DETAILED ACTION
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 (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.
Status of Application
In response to Office action dated 10/22/2025 (“10-22-25 OA”), Applicant filed remarks and amended specification, drawings and claims 1, 3, 4 and 9 while adding new claims 11-13 in reply dated 01/14/2026 (“01-14-26 Reply”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to specification and drawings overcome the objection to drawings as set forth under line item number 1 of the 10-22-25 OA. The replacement of 1001 with 1101 does not appear to be new matter because embodiments of Figures 9-11 all have a conductive glue as opposed to a semi-insulating layer (see page 3, line 29-page 4, line 6).
New drawing objections presented infra.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 3-4 overcome the objection to specification as set forth under line item number 2 of the 10-22-25 OA.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 render moot the indefiniteness of the units ohm/mm2, but introduce new indefinite issues presented infra.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive with respect to the indefiniteness of “semi-insulating layer”. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained.
Although MPEP § 2173 and In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) permit functional and property-based claim language in appropriate cases, such language is not automatically sufficient. The claim, read in light of the specification and prosecution history, must still inform a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) of the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty (Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014)). It does not.
1. The term “semi-insulating layer” is not a recognized term of art in the context of semiconductor packaging / die-attach adhesives.
In the semiconductor arts, “semi-insulating” (SI) is a well-established term that conventionally refers to high-resistivity bulk substrates (e.g., Si-GaAs, Si-SiC, or Si-InP, typically >10⁷ Ω·cm). It is not conventionally used to describe a thin adhesive or glue layer that bonds a lateral power device chip to a back-plate. Applicant’s specification and claims provide no structural, compositional, or trade-name definition of what actual material constitutes this “semi-insulating layer.” The mere functional recitation that it “adheres” the chip to the back-plate, combined with an extremely broad resistivity range, does not cure the ambiguity.
This situation is directly analogous to Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008), where claims using a functional/property-based term (“fragile gel”) were held indefinite despite specification support, because the boundaries remained unclear to a POSITA.
2. Even with the corrected ohm-cm units, the recited resistivity range (1×10⁴ to 1×10¹⁰ ohm-cm) is excessively broad and does not provide clear boundaries when applied to the semi-insulating layer.
The claimed six-order-of-magnitude range encompasses materials whose electrical behavior differs dramatically — from semi-conductive adhesives at the low end to near-insulators at the high end. In the specific environment of a lateral power semiconductor package, this breadth would produce vastly different vertical leakage, isolation voltage withstand, and thermal performance.
The specification mentions an ohm-cm value only once (page 7, lines 25-28: “0.5e9 ohm-cm”), a single narrow example that provides no support for the outer boundaries of the range. Neither the provisional, the drawings including Figure 7, nor any other disclosure teaches or suggests how a POSITA would formulate or select a “semi-insulating” adhesive across this enormous spectrum. The range therefore appears arbitrary rather than a deliberate, supported limitation. See MPEP § 2173.05(g) (functional claims that merely state a result without clear boundaries are problematic).
3. The combination of the non-standard term “semi-insulating layer” + the overly broad resistivity range + the adhesive function creates compounded indefiniteness.
When the only limitations defining this critical element are (1) its functional role (adhering the chip) and (2) an extremely broad, poorly supported resistivity window, the claim fails to provide a “clear-cut indication of the scope” (MPEP § 2173.05(g)). A POSITA cannot reasonably determine where the boundaries lie — i.e., which commercial die-attach materials infringe and which do not. Applicant’s later amendment to claim 9 (reciting the layer “implemented as a conductive glue”) further demonstrates the loose, non-technical use of the term.
4. The absence of a specific chemical composition does not resolve the indefiniteness.
Applicant correctly notes that a claim need not recite a specific chemical formula. However, that does not relieve the applicant of the obligation under § 112(b) to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. When the sole quantitative limitation is an unsupported, extremely broad resistivity range applied to an ambiguously named “semi-insulating layer,” the claim fails the definiteness requirement. MPEP § 2173.05(g); see also Halliburton (supra).
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 (and all claims depending therefrom) remain indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant’s amendments to claim 3 overcome the indefiniteness of claim 3 as set forth under line item number 3 of the 10-22-25 OA, however new indefiniteness issues are introduced infra.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered but are not persuasive with respect to claim 9. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is maintained. Additionally, a the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is maintained.
The amendment to claim 9 recites, in relevant part: “the semi-insulating layer is implemented as a conductive glue, and a bottom of the semiconductor power device chip is implanted with ion for isolation.”
This limitation is not supported by the specification as originally filed and introduces new matter. The specification consistently treats the “semi-insulating layer” and “conductive glue” as distinct elements with opposite electrical properties and different functions. Applicant’s attempt to equate them is unsupported and fails the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP § 2163 (the disclosure must demonstrate that the applicant possessed the claimed subject matter as of the filing date).
1. The specification explicitly distinguishes the semi-insulating layer from conductive glue.
In the embodiments of Figures 9 and 10, the back-plate comprises a semi-insulating (but thermally conducting) portion (e.g., ceramic such as AlN with sheet resistance ≈1e10 ohm/square) to which the chip is adhered using conductive glue. The original specification states, “In this embodiment, conductive glue would be used and there is no need to control the glue thickness.” (See description of Figure 9; similar language appears for Figure 10.)
In Figure 11 (the embodiment cited by applicant for support), the original specification is even clearer:
FIG. 11 is another preferred embodiment of the invention similar to the embodiment in FIGS. 9 and 10 except the chip 1105 is treated with isolation ion implantation to control the sheet resistance to the order of 1e10 Ohm/square … Since the semi-insulation is done by ion implantation isolation on the back of the die already (functioning as the semi-insulating portions in the embodiments above), conductive glue 1101 would be used and there is no need to control the glue thickness.
The conductive glue is used precisely because the semi-insulating function has already been provided elsewhere (either by the ceramic portion of the back-plate or by ion implantation on the chip). The specification never states or suggests that the semi-insulating layer itself “is implemented as a conductive glue.”
2. The original disclosure uses “conductive glue” only in contexts where it is not the semi-insulating layer.
The semi-insulating layer is repeatedly described as having high resistivity that limits vertical leakage current (e.g., 1e4 to 1e10 ohm-cm range in claim 1; 0.5e9 ohm-cm in paragraph 0039).
“Conductive glue,” by contrast, is a low-resistivity material that would allow unrestricted vertical conduction — the very problem the invention seeks to solve with the semi-insulating layer (see prior-art discussion and the purpose of the invention throughout the specification).
Applicant’s citation to paragraph 0026 of a conductive adhesive glue and paragraph 0043 of Figure 11 actually undermines the amendment. Paragraph 0026 and paragraph 0043 describe conductive glue used only after semi-insulation is provided by ion implantation.
3. The amendment does not resolve the § 112(b) indefiniteness of claim 1 (or dependent claims).
Even after the amendment to claim 9, independent claim 1 still recites only a “semi-insulating layer” defined solely by function (adhesion) and an extremely broad resistivity range. The amendment to a dependent claim cannot cure the indefiniteness of the independent claim. Moreover, by now equating the semi-insulating layer with “conductive glue” (which has fundamentally different electrical properties), the amendment highlights rather than resolves the ambiguity in the term “semi-insulating layer.”
For the foregoing reasons:
Claims 1–13 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The amendment to claim 9 introduces new matter and fails the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
Applicant is invited to either (1) cancel the unsupported limitation or (2) point to specific, explicit support in the originally filed disclosure that shows the semi-insulating layer is a conductive glue (rather than merely using conductive glue in embodiments where semi-insulation is provided by other means).
Applicant’s amendments to independent claim 1 (i.e., warranted or unwarranted, see 112 rejections infra and arguments supra) and arguments with respect to the prior art rejections as set forth under line item number 5 of the 10-22-25 OA overcome the anticipation rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims thereof.
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art Loctite® and SUMIRESIN® insulating layers do not have the semi-insulating range of ohm-cm appear to further bolster the indefiniteness rejections and written description rejections infra, because the claimed broad range for a semi-insulating layer appears unconventional and unsupported—the Applicant’s own specification only gives one narrow example as previously discussed. It reinforces lack of possession because Applicant has not shown they possessed (or that the art recognized) materials reliably have the full claimed genus in a functional die-attach context. Further, the material of the semi-insulating layer is not disclosed even though Applicant is suggesting that the resistivity of such layer is inventive and not conventional.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Figure 11 lists reference numbers 1102 and 1104 not mentioned in the written description.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-13 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 1 recites, “an electrical resistivity of the semi-insulating layer ranges from 1e4 to 1e10 ohm-cm.” This range is unclear because the specification mentions ohm-cm one time in specification page 7, lines 25-28, “the electrical resistance of the glue would be 0.5e9 ohm-cm.” It is entirely unclear how this statement supports the claimed range in claim 1 and how Figure 7 supports the claimed range of claim 1. The claimed range appears spurious.
Further, the units throughout the provisional application and the present specification mention ohm-cm one time related to only one number while also mentioning units of ohm/square multiple times and Applicant in the 01-14-26 Reply canceled the units in unamended claim 1 of ohm/mm2. In other words, Applicant does not know what range is being claimed with respect to what units. The specification and drawings do not make clear the range or units.
Office understands in the 01-14-26 Reply that Applicant presents arguments about understanding the boundaries of a range as being clear and concise, however the indefiniteness goes beyond this issue – there is no support for the range itself, no support for the units with the range AND therefore no clarity about what is actually being claimed with respect to units and with respect to ranges.
Claim 1 recites, “a semi-insulating layer” however the claims, specification, drawings and provisional application are completely devoid of what actual material this layer comprises. Absolutely no material is mentioned in instant application with respect to the actual material that makes-up the claimed layer. This creates of zone of uncertainty. As per above, the claimed layer is only defined by a function, property or characteristic of resistivity. Refer to arguments supra.
Dependent claims 2-13 do not alleviate the indefiniteness from independent claim 1 and are rejected for incorporating the indefiniteness from claim 1.
For purpose of examination on the merits, the resistivity of the semi-insulating layer is treated as a function, property, characteristic of said layer.
Claim 3 is unclear because the semi-insulating portion is only used with the conductive glue as attachment between chip and the backplate as opposed to the semi-insulating layer used as attachment. There does appear to be a difference between these layers. Parent claim 1 recites a “semi-insulating layer” that is not combined with Figures 9-11 that uses a conductive glue. The semi-insulating layer is not the same as the conductive glue. Refer to arguments supra. The Office will not apply prior art because it would require speculative assumptions as to what was intended. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.); see also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) ("If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious-the claim becomes indefinite.").
Dependent claims 4, 12 and 13 do not alleviate the indefiniteness from claim 3 and are rejected for incorporating the indefiniteness from claim 3. The Office will not apply prior art because it would require speculative assumptions as to what was intended. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.); see also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) ("If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious-the claim becomes indefinite.").
Claim 9 is unclear with respect to ion implantation and the semi-insulating layer of parent claim 1. As per Figure 11 and paragraphs 0026 and 0043 of the present application’s USPGUB – the ion implantation method is only with respect to using a conductive glue 1101 and not with respect to a semi-insulating layer as per parent claim 1. Refer to arguments supra. The Office will not apply prior art to claim 9 and dependent claim 11 because it would require speculative assumptions as to what was intended. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.); see also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970) ("If no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject matter does not become obvious-the claim becomes indefinite."). Also refer to arguments supra.
Dependent claim 11 does not remedy the indefiniteness from claim 9 and is rejected for incorporating the indefiniteness from claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-13 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 contains 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.
Claim 1 recites, “a semi-insulating layer” however the claims, specification, drawings and provisional application are completely devoid of what actual material this layer comprises. Absolutely no material is mentioned in instant application with respect to the actual material that makes-up the claimed layer. The claimed layer is only defined by a function, property or characteristic of resistivity. Applicant does not disclose a single species (i.e., material of the semi-insulating layer) that correlates to the function, property, characteristic of resistivity (i.e., genus claim via functional language of independent claim 1).
What does applicant possess: resistivity measurements of what material?
The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant was in possession of the full scope of the claimed “semi-insulating layer” as of the filing date. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); MPEP § 2163.
The semi-insulating layer (the adhesive that attaches the lateral semiconductor power device chip to the back-plate) is claimed solely by its adhesive function plus an extremely broad resistivity range (1×10⁴ to 1×10¹⁰ ohm-cm). The specification provides no disclosure of any specific material, composition, structure, or commercial product that satisfies this limitation across the claimed scope.
What the applicant actually possesses is extremely narrow: a single resistivity measurement for “the glue” of approximately 0.5×10⁹ ohm-cm (specification page 7, lines 25-28). This one data point falls inside the claimed range but provides no reasonable support for the full six-order-of-magnitude genus, nor for the outer boundaries of 10⁴ or 10¹⁰ ohm-cm. There is no disclosure showing the applicant possessed (or even contemplated) the broad range of materials now claimed, nor any correlation between structure/composition and the required resistivity in the context of a thin die-attach adhesive. MPEP § 2163.05 (breadth of claim vs. disclosure); MPEP § 2163.03 (functional claims lacking sufficient description of how the function is achieved).
The later amendment equating the semi-insulating layer with “conductive glue” in claim 9 further demonstrates lack of possession, as the specification uses conductive glue only in embodiments where the semi-insulating function is provided by other means (back-plate portion or ion implantation), not for the attachment layer itself.
Because the disclosure fails to convey to a POSITA that the applicant possessed the full scope of the claimed semi-insulating layer, the claims fail the written description requirement. Refer to arguments supra.
Dependent claims 2-13 do not alleviate the failure to comply with the written description requirements from independent claim 1 and are rejected for incorporating the failure to comply with the written description requirements from claim 1.
For purpose of examination on the merits, the resistivity of the semi-insulating layer is treated as a function, property, characteristic of said layer.
Applicant’s do not appear to have possession of the claimed invention with respect to claim 3, dealing with the combination of parent claim 1’s semi-insulating layer in combination with the “semi-insulating portion” of claim 1 as illustrated in Figure 9. Figure 9, as discussed above in the arguments, uses a conductive glue for attachment that is different than the semi-insulating layer.
Dependent claims 4, 12 and 13 do not alleviate the failure to comply with the written description requirements from independent claim 1 and are rejected for incorporating the failure to comply with the written description requirements from claim 3.
Applicant’s do not appear to have possession of the claimed invention with respect to claim 9, dealing with ion implantation. As per Figure 11 and paragraphs 0026 and 0043 of the present application’s USPGUB – the ion implantation method is only with respect to using a conductive glue 1101 and not with respect to a semi-insulating layer as per parent claim 1. Therefore Applicant does not have possession of the ion implantation with the semi-insulating layer. The provisional application also uses conductive glue as opposed to the semi-insulating layer. Refer to arguments supra.
Dependent claim 11 does not alleviate the failure to comply with the written description requirements from independent claim 1 and is rejected for incorporating the failure to comply with the written description requirements from claim 9.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0357727 A1 to Li et al. (“Li”) in view of US 2007/0115067 A1 to Busier.
Regarding independent claim 1, Li teaches of a packaged semiconductor device (see title), comprising:
a lateral semiconductor power device chip (see title and Figure 4, number 403) comprising an upper surface (i.e., top) having at least two electrodes (see Figure 4: D,G,S atop 403; paragraph 0035) disposed thereon and a lower surface (i.e., bottom);
at least one metal lead (see Figure 4: 402, 402a, 402b: metal leads; paragraph 0035) electrically connected to a first electrode (D,G) of the at least two electrodes (D,G,S);
a back-plate 406 disposed underneath the lower surface of the chip 403; and
a semi-insulating layer 401 (see paragraph 0035, “a GaN device chip 403, comprising, e.g., a GaN grown on silicon substrate (i.e., GaN/Si), is adhered to a back-plate 406 using an electrically insulating and thermally conducting adhesive 401, such as, for example, Loctite® Ablestik™ 84-3J (Henkel Canada Corporation, Mississauga, ON) or SUMIRESIN EXCEL® CRM-1100 series (Sumitomo Bakelite Co., Ltd.).” bolded for emphasis) configured to adhere the lateral semiconductor power device chip 403 to the back-plate 406;
wherein the back-plate 406 comprises at least a metal portion (see paragraph 0035: “In this embodiment the back-plate is made entirely of metal”) that is electrically connected to a second electrode (S) of the at least two electrodes (D,G,S).
This reads on all structural limitations of claim 1.
Li does not expressly recite that the adhesive has a volume resistivity of 1×10⁴ to 1×10¹⁰ ohm-cm. As suggested by Applicant in 01-14-26 Reply with respect to CHATGPT and the Loctite® technical data sheet -- the volume resistivity is high thereby creating mainly a fully insulative adhesive as opposed to a semi-insulating layer/adhesive.
This same problem appears to be countered by Busier that wants insulation qualities from an adhesive but also transmission between different components.
Busier recites in paragraph 0013, “Attach layer 29 electrically isolates bias compensation device 19 from flag 12 and output amplifier 14, but provides or allows for thermal conductance, contact, coupling, or transmission between bias compensation device 19, flag 12 and output amplifier 14.” Therefore, there is insulating properties from attached layer 29 and also transmission properties. Further, this layer is a thermoplastic and has a volume resistivity of 1.0 x 109 ohm-cm that overlaps the claimed range and therefore makes the claimed range prima facie obvious.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that combining Busier’s attach layer with Li’s invention would have been beneficial in order to obtain both insulative and transmission properties in the optimum magnitude of both properties.
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches in paragraph 0035, wherein the back-plate 406 (“In this embodiment the back-plate is made entirely of metal”) comprises only a metal portion and underlies the lateral semiconductor power device chip 403.
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches in Figure 4 wherein respective electrical connections between the at least first (D, G)) and second (S) electrodes and at least one metal lead (402) and the metal portion of the back-plate 406 are established by bond wires (i.e., 405a, 405b and 405c).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches in Figure 4 wherein: the lateral semiconductor power device chip 403 is a field-effect transistor (FET; see paragraph 0034) ; wherein the first electrode is a gate electrode G and is electrically connected to a first metal lead 402b; wherein the second electrode is a source electrode S and is electrically connected to the metal portion of the back-plate 406; wherein a third electrode is a drain electrode D and is electrically connected to a second metal lead 402a.
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches in Figure 5 wherein: the lateral semiconductor power device chip 503 is a FET (see paragraph 0034); wherein the first electrode is a gate electrode G and is electrically connected to a first metal lead 502b; wherein the second electrode is a drain electrode D and is electrically connected to the metal portion of the back-plate 506; wherein a third electrode is a source electrode S and is electrically connected to a second metal lead 502a.
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches wherein: the lateral semiconductor power device chip comprises a GaN (see paragraph 0034), GaN/GaN, GaN/Si, or GaN/ceramic technology.
Regarding claim 10, Li in combination with Busier make obvious wherein the semi-insulating layer is of a property such that a vertical leakage current versus voltage saturates at a voltage greater than 800V (i.e., Busier teaches of the attach layer 29 that overlaps the claimed volume resistivity range as claimed in claim 1…therefore in combination with the device of Li….. the layer 29 as applied to Li would necessarily have the saturation as claimed. Basis in fact is that Busier teaches of a semi-insulating layer that when applied to the device of Li would have the required saturation because this appears to be an inherent property of this specific material. Since the examiner has met or exceeded his burden of producing evidence with the basis in fact above, the burden has shifted to the Applicants to show otherwise).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
28 April 2026
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights