Acknowledgment
The amendment filed on February 20, 2026 responding to the Office Action mailed on February 4, 202 has been entered. This Office Action fully considers the amendments to the pending application in which claims 1 to 20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner's action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. See MPEP 714.02.
Rejection of Claims 4, 11 and 19 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Applicant argues that ‘rich’ is not meant as a term of relative terminology (degree) and further ‘trap-rich’ is a known in the art, citing Silvaco for the proposition, see Remarks at page 7. Examiner is persuaded and withdraws the rejections of claims 4, 11 and 19 accordingly.
Rejections of claims 1-3 and 6 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Applicant argues novelty of the amended subject matter ‘said source and drain being monocrystalline semiconductor material’. See Remarks at page 9, noting that Hurwitz is silent as to the structure of the source/drain which are implanted (with Arsenic). Examiner agrees that Hurwitz does not explicitly teach the source/drain contacts are not monocrystalline semiconductor material i.e., no amorphized, see Non-Final Office Action at paragraph 33. While Applicant’s arguments are sound with respect to rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) they fail to confront Examiner’s finding of fact that Christensen teaches that desirability of a monocrystalline silicon interface to produce the desirably high conductivity NiSi rather than less desirable NiSi2 phase.
Turning to Applicant’s arguments with regard to Christensen, Applicant argues Christensen does not teach implanting ions without amorphizing the material. Applicant has failed to confront Examiner’s finding of fact when Christensen is read for all it teaches. Specifically, Christensen teaches the desirability the NiSi, the desirable low resistivity phase of Hurwitz’s nickel silicide contacts, and further that using a monocrystalline surface to form a low resistivity NiSi contact is a means to ensure the result, see Non-Final Office Action at paragraph 35. Does Applicant contend that an artisan reading Christensen for all that is taught would not conclude that implantation conditions, fluence and energy, lower than an amorphization threshold for monocrystalline silicon would not be a natural, indeed compelling, result to produce low source drain contact resistance? Examiner is unpersuaded that modification of Hurwitz’s structure, with conventional means, modulating implant dose energy and fluence, to preserve a mono-crystalline source-drain interface thus enabling formation of a low contact resistance NiSi borders is merely a de minimis use of common sense.
Applicant argues that Christensen assumes the silicon is pre-amorphised, see Remarks at page 13, but makes now reference to Christensen for that proposition, nor does the conclusory statement confront the totality of Christensen’s teaching.
Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant relies on the argument above to assert patentability of claims rejected pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 and fails to confront any defect in Examiner’s analysis of the relevant prior art to make a case prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly. Applicant fails to distinctly point to errors in Examiner’s action and is not entitled to reconsideration.
Notation
References to patents will be in the form of [C:L] where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of [xxxx].
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2017/0338321 (Hurwitz), Christensen, M., et al. “Formation of nickel-platinum silicides on a silicon substrate: Structure, phase stability, and diffusion from ab initio computations.” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 114, no. 3, 19 July 2013, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4816094 (Christensen) and Dennis, John R., and Edward B. Hale. “Crystalline to amorphous transformation in ion-implanted silicon: A composite model.” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 49, no. 3, 1 Mar. 1978, pp. 1119–1127, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.325049 (Dennis).
PNG
media_image1.png
572
823
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 Hurwitz discloses at annotated Figure 3H a radio frequency (RF) switch comprising:
a semiconductor-on-insulator (SOI) substrate, 301/302/303 [0028], including a handle wafer, 301 [0028], a buried oxide, 302 [0028], over said handle wafer, as shown, and a thin semiconductor layer, 303 [0028], over said buried oxide, as shown;
a transistor, 300 [0027], in said thin semiconductor layer, as shown, said transistor including a gate, 307 [0029], a source, 304A [0032], a drain, 305A [0032];
said thin semiconductor layer having a thickness less than approximately four hundred angstroms (400 Å), i.e., less than 1000 A;
nickel silicides, 331-333 [0037-38], on said source and said drain, as shown, said nickel silicides in an upper portion of said thin semiconductor layer, as shown.
PNG
media_image2.png
817
1075
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hurwitz teaches nickel silicide with a platinum additive are to be formed on the source drain regions to improve device performance.
Hurwitz does not explicitly teach said source and said drain being monocrystalline material.
PNG
media_image3.png
384
1038
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Christensen is directed to the chemistry and physics of nickel silicide formation with Pt additives over a silicon substrate. Christensen reports that Ni formed on amorphous silicon forms mostly the NiSi2 phase which has undesirable resistivity. Further in the case of a crystalline silicon substrate, that Pt will preferentially segregate to the silicon crystal lattice surfaces, low energy sites, which stabilizes the formation of the desired NiSi phase. At Figure 6, Christensen teaches that Ni in the presence of Pt on a crystalline silicon surface proceeds to form the desirable NiSi phase at the conclusion of silicidation.
PNG
media_image4.png
553
543
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Dennis is directed to modeling and measurement of ion implant processes which amorphize monocrystalline silicon. At Table II, Dennis reports that a critical dose of a heavy ion, e.g., Kr, is less than 0.5E14 cm/2 at 20 Kev at 300 K which preserves silicon crystallinity. At Figure 5, Dennis teaches a variety of doses and energies for heavy ions, e.g. As, that preserve silicon crystallinity. (Kr has an atomic weight of ~84 and As has
PNG
media_image5.png
827
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
an atomic weight of ~75).
Taken as a whole, the prior art is directed to the integration of NiSi into silicon devices. Christensen teaches that nickel silicidation over amorphous silicon results in a predominantly high resistivity NiSi2 phase while silicidation on a crystalline silicon surface with an addition of Pt stabilizes the desirable NiSi phase while inhibiting formation of the undesirable NiSi2 phase. Dennis teaches a monocrystalline structure may be preserved with an implant dose less than a critical energy and fluence. An artisan would find it desirable to utilize a method of forming a high conductivity nickel silicide to improve device performance. An artisan would find it useful to implement Dennis’s implant conditions to maintain a source drain contact with a monocrystalline structure thus enabling the silicidation process to proceed to a NiSi phase.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure device of claim 1 wherein said source and said drain being monocrystalline semiconductor material, as taught by Christensen, to prevent the formation of a high resistance NiSi2 phase and promote the formation of a low resistance NiSi phase and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., "so as to increase maximum power handling (PMAX) of said transistor", intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Hurwitz modified by the teaching of Christensen and Dennis show all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Hurwitz's modified device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2 which depends upon claim 1, Hurwitz teaches said nickel silicides include at least one additive selected from the group consisting of molybdenum (Mo) and platinum (Pt) at [0034].
Regarding claim 3 which depends upon claim 1, Hurwitz teaches said buried oxide has another thickness of approximately two thousand angstroms (2,000 Å) to approximately six thousand angstroms (6,000 Å), i.e., 1000 to 10,000 Å [0028].
Regarding claim 6 which depends upon claim 1, Hurwitz teaches said thin semiconductor layer is monocrystalline at [0028].
Regarding claim 7 and referring to the discussion at claim 1, Hurwitz discloses 1 method of forming a radio frequency (RF) switch comprising:
providing a semiconductor-on-insulator (SOI) substrate, 301/302/303 [0028], including a handle wafer, 301 [0028], a buried oxide, 302 [0028], over said handle wafer, as shown, and a thin semiconductor layer, 303 [0038], over said buried oxide, as shown;
forming a gate, 307 [0029], of a transistor, 300 [0037], over said thin semiconductor layer, as shown;
forming a source, 304A [0032], and a drain, 305A [0032], of said transistor in said thin semiconductor layer, as shown;
said thin semiconductor layer having a thickness less than approximately four hundred angstroms (400 Å), i.e., less than 1000 Angstroms; said
forming said source and said drain of said transistor comprising implanting ions in said thin semiconductor layer, as described at [0030].
Hurwitz teaches nickel silicide with a platinum additive are to be formed on the source drain regions to improve device performance
Hurwitz does not explicitly teach implantation of source and drains without amorphising said thin semiconductor layer.
Christensen is directed to the chemistry and physics of nickel silicide formation with Pt additives over a silicon substrate. Christensen reports that Ni formed on amorphous silicon forms mostly the NiSi2 phase which has undesirable resistivity. Further in the case of a crystalline silicon substrate, that Pt will preferentially segregate to the silicon crystal lattice surfaces, low energy sites, which stabilizes the formation of the desired NiSi phase. At Figure 6, Christensen teaches that Ni in the presence of Pt on a crystalline silicon surface forms only the desirable NiSi phase.
Dennis is directed to modeling and validation of ion implant processes which amorphize silicon. At Table II, Dennis reports that a critical dose of a heavy ion, e.g., Kr, is less than 0.5E14 cm/2 at 20 Kev at 300 K and this does preserves silicon crystallinity. At Figure 5, Dennis teaches a variety of doses and energies for heavy ions, e.g. As, that preserve silicon crystallinity. Dennis teaches that Hurwitz’s implant may be modified such that the source/drain region is not amorphized.
Taken as a whole, the prior art is directed to the integration of NiSi into silicon devices. Christensen teaches that nickel silicidation over amorphous silicon results in a predominantly high resistivity NiSi2 phase while silicidation on a crystalline silicon surface with an addition of Pt stabilizes the desirable NiSi phase while inhibiting formation of the undesirable NiSi2 phase. Dennis teaches a monocrystalline structure may be preserved with an implant dose less than a critical energy and fluence. An artisan would find it desirable to utilize a method of forming a high conductivity nickel silicide to improve device performance. An artisan would find it useful to implement Dennis’s implant conditions to maintain a source drain contact with a monocrystalline structure.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure method of claim 7 wherein forming said source and drain of said transistor comprising implanting ions, as taught by Dennis, in the said thin semiconductor layer without amorphising said thin semiconductor layer, because Christensen teaches do so prevents the formation of a high resistance NiSi2 phase and promoting the formation of a low resistance NiSi phase and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., "so as to increase maximum power handling (PMAX) of said transistor", intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Hurwitz shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Hurwitz's device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 8 which depends upon claim 7, Hurwitz teaches forming nickel silicides, 331-333 [0037-38], on said source and said drain in an upper portion of said thin semiconductor layer, annotated and shown.
Regarding claim 9 which depends upon claim 8, Hurwitz teaches said nickel silicides include at least one additive selected from the group consisting of molybdenum (Mo) and platinum (Pt) at [0034].
Regarding claim 10 which depends upon claim 7, Hurwitz said buried oxide has another thickness of approximately two thousand angstroms (2,000 Å) to approximately six thousand angstroms (6,000 Å), i.e. 1000 to 10,000 A at [0028].
Regarding claim 13 which depends upon claim 7, Hurwitz teaches said thin semiconductor layer is monocrystalline at [0028].
Regarding claim 14 and referring to the discussion at claim 1 Hurwitz teaches a radio frequency (RF) device comprising
a semiconductor-on-insulator (SOI) substrate, 301/302/303 [0028], including a handle wafer, 301 [0028], a thick buried oxide, 302 [0028], over said handle wafer, as shown, and a thin semiconductor layer, 303 [0028], over said buried oxide, as shown;
a transistor, 300 [0027], in said thin semiconductor layer, as shown, said transistor including a gate, 307 [0029], a source, 304A [0032], a drain 305A [0032];
said thin semiconductor layer having a thickness less than approximately four hundred angstroms (400 Å), i.e. less than 1000 A;
said thick buried oxide having another thickness of approximately two thousand angstroms (2,000 Å) to approximately six thousand angstroms (6,000 Å), i.e., 1000 to 10,000 A.
Hurwitz teaches in the discussion of the prior art a conventional configuration for an RF switching device is at least one RF switch coupled between an RF input and an RF output, see Figure 1.
PNG
media_image6.png
504
669
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Hurwitz does not teach said source and said drain being monocrystalline semiconductor material.
Christensen is directed to the chemistry and physics of nickel silicide formation with Pt additives over a silicon substrate. Christensen reports that Ni formed on amorphous silicon forms mostly the NiSi2 phase which has undesirable resistivity. Further in the case of a crystalline silicon substrate, that Pt will preferentially segregate to the silicon crystal lattice surfaces, low energy sites, which stabilizes the formation of the desired NiSi phase. At Figure 6, Christensen teaches that Ni in the presence of Pt on a crystalline silicon surface forms only the desirable NiSi phase.
Dennis is directed to modeling and validation of ion implant processes which amorphize silicon. At Table II, Dennis reports that a critical dose of a heavy ion, e.g., Kr, is less than 0.5E14 cm/2 at 20 Kev at 300 K and this preserves silicon crystallinity. At Figure 5, Dennis teaches a variety of doses and energies for heavy ions, e.g. Kr, that preserve silicon crystallinity.
Taken as a whole, the prior art is directed to the integration of NiSi into silicon devices. Christensen teaches that nickel silicidation over amorphous silicon results in a predominantly high resistivity NiSi2 phase while silicidation on a crystalline silicon surface with an addition of Pt stabilizes the desirable NiSi phase while inhibiting formation of the undesirable NiSi2 phase. Dennis teaches a monocrystalline structure may be preserved with an implant dose less than a critical energy and fluence. An artisan would find it desirable to utilize a method of forming a high conductivity nickel silicide to improve device performance. An artisan would find it useful to implement Dennis’s implant conditions to maintain a source drain contact with a monocrystalline structure enabling the silicidation process to complete with the low resistivity NiSi phase.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure device of claim 14 as a radio frequency RF device comprising at least on RF switch coupled between an input and an RF output, because Hurwitz teaches this is a conventional configuration for an RF switching device and further wherein said RF switch comprise and source and a drain said source and said drain being monocrystalline semiconductor material, as taught by Christensen, to prevent the formation of a high resistance NiSi2 phase and promoting the formation of a low resistance NiSi phase and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In reference to the claim language referring to the functions of the device, i.e., "so as to increase maximum power handling (PMAX) of said transistor", intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). This is because “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); see MPEP 2114.
In the instant case and as explained above, Hurwitz modified by the teaching of Christensen and Dennis show all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim. From Applicant’s explanation of the functioning of the claimed device (as set forth in Applicant’s specification), it appears that any device having the specifically recited structural limitations could perform the recited function. Accordingly, it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Hurwitz's modified device and so it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 16 which depends upon claim 14, Hurwitz teaches said at least one RF device comprises a low noise amplifier (LNA) at [0014, 27].
Regarding claim 17 which depends upon claim 14, Hurwitz teaches nickel silicides, 331-333 [0037-38], on said source and said drain in an upper portion of said thin semiconductor layer.
Regarding claim 18 which depends upon claim 17, Hurwitz teaches said nickel silicides include at least one additive selected from the group consisting of molybdenum (Mo) and platinum (Pt) at [0034].
PNG
media_image7.png
874
1199
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 4, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz, Christensen, Dennis and Silvaco, RFSOI Switch Harmonics Simulations with Trap-Rich Substrate’, The Simulation Standard, p. 10-13, Oct, November, December 2019 (Silvaco).
Regarding claim 4, Hurwitz does not disclose the device claim 1, wherein said SOI substrate further includes a trap-rich layer under said buried oxide.
Silvaco reports on the improvements in RF switching performance for SOI substrates using a trap-rich layer. Silvaco teaches that the use of a trap-rich layer enables capture of free carriers forming a parasitics surface conduction region below the buried oxide layer thus allowing the substrate to maintain a high nominal resistivity leading to improved linearity.
Taken as a whole the prior art is directed to improvements in RF switching performance. Silvaco teaches trap rich layers under a buried oxide results in improved device linearity. An artisan would find it desirable to improve device linearity.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 1 wherein said SOI substrate further includes a trap-rich layer under said buried oxide because Silvaco teaches that doing so improves the device linearity and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 11 which depends upon claim 7, Hurwitz does not teach said SOI substrate further includes a trap-rich layer under said buried oxide.
Silvaco teaches a SOI substrate further includes a trap-rich layer under said buried oxide improves device linearity as discussed above.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the method of claim 7 wherein said SOI substrate further includes a trap-rich layer under said buried oxide because Silvaco teaches that doing so improves the device linearity and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 19 which depends upon claim 14, Hurwitz does not teach said SOI substrate further includes a trap-rich layer under said buried oxide.
Silvaco teaches a SOI substrate further includes a trap-rich layer under said buried oxide improves device linearity.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person or ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device claim 14 wherein said SOI substrate further includes a trap-rich layer under said buried oxide because Silvaco teaches that doing so improves the device linearity and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 5, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz, Christensen, Dennis and U.S. 2025/0063822 (Singh).
Regarding claim 5 which depends upon claim 1, Hurwitz does not teach said transistor is a fully depleted transistor.
Singh is directed to RF switching devices. At [0055], Singh teaches that a fully depleted RF switching transistor reduced harmonics in applied RF signals. An artisan would find it desirable to improve signal fidelity by reducing harmonics.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 1 wherein said transistor is a fully depleted transistor, as taught by Singh, to reduce harmonics of applied RF signals, as taught by Singh and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 12 which depends upon claim 7, Hurwitz does not teach said transistor is a fully depleted transistor.
Singh teaches fully depleted RF switching transistors reduces RF harmonics.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the method of claim 9 wherein said transistor is a fully depleted transistor, as taught by Singh, to reduce harmonics of applied RF signals, as taught by Singh and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 20 which depends upon claim 14, Hurwitz does not teach said transistor is a fully depleted transistor.
Singh teaches fully depleted RF switching transistors reduces RF harmonics.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the method of claim 14 wherein said transistor is a fully depleted transistor, as taught by Singh, to reduce harmonics of applied RF signals, as taught by Singh and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurwitz and U.S. 2023/0102053 (Xu).
Regarding claim 15 which depends upon claim 14, Hurwitz does not teach said at least one RF device comprises a single pole double throw (SPDT) switch.
Xu is directed to applications of RF switching devices at [0055] and Figure 8, Xu teaches an RF switch with a SPDT configuration.
Taken as a whole, the prior art is directed to RF switching devices. Xu teaches an RF switching device may be configures as a SPDT switch. An artisan would recognize that a SPDT RF switch offs simplicity in routing one signal between two different paths making it ideal for selecting between and antenna and a load or switching between different frequency bands in a mobile device.
Accordingly it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s invention to configure the device of claim 1 wherein said at least one RF device comprises a single pole double throw (SPDT) switch, as taught by Xu, to implement a topology to enable switching between different RF frequency bands and because the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the notice of references cited.
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 Joe Schoenholtz whose telephone number is (571)270-5475. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 7 AM to 7 PM PST.
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, Ms. Yara Green can be reached at (571) 272-3035. 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.
/J.E. Schoenholtz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights