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
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the applicant argues that Roig-Guitart discloses insulator 38 as a single layer and not as two distinct layers of silicon dioxide and aluminum oxide. This argument is not persuasive because as noted in the presentation of insulator 38 in Roig-Guitart’s invention, Roig-Guitart states that insulator 38 may be formed as a layer of silicon nitride (SiN) but may be other materials. For example, insulator 38 may be silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, or combinations thereof (Para 25). The statement clearly indicates that the insulator can be as layer formed of silicon nitride or other materials (at least silicon nitride layer). As noted, Roig-Guitart further discloses silicon dioxide or aluminum oxide as materials for the insulator –thus, meaning that insulator 38 can be a layer of silicon dioxide or a layer of aluminum oxide. In conclusion to Roig-Guitart statement, Roig-Guitart states that the insulator can be a combination of silicon dioxide and aluminum oxide. Thus, based on the understanding that insulator 38 can be a silicon dioxide layer or aluminum oxide layer, the term “combinations thereof” would suggest the insulator to be a silicon dioxide layer and aluminum oxide layer.
The applicant then further argues that the two separate layers in that "the first portion of the AIGaN layer is not covered by the first aluminum oxide layer or the first silicon dioxide layer.” This argument is also not persuasive as evident from the explanation of Roig-Guitart’s insulator 38, hereinabove. Moreover, there is no clear limitation that the claimed silicon dioxide layer and aluminum oxide layer are separate layers –it should be noted that although the drawing might depict two layers, there is no limitation in the claim dictating that they are two separate layers.
The applicant further argues that Ma does not disclose the recited "in-situ hydrogen-based plasma treatment." This argument is also not persuasive because Ma clearly discloses in paragraph 17 that
[0017] The present invention further provides a preparation method for the enhanced GaN-based HEMT device epitaxy. The method comprises: [0018] providing a substrate; and [0019] sequentially depositing a C-doped c-GaN high-resistance layer, an intrinsic u-GaN channel layer, an AlGaN barrier layer, a magnesium diffusion blocking layer, and a Mg-doped p-GaN cap layer on the substrate by using a MOCVD process, where the magnesium diffusion blocking layer comprises an Mg-doped p-AlGaN layer, Mg in the Mg-doped p-AlGaN layer is sufficiently passivated to in a Mg-H bond form through annealing in a H.sub.2 atmosphere,…...
As evident from the paragraph, the forming of the layers on the substrate is done using a MOCVD process and not plurality of MOCVD process, thus, it is evident that hydrogen treatment disclosed by Ma is done in-situ. Moreover, it should be noted that the claim is drawn to a device, thus the limitation “from an in-situ hydrogen-based plasma treatment” would not structurally distinguish the present invention from the modified invention of Roig-Guitart in view of Ma.
Note, a "product by process claim" is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in " product by process" claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. See also MPEP 2113 [R-1].
In conclusion, the rejection of claim 11 in view of Roig-Guitart and Ma is deem reasonable and would be maintained.
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 11, 14-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roig-Guitart et al [US PGUB 20210327886] in view of Ma et al. [US PGPUB 20240363694] (hereinafter Roig-Guitart and Ma).
Regarding claim 11, Roig-Guitart teaches a normally-off HEMT comprising:
a p-GaN gate (20, Para 22) on an AlGaN layer (Para 21, Fig. 1);
wherein the p-GaN gate is covered by a first aluminum oxide layer and a first silicon dioxide layer (Para 25 – insulator 38 may be silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, or combinations thereof);
wherein the AlGaN layer is comprised of a first portion of the AlGaN layer starting a first distance from the first p-GaN gate (Fig. 1; i.e.; portion of layer 19 contacting layer 28), and where the first portion of the AlGaN layer is not covered by the first aluminum oxide layer or the first silicon dioxide layer (Fig. 1).
Roig-Guitart does not specifically disclose wherein the first portion of the AlGaN layer has deactivated Mg from an in-situ hydrogen-based plasma treatment.
Referring to the Ma, Ma teaches forming a magnesium diffusion blocking layer 14 in a HEMT, wherein the magnesium diffusion blocking layer comprises a Mg-doped p-AlGaN layer on which hydrogen annealing in a hydrogen atmosphere is performed, so that Mg in the Mg-doped p-AlGaN layer 141 is sufficiently passivated to form the Mg-H bond (Para 54).
In view of such teaching by Ma, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the invention of Roig-Guitart comprising the teachings of Ma in order to block the diffusion of Mg to other layers of the device and thus reducing a specific on-resistance of the device, and improving the conducting performance of the device (Ma, Para 55).
Regarding claim 14, the modified invention specifically in view of Ma teaches wherein the deactivated Mg is comprised of Mg-H complexes from diffused hydrogen from the in-situ plasma treatment (Para 54).
Regarding claim 15, the modified invention teaches the limitation of claim 11 upon which it depends.
The modified invention does not specifically disclose wherein the first distance is at least 200 nm.
However, as noted from disclosures from Roig-Guitart, Roig-Guitart, discusses distance between different regions in the device and also discuss the thickness of layer in the nanometer range (Para 45/46). It is noted that Roig-Guitart distances relates to the efficiency of the device being formed (Para 38/42).
Thus, it seems clear that distances within the device are result-effective variable that a person having ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimal distances/dimension in the device.
It should be noted that it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. (MPEP 2144.05.II.A).
Further, the specification does not seem to contain disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 19900)"
Regarding claim 16, Roig-Guitart teaches a normally-off HEMT further comprising a plurality of metallization layers including a first metallization layer associated with a first normally-off HEMT gate (26, Para 28, Fig. 1), a second metallization layer associated with a first normally-off HEMT source (28, Para 28, Fig. 1), and a third metallization layer associated with a first normally-off HEMT drain (39, Para 29).
Regarding claim 18, Roig-Guitart teaches a normally-off HEMT, wherein the p-GaN gate comprises a TiN layer (Para 28).
Regarding claim 20, the modified invention teaches a normally-off HEMT, wherein the AlGaN layer is further comprised of a second portion of the AlGaN layer starting a second distance from the first p-GaN gate on an opposite side of the p-GaN gate then the first portion of the AlGaN layer (Roig-Guitart, Fig. 1, i.e., region in contact with material 36), and where the second portion of the AlGaN layer is not covered by the first aluminum oxide layer or the first silicon dioxide layer (Roig-Guitart, Fig. 1); and
wherein the second portion of the AlGaN layer has deactivated Mg from the in-situ hydrogen-based plasma treatment (Para 54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-10 are allowed.
Claims 12-13, 17 and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1-10 are allowed because all prior arts of record and related prior arts not of record either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious a method for manufacturing an integrated circuit comprising:
etching the first silicon dioxide layer and the first aluminum oxide layer to expose a first portion of the AlGaN layer starting a first distance from the first p-GaN gate;
treating the first portion of the AlGaN layer with an in-situ plasma treatment, wherein the in-situ hydrogen-based plasma treatment deactivates magnesium in the first portion of the AlGaN layer (as claimed in claim 1), in combination with the rest of claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights