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
Applicant’s election of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
Figure 1A should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The specification expressly recites “conventional field effect transistor layout as illustrated in Fig. 1A” (see page 4).
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 2-3, 7, 11-12 & 16 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 2 recites the limitation “a number of drain contact fingers”. Said limitation is ambiguous as it is unclear if it refers to “outer drain contact fingers” recited in claim 1 or a different feature. Correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “a source contact finger”. It is unclear if it refers to “a number of source contact fingers” in claim 2 or different feature. Correction is required.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a drain contact finger”. It is unclear if it refers to “a number of drain contact fingers” in claim 2, “outer drain contact fingers” in claim 1, or different feature/s. Correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the contact fingers of the contact configuration”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for said limitation in the claim/s.
Claims 11-12 & 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 2-3 & 7.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 & 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MIZAN et al. (US Pub. 2021/0367035).
Regarding claim 1, MIZAN teaches a field effect transistor integrated within an associated transistor area 202 (Fig. 3), the field effect transistor comprising transistor contacts having a contact configuration of interleaved contact fingers including outer drain contact fingers 206 located at opposite edges of the transistor area (see Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
926
1014
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, MIZAN teaches the field effect transistor of claim 1 wherein the transistor contacts comprise a source contact 224 connected by through wafer vias 234 to a number of source contact fingers, a drain contact including a number of drain contact fingers 206 and a gate contact 219 including a number of gate contact fingers 208 (see Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 3, MIZAN teaches the field effect transistor of claim 2 wherein each gate contact finger is provided between a source contact finger and a drain contact finger (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, MIZAN teaches the field effect transistor of claim 2 wherein the through wafer vias 234 of each source contact finger are adapted to carry equal electric current (Fig. 3, the through wafer vias 234 is capable of said functionality).
Regarding claim 5, MIZAN teaches the field effect transistor of claim 1 wherein the field effect transistor comprises a GaN transistor (Fig. 3 and Para [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, MIZAN teaches the field effect transistor of claim 1 wherein the contact fingers of the contact configuration comprise a rectangular shape and a width of the rectangular shaped drain contact fingers is less than a width of the rectangular shaped source contact fingers (see Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 8, MIZAN teaches the field effect transistor of claim 1 wherein the field effect transistor comprises a high-electron-mobility transistor including an epitaxial layer structure grown on a substrate beneath the contact configuration (Para [0059] & Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 9, MIZAN teaches the field effect transistor of claim 1 wherein the field effect transistor comprises a metal-oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor (Fig. 3, it is understood that the device 200 is a GaN based metal-oxide FET).
Regarding claim 10, MIZAN teaches a power amplifier comprising at least one field effect transistor integrated within an associated transistor area 202 (see Fig. 3), the field effect transistor comprising transistor contacts having a contact configuration of interleaved contact fingers including outer drain contact fingers 206 located at opposite edges of the transistor area (see Fig. 3 above and note the annotations).
Regarding claim 11, MIZAN teaches the power amplifier of claim 10 wherein the transistor contacts of the field effect transistor comprise a source contact 224 connected by through wafer vias 234 to a number of source contact fingers 204, a drain contact including a number of drain contact fingers 206 and a gate contact including a number of gate contact fingers 206.
Regarding claim 12, MIZAN teaches the power amplifier of claim 11 wherein each gate contact finger 208 is provided between a source contact finger 204 and a drain contact finger 206 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, MIZAN teaches the power amplifier of claim 11 wherein the through wafer vias of each source contact finger are adapted to carry equal electric current (Fig. 3, the through wafer vias 234 is capable of said functionality).
Regarding claim 14, MIZAN teaches the power amplifier of claim 10 wherein the field effect transistor comprises a Gallium Nitride or Silicon Carbide transistor (Fig. 3 & Para [0058]).
Regarding claim 16, MIZAN teaches the power amplifier of claim 11 wherein the drain contact fingers 206 and source contact fingers 204 are each rectangular shaped, and a width of the rectangular shaped drain contact fingers is less than a width of the rectangular shaped source contact fingers (see Fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 17, MIZAN teaches the power amplifier of claim 10 wherein the field effect transistor comprises a high- electron-mobility transistor including an epitaxial layer structure grown on a substrate beneath the contact configuration (Para [0059] & Fig. 3-4).
Regarding claim 18, MIZAN teaches the power amplifier of claim 10 wherein the field effect transistor comprises a metal- oxide-semiconductor field effect transistor (Fig. 3, it is understood that the device 200 is a GaN based metal-oxide FET)..
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.
Claims 6 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIZAN as applied to claims 1 & 10 above, and in further view of Vorhaus (US Pub. 2012/0086497).
Regarding claim 6, MIZAN is silent on the field effect transistor of claim 1 wherein the field effect transistor comprises a Gallium Arsenide or other compound semiconductor transistor. However, Vorhaus teaches in [Para 0005 & claim 9], wherein the field effect transistor comprises a Gallium Arsenide or other compound semiconductor transistor. This has the advantage of providing high-frequency performance, high electron mobility, low noise and lower cost. 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 MIZAN with the FET comprising GaAs, as taught by Vorhaus, so as to obtain an improved semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 15, MIZAN is silent on the field effect transistor of claim 10 wherein the field effect transistor comprises a Gallium Arsenide or other compound semiconductor transistor. However, Vorhaus teaches in [Para 0005 & claim 9], wherein the field effect transistor comprises a Gallium Arsenide or other compound semiconductor transistor. This has the advantage of providing high-frequency performance, high electron mobility, low noise and lower cost. 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 MIZAN with the FET comprising GaAs, as taught by Vorhaus, so as to obtain an improved semiconductor device.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BLIN et al. (US Pub. 2019/0206863) in view of MIZAN et al.
Regarding claim 19, BLIN teaches a wireless device 900 comprising:
a transceiver 914 configured to process radio frequency signals (Fig. 26); and
a radio frequency module 810 including at least one field effect transistor integrated within an associated transistor area 302 (see Fig. 1B).
BELIN is silent on the field effect transistor having a contact configuration of interleaved contact fingers including outer drain contact fingers located at opposite edges of the transistor area. However, MIZAN teaches a field effect transistor comprising a contact configuration of interleaved contact fingers including outer drain contact fingers 206 located at opposite edges of a transistor area 202 (Fig. 3).
This has the advantage of providing reduced real estate, faster switching speed and high efficiency that is associated with the GaN based transistors. 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 BLIN with interleaved contact fingers, as taught by MIZAN, so as to obtain an improved semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of BLIN and MIZAN teaches the wireless device of claim 19 further comprising an antenna 924 connected to the radio frequency module 810 (Fig. 26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 PM.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights