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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/11/2026 has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 8/11/2026 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amended claim 1, the applicant argues the rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) is improper because Smith (US 2002/0066908) does not disclose the newly added claim limitation of “a gate comprising a bottom surface, wherein a majority of the bottom surface is on the barrier layer”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Figure 5A and related text of Smith disclose a gate (22, [35]) comprising a bottom surface, wherein a majority of the bottom surface is on the barrier layer (16, [31]) because the limitation of “a majority of the bottom surface is on the barrier layer” does not mean that a majority of the bottom surface contacts directly the barrier layer. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 160 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 3, the limitation of “the gate-drain region” should be corrected into “a gate-drain region”. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 160, line 4, the limitation of “the gate-drain region” should be corrected into “a gate-drain region”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 3, 7-14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (US 2002/0066908).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, a device comprising:
a substrate (12, [30]);
a channel layer (14, [31]) on the substrate (12, [30]);
a barrier layer (16, [31]) on the channel layer (14, [31]), a source (18, [32]) electrically coupled to the barrier layer (16, [31]) and/or the channel layer (14, [31]);
a gate (22, [35]) comprising a bottom surface, wherein a majority of the bottom surface is on the barrier layer (16, [31]);
a drain (20, [32]) electrically coupled to the barrier layer (16, [31]) and/or the channel layer (14, [31]); and
a cap layer (30, [33]) structured, configured, and/or arranged under an edge of the gate (22, [35]) at a drain side and the cap layer (30, [33]) extending on the barrier layer (16, [31]) at least from the edge of the gate (22, [35]) on the drain side (figure),
wherein the cap layer (30, [33]) does not extend to an edge of the gate (22, [35]) on a source side (figure).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the gate (22, [35]) is partially arranged directly on the cap layer (30, [33]).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the cap layer (30, [33]) is structured, configured, and/or arranged under a lower edge of the gate (22, [35]) and the cap layer (30, [33]) extending on the barrier layer (16, [31]) into the gate-drain region.
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the cap layer (30, [33]) is structured, configured, and/or arranged under a lower edge of the gate (22, [35]) at the drain side and the cap layer (30, [33]) extending toward the drain (20, [32]).
Regarding claim 9, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the cap layer (30, [33]) is structured, configured, and/or arranged under a lower edge of the gate (22, [35]) at the drain side adjacent and on the barrier layer (16, [31]).
Regarding claim 10, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the cap layer (30, [33]) comprises an etched structure.
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the cap layer (30, [33]) comprises a single layer of material ([33]).
Regarding claim 12, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the cap layer (30, [33]) comprises multiple layers of material ([33]).
Regarding claim 13, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the cap layer (30, [33]) comprises a thickness in a range from 1 nm to 30 nm ([33]).
Regarding claim 14, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the cap layer (30, [33]) comprises AIxGa1-xN, where 0≤x≤1.
Regarding claim 17, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the cap layer (30, [33]) is arranged on an upper barrier layer surface of the barrier layer (16, [31]).
Regarding claim 19, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith further discloses, in at least figure 5A and related text, the gate (22, [35]) comprises a lower gate surface on an upper barrier layer surface (16, [31]); and
wherein the lower gate surface is arranged on the cap layer (30, [33]).
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) 18 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 2002/0066908) in view of Lu (US 2021/0167202).
Regarding claim 18, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith does not explicitly disclose the cap layer is structured and arranged partially in a protective layer and/or partially under the protective layer.
Lu teaches, in at least figure 4D and related text, the device comprising the cap layer (150, [34]) is structured and arranged partially in a protective layer (180, [62]) and/or partially under the protective layer (180, [62]), for the purpose of reducing in electric field in certain locations thereby improving the breakdown voltage ([93]).
Smith and Lu are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Smith with the specified features of Lu because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Smith to have the cap layer being structured and arranged partially in a protective layer and/or partially under the protective layer, as taught by Lu, for the purpose of reducing in electric field in certain locations thereby improving the breakdown voltage ([93], Lu).
Regarding claim 26, Smith discloses the device according to claim 1 as described above.
Smith does not explicitly disclose a field plate, wherein the cap layer is arranged at least partially under the field plate.
Lu teaches, in at least figure 4D and related text, the device comprising a field plate (170, [59]), wherein the cap layer (150, [34]) is arranged at least partially under the field plate (170, [59]), for the purpose of reducing in electric field in certain locations thereby improving the breakdown voltage ([93]).
Smith and Lu are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor device and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Smith with the specified features of Lu because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure disclosed in Smith to have the field plate, wherein the cap layer is arranged at least partially under the field plate, as taught by Lu, for the purpose of reducing in electric field in certain locations thereby improving the breakdown voltage ([93], Lu).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 2 that recite "no portion of the cap layer is disposed beneath a source-side half of the gate" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 2.
Claim 4 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 4 that recite "a minority portion of the bottom surface of the gate is arranged on the end portion of the cap layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 4.
Claim 5 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 5 that recite "a minority portion of the bottom surface of the gate is arranged on the end portion of the cap layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 5.
Claim 6 is 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 because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 1 and 6 that recite "a minority portion of the bottom surface of the gate is arranged on the end portion of the cap layer" in combination with other elements of the base claims 1 and 6.
Claims 149-165, 168-170 and 177 are allowed because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the base claims 149 that recite "a minority portion of the bottom surface of the gate is directly on at least a portion of the cap layer and the cap layer extending from an edge of the gate on the drain side toward the drain" in combination with other elements of the base claims 149.
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 TONG-HO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/TONG-HO KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights