 7) overlapping the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) ([0082]); and
Forming a thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) overlapping the gate contact (118, Fig. 7) ([0048]), the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) between the field plate (702, Fig. 7) and the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7), the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) directly contacting the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) (when optional diamond nucleation layer 116 and optional first dielectric 114 are omitted; [0052]).
Kub discloses the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) is a diamond layer ([0048]) and diamond has a thermal conductivity of at least about 80 W/(m·k) (See e.g., Graebner, 7.1 Introduction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15, 17-18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub et al. (U.S. 2017/0358670 A1; “Kub”) as evidenced by teaching reference Graebner (“Thermal Conductivity of Diamond.” In: Pan, L.S., Kania, D.R. (eds) Diamond: Electronic Properties and Applications. The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. Springer, Boston, MA, 1995) and/or Kardys (“What is the Ultimate Dielectric Material? Diamond Materials, Part 4”, 2018) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okamoto (U.S. 2020/0343156 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kub discloses a gate contact (118, Fig. 7) and a field plate (702, Fig. 7) ([0031], [0082]) but does not further disclose an overlying heat spreading structure. However, Okamoto discloses a heat spreading structure (7, Fig. 1) overlying and overlapping an entire transistor device ([0053], [0058]-[0060]). This has the advantage of dissipating thermal energy from the transistor device. Incorporating the heat spreading structure of Okamoto into the device of Kub would result in the heat spreading structure overlapping the gate contact and the field plate because the latter components are part of the transistor device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Kub with a heat spreading structure overlapping the gate contact and field plate, as taught by Okamoto, so as to dissipate thermal energy.
Regarding claim 13, Okamoto discloses at least one of the one or more heat spreading layers has a thermal conductivity of at least about 80 W/(m·k) ([0066]).
Regarding claim 15, Okamoto discloses the heat spreading structure (7, Fig. 1) may comprise diamond ([0067]) and diamond has a dielectric constant within the range of about 3.9 and about 30 (see e.g., Kardys, p 6).
Regarding claim 17, Okamoto discloses Okamoto discloses the heat spreading structure (7, Fig. 1) may comprise aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, or diamond ([0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Okamoto discloses the heat spreading structure (7, Fig. 1) implicitly has a thickness but does not disclose that thickness is between 1 micron and 100 microns. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a heat spreading structure thickness of between 1 micron and 100 microns, 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.
Regarding claim 23, Kub discloses the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) is a diamond layer ([0048]). Okamoto discloses the heat spreading structure (7, Fig. 1) may comprise non-diamond layers such as aluminum nitride or silicon carbide ([0067]).
Claim(s) 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub et al. (U.S. 2017/0358670 A1; “Kub”) as evidenced by teaching reference Graebner (“Thermal Conductivity of Diamond.” In: Pan, L.S., Kania, D.R. (eds) Diamond: Electronic Properties and Applications. The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. Springer, Boston, MA, 1995) and/or Kardys (“What is the Ultimate Dielectric Material? Diamond Materials, Part 4”, 2018) in view of Okamoto (U.S. 2020/0343156 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Pei et al. (U.S. 2016/0118460 A1; “Pei”).
Regarding claim 20, Kub and Okamoto disclose the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (Kub: 108, Fig. 7) (Kub: [0031]) is on (“on top of”) a substrate (Kub: 102, Fig. 7) (Kub: [0031]) and there is an overlying heat spreading structure (Okamoto: 7, Fig. 1) ([0053], [0058]-[0060]). Yet, Kub and Okamoto do not disclose the heat spreading structure is thermally coupled to the substrate through one or more thermally conductive vias. However, Pei discloses a source contact (13, Fig. 7) thermally coupled to a substrate (11, Fig. 7) through one or more thermally conductive vias (40, Fig. 7) ([0075]). This has the advantage of aiding in heat dissipation of the semiconductor device. Incorporating the thermally conductive vias of Pei into the device of Kub and Okamoto would result in the heat spreading structure being thermally coupled to the substrate through the one or more thermally conductive vias since the source contact (Okatmoto: 5, Fig. 1) is thermally coupled to the heat spreading structure (Okamoto: 7, Fig. 1) (Okamoto: [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Kub and Okamoto with the heat spreading structure is thermally coupled to the substrate through one or more thermally conductive vias, as taught by Pei, so as to aid in additional heat dissipation of the semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 24, Kub, Okamoto, and Pei disclose the substrate (Kub: 102, Fig. 7) comprises silicon carbide (Kub: [0031]).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub et al. (U.S. 2017/0358670 A1; “Kub”) in view of Pei et al. (U.S. 2016/0118460 A1; “Pei”).
Regarding claim 38, Kub discloses a semiconductor die, comprising:
A substrate (102, Fig. 7) ([0031]);
A Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) ([0031]) having an active region, the active region associated with one or more unit device cells, each unit device cell comprising a transistor device ([0082]);
A heat spreading structure (122, Fig. 7) on (“on top of”) the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7), wherein the heat spreading structure (122, Fig. 7) comprises diamond ([0048]).
Yet, Kub does not disclose one or more vias thermally coupling the heat spreading structure to the substrate. However, Pei discloses one or more thermally conductive vias (40, Fig. 7) thermally coupled to a substrate (11, Fig. 7) ([0075]). This has the advantage of aiding in heat dissipation of a transistor device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Kub with the heat spreading structure thermally coupled to the substrate through one or more thermally conductive vias, as taught by Pei, so as to aid in additional heat dissipation of the transistor device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25, and 49 are and were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 due to the inclusion of the word “about” (in at least claims 1, 8-9, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 49), which renders the claim(s) indefinite. Applicant argues that the term “about” is definite because paragraph [0042] of the Specification states that “about” includes values within 10% of a nominal value (Remarks, pp 7). However, the examiner does not find this sufficiently definite because the term “about” is not specifically defined as that only within ±10% of a nominal value, merely that “about” includes values within 10% of a nominal value. Said another way, paragraph [0042] suggests that values within 10% can be considered sufficiently enough to be “about” a target value, but the language in the Specification (“includes”) is open ended as to an upper bound by which a deviation is no longer “about” a target value. Thus, paragraph [0042] of the Specification does not sufficiently define the term “about” as used in claims 1, 8-9, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 49 and the use of the term “about” renders claims 1-3, 5, 8-13, 15, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25, and 49 indefinite.
Claim 1 is and was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kub et al. (U.S. 2017/0358670 A1; “Kub”) as evidenced by teaching reference Graebner (“Thermal Conductivity of Diamond.” In: Pan, L.S., Kania, D.R. (eds) Diamond: Electronic Properties and Applications. The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. Springer, Boston, MA, 1995) and/or Kardys (“What is the Ultimate Dielectric Material? Diamond Materials, Part 4”, 2018).
Applicant argues that Kub does not disclose the following limitations as required by claim 1 (Remarks, pp 8-9):
A) The thermally conductive passivation layer is between the field plate and the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure;
B) The thermally conductive passivation layer is directly contacting the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure.
Regarding (A), Examiner has correlated the “thermally conductive passivation layer” with diamond layer 122 (Fig.7), has correlated the “field plate” with metal field plate 702 (Fig. 7) and has correlated the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure with AlGaN barrier layer 108 (Fig. 7). As seen in the Examiner Annotated Fig. 7 of Kub below, there is at least a portion of the thermally conductive passivation layer (122, Fig. 7) which is vertically between a portion of the field plate (702, Fig. 7) and the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7). Thus, Kub teaches the limitation of that the thermally conductive passivation layer is between the field plate and the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
446
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding (B), Examiner has correlated the “thermally conductive passivation layer” with diamond layer 122 (Fig.7) and has correlated the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure with AlGaN barrier layer 108 (Fig. 7). In Fig. 7 of Kub, the thermally conductive passivation (122, Fig. 7) is directly on top of the “optional diamond nucleation layer” (116, Fig. 7), which is directly on top of the “optional first dielectric” (114, Fig. 7), which is directly on top of the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7). Examiner notes that layers 114 and 116 are both indicated as “optional” ([0034], [0042]). “Optional” has a plain definition of as not compulsory or required (Webster’s Online Dictionary). Thus, when layers 114 and 116 are omitted as they are not compulsory or required, then the thermally conductive passivation (122) would be directly on top of and in direct contact with the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108). Thus, Kub teaches the limitation that the thermally conductive passivation layer is directly contacting the Group III-nitride semiconductor structure.
Claim 38 is and was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub et al. (U.S. 2017/0358670 A1; “Kub”) in view of Pei et al. (U.S. 2016/0118460 A1; “Pei”). Kub teaches nearly all of the claimed limitations (see claim 38 rejection above) including a heat spreading structure (122, Fig. 7) on (“on top of”) a Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) but does not disclose one or more vias thermally coupling the heat spreading structure to the substrate. However, Pei discloses one or more thermally conductive vias (40, Fig. 7) thermally coupled to a substrate (11, Fig. 7) ([0075]) which advantageously aides in heat dissipation of a transistor device.
Applicant argues that Pei is not sufficient to cure the deficiencies of Kub because Pei does not disclose the thermally conductive vias (40, Fig. 7) are coupled to a heat spreading structure (Remarks, pp 9-10). Examiner respectfully disagrees because combination of the thermally conductive vias (40, Fig. 7) of Pei incorporated into the device of Kub which includes a heat spreading structure (122, Fig. 7) on (“on top of”) a Group III-nitride semiconductor structure (108, Fig. 7) would result in the feature of thermally conductive vias coupled to a heat spreading structure. Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking reference(s) individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the combination of Kub in view of Pei teaches all the limitations of claim 38.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening 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 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 3/11/26