CTNF 18/400,672 CTNF 85886 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Acknowledged Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Invention I, in the Response to Restriction Requirements filed 05/18/26 has been acknowledged. Since the Applicant did not choose a species for examination, Examiner contacted Mr. Yudong Kim, the Attorney for the application, who said that Species 1 (shown in Figs. 5B-5C) of Invention I was chosen for examination. Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-16 are read on the elected species. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 7, 11, and 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-16 are examined on merits herein. Specification 07-44 AIA The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 9 recites that a second width of the second metal contact is greater than a first width of the first metal contact; for Claim 9, dependent on Claim 1, the first metal contact is contact 502 (or 504), and the second contact is contact 402 (of Fig. 5B). But the specification does not teach that the width of contact 402 is greater than the width of contact 502 (or 504). Claim 10, dependent on Claim 9, recites that the second width is from two to five times of the first width, which is not supported by the specification. Specification is objected to since it does not recite: “a length” cited by Claim 9; moreover, it looks like the “length” of Claim 9 is the same as a “thickness” cited by the specification and by Claim 2. Appropriate correction/clarification either of the specification or the claim(s) is required . 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. Claims 8-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In re Claim 8: Claim 8 recites: “a surface of the first metal contact, a surface of the second metal contact, a surface of the third metal contact, and a surface of the first dielectric layer align along a conformal surface of the first dielectric layer”. The recitation is unclear for a few reasons. Initially, each of the contacts has top, bottom, and side surfaces, while Claim 8 does not identify a particular surface of any contact to which it refers. In addition, it is unclear what a difference is between two citations: “a surface of the first dielectric layer” and “a conformal surface of the first dielectric layer”. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language. For this Office Action, based on paragraph 0022 of the published application, US 2025/0220998, the cited recitation was interpreted as: “ top surfaces of the first metal contact, the second metal contact, and the third metal contact align along a conformal upper surface of the first dielectric layer ”. In re Claim 9: Claim 9 recites: “the second width is greater than the first width”, where, based on earlier limitations of the claim, the first width is a width of the first metal contact and the second width is a width of the second metal contact. The recitation is unclear since it is not supported by the specification of the application. In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022] inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) . Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language. For this Office Action, the cited limitation is omitted from consideration, since there is no ground to support it. In re Claim 10: Claim 10 recites: The semiconductor device of claim 9, wherein the second width is from two to five times the first width”. The recitation is unclear, since contradicts to the specification of the application, citing the same ratio with respect to widths of two openings, not to widths of two metal contacts, while the second metal contact occupies only a small portion of the second opening. In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022] inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971) . Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language. For this Office Action, Claim 10 was interpreted as: “The semiconductor device of claim 9”, e.g., the above-cited limitation of Claim 10 was omitted from consideration. In re Claim 15: Claim 15 recites: “the second dielectric layer contacts the semiconductor substrate and extends between the first side of the third metal contact and”. The recitation is unclear, since Claim 15 depends on Claim 13, which recites: “a t hird metal contact, including a first side contacting the first dielectric layer and a second side contacting a second dielectric layer ” – e.g., the recitation of Claim 15 contradicts to the recitation of Claim 13. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language. For this Office Action, the cited recitation of Claim 15 was interpreted, to be in line with Claim 13, as: “the second dielectric layer contacts the semiconductor substrate and extends between the second side of the third metal contact and”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. As far as Claims 9-10 are understood, Claims 1-3, 9-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2021/0225770). In re Claim 1 , Lin teaches a semiconductor device, comprising (Fig. 1K): a semiconductor substrate 102 (paragraph 0016); a III-N semiconductor layer 108 (created from GaN, paragraph 0021) over the semiconductor substrate 102; a contact pad 116 (as a source electrode, paragraph 0026) on the III-N semiconductor layer 108; a first dielectric layer 124 (paragraph 0032) over the III-N semiconductor layer 108; a first metal contact 152V (paragraph 0051) through the first dielectric layer 124 and contacting the contact pad 116; and a second metal contact 143 (paragraph 0057) , including a first side (as a right side) contacting the first dielectric layer 124 and a second side (as a left side) contacting a second dielectric layer 124+115+ 114 (paragraph 0030), and contacting the semiconductor substrate 102 (paragraph 0057). In re Claim 2 , Lin teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 wherein (Fig. 1K) the second dielectric layer 124+115+124 has a thickness greater than a thickness of the first dielectric layer 124. In re Claim 3 , Lin teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 (Fig. 1K): wherein the first dielectric layer 124 is aligned along a first plane; wherein the III-N semiconductor layer 108 is aligned along a second plane; and wherein the second dielectric layer 124+115+114 extends from the first plane to the second plane. In re Claim 9 , Lin teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 (Fig. 1K): wherein the first metal contact 152V has a first length through the first dielectric layer 124 and a first width orthogonal to the length (inherently); and wherein the second metal contact 143 has a second length parallel to the first length and a second width orthogonal to the second length (inherently); and wherein the second width is greater than the first width – this limitation is omitted from consideration in accordance with the claim interpretation. In re Claim 10 , Lin teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 9 as cited above and wherein the second width is from two to five times the first width (as interpreted). In re Claim 12 , Lin teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 wherein the III-N semiconductor layer comprises gallium nitride (as shown for Claim 1). In re Claim 13 , Lin teaches a semiconductor device, comprising (Fig. 1K): a semiconductor substrate 102 (paragraph 0016); a III-N semiconductor layer 108 (layer 108 being GaN, paragraph 0021) over the semiconductor substrate 102; a transistor source contact pad 116 (paragraph 0026) on the III-N semiconductor layer 108; a transistor drain contact pad 118 (paragraph 0026) on the III-N semiconductor layer 108; a first dielectric layer 124 (paragraph 0032) over each of the III-N semiconductor layer 108, the transistor source pad 116, and the transistor drain pad 118; a first metal contact 152V (paragraph 0061) through the first dielectric layer 124 and contacting the transistor source contact pad 116; a second metal contact 154V (paragraph 0061) through the first dielectric layer 124 and contacting the transistor drain contact pad 118; and a third metal contact 143 (paragraph 0057), including a first side – as a right side - contacting the first dielectric layer 124 and a second side – as a left side - contacting a second dielectric layer differing from the first dielectric layer and comprised a dielectric stack of 114, 115, and 124 (paragraph 0030), and contacting the semiconductor substrate 102 (paragraph 0057). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. As far as Claim 8 is understood, Claims 4, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Briere (US 2011/0210338). In re Claim 4 , Lin teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above, but does not teach a third metal contact, including a first side contacting the first dielectric layer and a second side contacting the second dielectric layer, and contacting the semiconductor substrate. Briere teaches (Figs. 2A-2B, paragraphs 0024-0026) a semiconductor device comprised two contacts 244 and 238 (other than source, drain, and gate contacts of a HEMT) passing through same layers (except for two bottom layers), where contact 244 directly contacts substrate 202 (paragraph 0024) and contact 238 contacts substrate 202 through epitaxial layer 204. Lin and Briere teach analogous arts directed to a III-N HEMT comprised contacts to a substrate, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Lin device in view of the Briere device, since they are from the same field of endeavor and Briere created a successfully operated device. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Lin device of Claim 1 by incorporating a third metal contact passing through same dielectric layers through which the second metal contact passes and contacting the semiconductor substrate (and adding other necessary connections, based on Briere) when it is desirable creating a semiconductor device being a high voltage switching circuit (Briere, Abstract). In re Claim 8, Lin/Briere teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 4 as cited above, including the third metal contact, per Briere, disposed in the device similar to disposition of the second metal contact, at least in its upper part. Based on the Lin structure of Fig. 1K, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application that a surface of the first metal contact, a surface of the second metal contact, a surface of the third metal contact and a surface of the first dielectric layer align along a conformal surface of the first dielectric layer – e.g., in accordance with the claim interpretation. In re Claim 14 , Lin teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 13 as cited above, but does not teach a fourth metal contact, including a first side contacting the first dielectric layer and a second side contacting the second dielectric layer, and contacting the semiconductor substrate. Briere teaches (Figs. 2A-2B, paragraphs 0024-0026) a semiconductor device comprised two contacts 244 and 238 (other than source, drain, and gate contacts of a HEMT) passing through same layers (except for two bottom layers), where contact 244 directly contacts substrate 202 (paragraph 0024) and contact 238 contacts substrate 202 through epitaxial layer 204. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Lin device of Claim 13 by incorporating a fourth metal contact passing through same dielectric layers through which the third metal contact passes and contacting the semiconductor substrate (and adding other necessary connections, based on Briere) when it is desirable creating a semiconductor device being a high voltage switching circuit (Briere, Abstract). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 contain allowable subject matter . Accordingly, the current Office Action object Claims 5-6 and 16 as being dependent on (a corresponding) rejected base claim, but Claims 5, 6, and 16 would be allowed if amended to incorporate allowable subject matter a corresponding base claim and all intervening claims. A similar approach could be applied to Claim 15 upon removing grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Reason for Identification Allowable Subject Matter Re Claim 5: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 5 as: “a metal member extended along the substrate and contacting the second metal contact and the third metal contact”, in combination with all limitations of Claims 1 and 4, on which Claim 5 depends. Re Claim 6: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 6 as: “a metal member extended across the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer and contacting the second metal contact and the third metal contact”, in combination with all limitations of Claims 1 and 4, on which Claim 6 depends. Re Claim 15: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 15, as interpreted, as: ”the second dielectric layer contacts the semiconductor substrate and extends between the second side of the third metal contact and the first side of the fourth metal contact”, in combination with all limitations of Claims 13 and 14, on which Claim 15 depends.. Re Claim 16: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 16 as: “a metal member extending between the third metal contact and the fourth metal contact”. The prior arts of record, in addition to the prior arts cited by the current Office Action above, includes at least such prior arts directed to HEMT as: Stoffels et al. (US 2017/0263700), Saxler et al. (US 2006/0226412), Udrea et al. (US 2024/0395804), and Chern et al. (US 2018/0033682), Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible). Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440. 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 visit 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. /GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800, United States Patent and Trademark Office E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov Phone: 571-270-7440 Date: 06/12/26 Application/Control Number: 18/400,672 Page 2 Art Unit: 2811 Application/Control Number: 18/400,672 Page 3 Art Unit: 2811
Prosecution Insights