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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 1: claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/08/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hikasa et al. (US 20230343868 A1; hereinafter “Hikasa”).
In re claim 1, Hikasa discloses in figs. 1-9, a semiconductor device comprising:
a first electrode 55 (¶100);
a second electrode 40 (¶54);
a silicon carbide layer 10 provided between the first electrode 55 and the second electrode 40 and including a first silicon carbide region 14 of n type (¶54-55, 57);
a titanium nitride layer 30 (¶74) provided between the first electrode 55 and the first silicon carbide region 10; and
an intermediate layer 33 provided between the titanium nitride layer 30 and the first silicon carbide region 10 and containing silicon nitride (¶77).
In re claim 8, Hikasa discloses in figs. 1-9, the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the silicon carbide layer 10 further includes (see fig. 1),
a second silicon carbide region of n type 13 provided between the first silicon carbide region 14 and the second electrode 40 (¶57),
the second silicon carbide region 13 being in contact with the second electrode 40, and
the second silicon carbide region 13 has an n-type impurity concentration (e.g., n+) higher than an n-type impurity concentration (e.g., n-) of the first silicon carbide region 14 (¶58).
In re claim 9, Hikasa discloses in figs. 1-9, the semiconductor device according to claim 8, wherein the silicon carbide layer 10 further includes
a third silicon carbide region of p type (15 on the left) (fig. 1; ¶78) provided between the first silicon carbide region 14 and the first electrode 55 and
a fourth silicon carbide region of p type (15 on the right) (fig. 1; ¶78) provided between the first silicon carbide region 14 and the first electrode 55, and
a part of the first silicon carbide region 14 is provided between the third silicon carbide region (15 on the left) and the fourth silicon carbide region (15 on the right).
Claim(s) 1, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hikasa et al. (US 20230343868 A1; hereinafter “Hikasa”), in an alternative interpretation.
In re claim 1, Hikasa discloses in figs. 1-9, a semiconductor device comprising:
a first electrode 70 (¶99);
a second electrode 40 (¶54);
a silicon carbide layer 10 provided between the first electrode 70 and the second electrode 40 and including a first silicon carbide region 14 of n type (¶54-55, 57);
a titanium nitride layer 50 (fig. 2; ¶112) provided between the first electrode 70 and the first silicon carbide region 10; and
an intermediate layer 61 provided between the titanium nitride layer 50 and the first silicon carbide region 10 and containing silicon nitride (¶136).
In re claim 2, Hikasa discloses in figs. 1-9, the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the intermediate layer 61 and the first silicon carbide region 10 are in contact with each other, and the intermediate layer 61 and the titanium nitride layer 50 are in contact with each other.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikasa, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Cahoon et al. (WO 2019060589 A1; hereinafter “Cahoon”).
In re claim 3, Hikasa discloses in figs. 1-9, the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Hikasa does not expressly disclose wherein the titanium nitride layer is polycrystalline.
In the same field of endeavor, Cahoon discloses in figs. 9A-9B, a semiconductor device (e.g., a Schottky diode) wherein a surface coating layer comprising a titanium nitride layer and wherein titanium nitride layer is polycrystalline (page 14, 3rd-4th paragraphs of the attached English translation of Cahoon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Cahoon into the device of Hikasa and arrive at the claimed invention to improve or otherwise alter the reflection and movement of the electrons (see page 14, 2nd paragraph of Cahoon).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikasa, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20060281331 A1; hereinafter “Wang”).
In re claim 5, Hikasa discloses in figs. 1-9, the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Hikasa does not expressly disclose wherein the intermediate layer includes a first portion and a second portion provided between the first portion and the first silicon carbide region, and a nitrogen atom concentration of the first portion is higher than a nitrogen atom concentration of the second portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses in fig. 5, a semiconductor device,
wherein an intermediate dielectric layer 503, 504, 505 under an electrode 506 includes a first portion 504a and a second portion 503 provided between the first portion 504a and the first silicon carbide region, and
a nitrogen atom concentration of the first portion 504a is higher than a nitrogen atom concentration of the second portion 503 (¶31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teachings of Wang into the device of Hikasa and arrive at the claimed invention to enhance charge retention characteristics of the device (¶6, 31 of Wang).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikasa, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yuda et al. (US 20190267237 A1; hereinafter “Yuda”).
In re claim 6, Hikasa discloses in figs. 1-9, the semiconductor device according to claim 1. Hikasa does not expressly disclose wherein the intermediate layer has a thickness of equal to or more than 0.5 nm and equal to or less than 3 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, Yuda discloses in figs. 1A-1B, a semiconductor device 10 (e.g., a Schottky barrier diode; ¶36) wherein an intermediate layer 7 containing SiN has a thickness of equal to or more than 0.3 nm and equal to or less than 5 nm (¶49-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of SiN intermediate layer of Hikasa based on the teachings of Yuda and arrive at the claimed range to maintain the trade of between tunneling effect when a forward bias is applied to the semiconductor device to increase the forward current and suppressing effect of the occurrence of oxidation-reduction reactions at the pn interface (¶49-52 of Yuda).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikasa, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20230317861 A1; hereinafter “Chen”).
In re claim 7, Hikasa discloses in figs. 1-9, the semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first silicon carbide region 14 has an n-type impurity concentration of more than 1 x 1015 cm-3 and less than 1 x 1017 cm-3 (¶58); which overlaps the claimed range of equal to or more than 1 x 1016 cm-3 and equal to or less than 5 x 1017 cm-3.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, Obviousness of Ranges
Referring to MPEP § 2144.05, “…the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results over the prior art range.” (See also MPEP § 716.02 for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concentration on n-type drift region based on the teachings of Hikasa and arrive at the claimed invention to control the reverse breakdown voltage of the drift layer (see ¶34 of Chen).
Allowable Subject Matter
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.
Regarding claim 4, closest prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not expressly disclose wherein the titanium nitride layer includes a plurality of crystal grains in contact with the intermediate layer, and crystal axes of the plurality of crystal grains are oblique to each other, in combination with all other limitations cited in claims 1 and 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm 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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights