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 .
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.
Claim 13-24 is 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.
a. As to claims 13 and 24 it is unclear how side surfaces of the fins are the same or different than sides surfaces of the trench, they appear to be one in the same. This makes the claim confusing since it requires a separate fin sidewall and gate trench sidewall but the two object are the same the trench sidewall is the fin sidewall.
b. As to claim 22, It is unclear how the SiC and the GaN GaO is related to the method and the formation of the transistor. It is unclear if the SiC GaN GaO is the starting material or an additional material provided for layer. If the starting material is SiC GaN GaO applicant should link the elements properly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 13-15,17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patti 20190221652 in view of Zhang (previously cited).
a. As to claim 13, Patti teaches A method for producing a field-effect transistor, comprising the following steps: providing a starting material including (figure1 item 2): a gate trench defining at least two fines (item 6 with the mesa regions 2 being fins) , wherein a fin of the fin is defined by the gate trench (figure 1); modifying at least a part of a surface layer of the starting material (regions 12 figure 4 and item 14 figure 5), wherein the part of the surface layer includes side surface layers on side surfaces of each fin/trench gate of the plurality of fins and bottom surface layers on bottom surfaces of the gate trenches item 12 and 14) to obtain a modified surface layer item 14; and at least partially removing at least part of the modified surface layer in such a way that a width of the each fin of the plurality of fins is reduced (figure 5 d3 to figure 7 part of item 14 is removed).
Patti does not teach a plurality of gate trenches.
Zhang teaches a plurality of gate trench item 130.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a plurality of gate trenches for forming a plurality of Field effect transistor for the desired integration and to use know feature to provide expected outcomes of multiple transistors on the same substrate.
b. As to claim 14, Patti teaches wherein the modifying of at least the part of the surface layer includes carrying out an ion implantation (implant region 8 goes into making region 12 which makes a portion of region 14 paragraph 18).
c. As to claim 15, Patti teaches wherein the modifying of at least the part of the surface layer includes creating a porosity in at least the part of the surface layer (region 12).
d. As to claim 17, Patti teaches wherein the at least partial removal of at least the part of the modified surface layer takes place by etching (paragraph 38 and 39)
e. As to claim 18, Patti teaches HF etching (wet chemical) and hot gas etching (plasma).
f. AS to claim 19, Patti teaches, wherein a mask has been or is applied to upper sides of the plurality of fins prior to the modification (item 4 figure 1), and wherein the mask is removed only after the at least partial removal of at least the part of the modified surface layer (fig. 8 item 4 is removed).
g. As to claim 20, Patti/Zhang do not explicitly teach wherein the width of each fin of the plurality of fins is reduced to a value equal to or less than 300 nm by the at least partial removal of at least the part of the modified surface layer.
However, applicant has shown no unexpected results for such sizes. Further sizes of 300nm and less for the active fin of trench gates were known at the time of filing.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reduce the fin to be less than 300 nm to use conventional size to provide expected outcome of narrow active/channel regions for trench gate devices improving channel cutoff from the gates.
h. As to claim 21, Patti/Zhang do not explicitly teach wherein the width of each fin of the plurality of fins prior to the modification is a value equal to or greater than 30 nm.
However, removal of such thickness was known at the time of filing.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the removal such that wherein the width of each fin of the plurality of fins prior to the modification is a value equal to or greater than 30 nm.
For the desire active region/channel width and to use know method to produce expected outcomes.
i. As to claim 22, Applicant does not link the material to the starting material. It is noted Patti does not teach the starting material is SiC.
Zhang teaches SiC paragraph 20.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time filing to provide the starting material of Patti as SiC for the larger band gap for higher voltage applications.
j. As to claim 23, Patti/Zhang teaches wherein each fin of the plurality of fins are formed as a channel layer (item 30 acts as a channel).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patti in view of Nathera previously cited.
Patti teaches anodizing to make the porous structure (paragraphs 23-24).
Nathera teaches the photo chemical etching can be used to form porous silicon (abstract and conclusion).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have form the porous silicon via photochemical etching to use conventional method to provide predictable results with controlled porosity (conclusion of Nathera).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Zhang previously cited.
Claim 24 is product by process
As per MPEP 2113 section I:
I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) (Claim was directed to a novolac color developer. The process of making the developer was allowed. The difference between the inventive process and the prior art was the addition of metal oxide and carboxylic acid as separate ingredients instead of adding the more expensive pre-reacted metal carboxylate. The product-by-process claim was rejected because the end product, in both the prior art and the allowed process, ends up containing metal carboxylate. The fact that the metal carboxylate is not directly added, but is instead produced in-situ does not change the end product.). Furthermore, “[b]ecause validity is determined based on the requirements of patentability, a patent is invalid if a product made by the process recited in a product-by-process claim is anticipated by or obvious from prior art products, even if those prior art products are made by different processes.” Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., 580 F.3d 1340, 1370 n. 14, 92 USPQ2d 1289, 1312, n. 14 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See also Biogen MA Inc. v. EMD Serono, Inc., 976 F.3d 1326, 1334, 2020 USPQ2d 11129 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Biogen is certainly correct that the scope of composition and method of treatment claims is generally subject to distinctly different analyses. But where, as here, the novelty of the method of administration rests wholly on the novelty of the composition administered, which in turn rests on the novelty of the source limitation, the Amgen analysis will necessarily result in the same conclusion on anticipation for both forms of claims.”); United Therapeutics Corp. v Liquidia Techs., Inc., 74 F.4th 1360, 1373, 2023 USPQ2d 862 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (the court held that product-by-process claims were properly rejected as “anticipated by a disclosure of the same product irrespective of the processes by which they are made.”); and Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 117 USPQ2d 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, in the context of an infringement analysis, a product-by-process claim is only infringed by a product made by the process recited in the claim. Id. at 1370 (“a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim, but an accused product made by a different process cannot infringe a product-by-process claim”).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) (holding “interbonded by interfusion” to limit structure of the claimed composite and noting that terms such as “welded,” “intermixed,” “ground in place,” “press fitted,” and “etched” are capable of construction as structural limitations). See also In re Nordt Dev. Co., 881 F.3d 1371,1375-76, 125 USPQ2d 1817, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(holding “the specification demonstrates that ‘injected molded’ connotes an integral structure,” and discussing several cases since Garnero that held “limitations to convey structure even when they also describe a process of manufacture”).
The structure claim 24 requires trench gates and mesa/fins between the trench gates.
Zhang teaches base/starting material (figure 7 item 104106,118) a plurality of trench gates in the starting material defining a plurality of fins (items 140 and 140 being the trenches) the mesas on either side and in the middle the fins. Thus, Zhang teaches the required structure of claim 24 and anticipates the device claim
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does not address the product by process interpretation of claim 24. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself not the method used to provide the device.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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 F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights