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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/19/2023 and 5/31/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/2026.
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 3 and 8 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 3 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, 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.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make a clear determination of whether or not a specific value reasonably constitutes as being “about 1 nm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
Claim 8 recites the terms “about” in line 2 of the claim, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, 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.
For example, one of ordinary skill in the art could not make a clear determination of whether or not a specific value reasonably constitutes as being “about 1 nm” without clear upper and lower limits defined for the term “about”.
A. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Kim
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.
Claims 1, 4, 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2014/0097470 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 5 of Kim discloses a high electron mobility transistor (HEMT), comprising:
a substrate 11 (“substrate”- ¶0058);
a channel layer 20 (“channel layer”- ¶0058) on the substrate 11;
a barrier layer 30 (“channel supply layer”- ¶0069, which forms a barrier with 410- ¶0069) on the channel layer 20;
a p-type gallium nitride (GaN) layer 430 (“depletion forming layer… p-GaN layer”- ¶0072) on the barrier layer 30;
an n-type interfacial layer 80 (“n-type semiconductor layer”- ¶0083) on the p-type GaN layer 430; and
a gate electrode 50 (“gate electrode”- ¶0058) on the n-type interfacial layer 80.
Regarding claim 4, Figure 5 of Kim discloses wherein the n-type interfacial layer 80 directly contacts the p-type GaN layer 430.
Regarding claim 10, Figure 5 of Kim discloses wherein the channel layer 20 comprises gallium nitride (GaN), indium gallium nitride (InGaN), or aluminum gallium nitride (AIGaN) (¶0061).
Regarding claim 11, Figure 5 of Kim discloses wherein the barrier layer 30comprises aluminum nitride (AIN), AIGaN, aluminum indium nitride (AIInN), or aluminum indium gallium nitride (AIInGaN) (¶0062).
Regarding independent claim 19, Figure 5 of Kim discloses a high electron mobility transistor (HEMT), comprising:
a substrate 11 (“substrate”- ¶0058);
a channel layer 20 (“channel layer”- ¶0058) on the substrate 11;
a barrier layer 30 (“channel supply layer”- ¶0069, which forms a barrier with 410- ¶0069) on the channel layer 20;
a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) layer 2DEG (¶¶0007, 0061) formed between the channel layer 20 and the barrier layer 30,
a p-type gallium nitride (GaN) layer 430 (“depletion forming layer… p-GaN layer”- ¶0072) on the barrier layer 30;
an n-type interfacial layer 80 (“n-type semiconductor layer”- ¶0083) on the p-type GaN layer 430; and
a gate electrode 50 (“gate electrode”- ¶0058) on the n-type interfacial layer 80.
Regarding claim 20, Figure 5 of Kim discloses wherein the 2DEG layer 2DEG comprises an opening (i.e., the space at the center of 2DEG), and wherein a width of at least one of the p-type GaN layer 430, the n-type interfacial layer 80, or the gate electrode 50 corresponds to a width of the opening of the 2DEG layer 2DEG.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Kim.
Regarding claim 3, Figure 5 of Kim discloses wherein the n-type interfacial layer 80 comprises a thickness.
Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the n-type interfacial layer comprises a thickness of about 1 nm to about 5 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness of the n-type interfacial layer within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Kim in view of Nanjo et al. (US 2022/0199821 A1, hereinafter “Nanjo”).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 5 of Kim discloses wherein the n-type interfacial layer 80 comprises an n-type dopant such as silicon (¶0084)
Kim does not expressly disclose wherein the n-type interfacial layer comprises a nitrogen vacancy.
Figure 1 of Nanjo discloses an n-type interfacial layer 5 (“n-type impurity region”- ¶0248) which comprises either an n-type dopant such as silicon or a nitrogen vacancy (¶0248).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim such that the n-type interfacial layer comprises a nitrogen vacancy as taught by Nanjo for the purpose of substituting art recognized equivalents known to be used for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06), specifically utilizing a suitable and well-known configuration to instill an n-type impurity within a layer (Nanjo ¶0248).
B. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Chen
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2018/0166565 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figure 1L of Chen discloses a high electron mobility transistor (HEMT), comprising:
a substrate 102 (“substrate”- ¶0016);
a channel layer 120 (“channel layer”- ¶0021) on the substrate 102;
a barrier layer 130 (“active layer”- ¶0028, which forms a band gap discontinuity (i.e., a type of barrier) with 120- ¶0028) on the channel layer 120;
a p-type gallium nitride (GaN) layer 140a (“p-GaN layer”- ¶0033) on the barrier layer 130;
an n-type interfacial layer 150 (“n-GaN… layer”- ¶0038) on the p-type GaN layer 140a; and
a gate electrode 172 (“gate electrode”- ¶0052) on the n-type interfacial layer 150.
Regarding claim 6, Figure 1L of Chen discloses the HEMT further comprising a silicon nitride (SiN) layer 170 (“gate dielectric layer… silicon nitride”- ¶0051) between the n-type interfacial layer 150 and the gate electrode 172.
Regarding claim 9, Figure 1L of Chen discloses wherein the gate electrode 172 comprises at least one of titanium (Ti), titanium nitride (TiN), titanium aluminide (TiAI), or tungsten (W) (¶0052).
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Chen.
Regarding claim 7, Figure 1L of Chen discloses wherein the SiN layer 170 comprises a composition ratio of silicon to nitrogen (¶0051).
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein the SiN layer comprises a composition ratio of silicon to nitrogen that is greater than 1.
However, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the composition ratio of silicon to nitrogen in the SiN layer to be a result effective variable affecting properties of the SiN layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the composition ratio of silicon to nitrogen in the SiN layer to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 8, Figure 1L of Chen discloses wherein the SiN layer 170 comprises a thickness.
Chen does not expressly disclose wherein the SiN layer comprises a thickness of about 1 nm to about 500 nm.
However, it would have been obvious to form the thickness of the SiN layer within the claimed range, since it has been held by the Federal circuit that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
C. Prior-art rejections based at least in part by Miura
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miura et al. (US 2018/0308968 A1, hereinafter “Miura”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Figures 1 and 17 of Miura, specifically the overall configuration shown in Figure 1 implemented with the S4 configuration shown in Figure 17 (¶0120), disclose a high electron mobility transistor (HEMT), comprising:
a substrate SUB (“substrate”- ¶0051);
a channel layer S2 (“channel layer”- ¶0059) on the substrate SUB;
a barrier layer S3 (“barrier layer”- ¶0061) on the channel layer S2;
a p-type gallium nitride (GaN) layer S43a (“pGaN layer”- ¶0119) on the barrier layer S3;
an n-type interfacial layer S43c (“nGaN”- ¶0119) on the p-type GaN layer S43a; and
a gate electrode GE1 (“gate electrode”- ¶0060) on the n-type interfacial layer S43c.
Regarding claim 5, Figures 1 and 17 of Miura disclose wherein the n-type interfacial layer S43c and the gate electrode GE1 form a Schottky contact (¶0122).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Okawa (US 2016/0380091 A1), which discloses a semiconductor device comprising a gate electrode on an n-type interfacial layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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.
/JAY C CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817