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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/13/2023 and 8/7/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 § 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.
Claims 2, 5-7 and 11-16 are 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.
Regarding Claim 2: the claim recites “ the at least one capacitor is electrically coupled in series with the respective one of the RF input, RF output or ground terminals free of a wirebond connection’, and it is unclear what “free of a wirebond connection” modifies, making the boundary of the claim impossible to determine without reasonable certainty. In addition, “the respective one” has no clear antecedent in claim 2. A skilled person in the art cannot reasonably determine the scope. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 5-7 and 11-16 are rejected because they depend from claim 2.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimioka et. al. (US20220385246A1, hereinafter Kamioka)
Regarding Claim 1.
Kamioko teaches A radio frequency (RF) transistor die, comprising:
a semiconductor structure comprising an active region including a plurality of transistors having respective gate (#14-1 to #14-8), drain (#15-1 to #15-4), or source fingers (#33-1 to #33-8 / #16-1 ..etc);
a manifold on the semiconductor structure (gate bus bar #13) that electrically couples a plurality of the respective gate, drain, or source fingers; and
at least one capacitor (#39-1 to #39-8) on the manifold (#13) and/or on at least one of the respective gate, drain, or source fingers (capacitor #39-1 on source finger #16-1). ( Fig.3 [0032-0059])
Claims 1, 3, 8, 19, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Brindle (US6426525B1, hereinafter Brindle)
Regarding Claim 1.
Brindle teaches in Fig.5 A radio frequency (RF) transistor die, comprising:
a semiconductor structure comprising an active region including a plurality of transistors having respective gate (#32a), drain (#24a), or source fingers (#26a);
a manifold on the semiconductor structure that electrically couples a plurality of the respective gate (#30 gate manifold), drain (#24 drain manifold), or source (#26 source manifold) fingers; and
at least one capacitor (#C1) on the manifold and/or on at least one of the respective gate, drain, or source fingers. ([col 3 line21]-[col4 line 63])
Regarding Claim 3.
Brindle teaches The RF transistor die of claim 1,
Brindle further teaches wherein the manifold comprises a portion of a metal layer on the semiconductor structure that provides one of an upper or lower plate of the at least one capacitor. (Fig.5 manifold #30 is also a portion of metal layer that provides a capacitor plate #C1 ) ([col 4 line45]-[col4 line 63])
Regarding Claim 8.
Brindle teaches The RF transistor die of claim 1,
Brindle further teaches in Fig.5 wherein the manifold (#30) comprises a first metal layer on the semiconductor structure and provides a lower plate of the at least one capacitor (#C1), and wherein an upper plate (#24) of the at least one capacitor (#C1) comprises a second metal layer on the manifold (#30). ([col 4 line45]-[col4 line 63])
Regarding Claim 19.
Brindle teaches in Fig.2A/2B a radio frequency (RF) transistor die, comprising:
a semiconductor structure having first and second metal layers (Fig.2B #24 and #30) thereon and a dielectric layer (#21) between the first and second metal layers, the semiconductor structure comprising a plurality of transistors having respective gate, (#32a), drain (#24a), or source fingers (#26a);
wherein the first metal layer (Fig.2B #24 drain manifold) is on at least one of or electrically couples a plurality of the respective gate, drain, or source fingers and provides a lower plate of at least one capacitor (#C1), and the second metal layer (#30) provides an upper plate of the at least one capacitor. ([col 3 line21]-[col4 line 63])
Regarding Claim 30.
Brindle teaches in Fig.2A/2B A method of fabricating a radio frequency (RF) transistor die, the method comprising:
providing a semiconductor structure comprising a plurality of transistors having respective gate(#32a), drain (#24a), or source fingers (#26a);;
forming a first metal layer (#24) on the semiconductor structure, wherein the first metal layer is on at least one of or electrically couples a plurality of the respective gate, drain, or source fingers and provides a lower plate of at least one capacitor (C1);
forming a dielectric layer (#21) on the first metal layer; and
forming a second metal layer (#30) on the dielectric layer, wherein the second metal layer provides an upper plate of the at least one capacitor (C1). ([col 3 line21]-[col4 line 63])
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 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brindle et. al. (US6426525B1, hereinafter Brindle), and further in view of Eron et. al. (US4786881A, hereinafter Eron)
Regarding Claim 4.
Brindle teaches The RF transistor die of claim 3,
Brindle does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one capacitor comprises a dielectric layer having a thickness of about 0.01 to about 1 micrometer (μm) between the upper plate and the lower plate thereof.
However, Eron teaches wherein the at least one capacitor (#24) comprises a dielectric layer (#32) having a thickness of about 0.01 to about 1 micrometer (μm) between the upper plate and the lower plate thereof. (Fig.3 dielectric layer #32 having a thickness of about 200nm between the upper plate #34 and the lower plate #16e)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brindle’s device with the teachings of Eron, as identified above, as choosing the thickness of the dielectric layer within this range is a routine packaging/design optimization to ensure a desired capacitance value and breakdown reliability with predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10.
Brindle teaches The RF transistor die of claim 8,
Brindle does not explicitly disclose wherein the upper plate of the at least one capacitor is configured to provide a wire bond pad on the manifold.
However, Eron teaches wherein the upper plate (Fig. 2 gate pad #16e) of the at least one capacitor (#24) is configured to provide a wire bond pad on the manifold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brindle’s device with the teachings of Eron, as identified above, as this is a routine packaging design choice for RF transistor dies, yielding predictable results..
Claims 2, 5, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimioka et. al. (US20220385246A1, hereinafter Kamioka) , and further in view of Titizian et.al. (US6181200B1, hereinafter Titizian)
Regarding Claim 2.
Kamioka teaches The RF transistor die of claim 1,
Kamioka also teaches further comprising:
RF input, RF output, and ground terminals on the semiconductor structure, wherein one of the RF input, RF output, and ground terminals is electrically connected to the manifold, (for example, gate bus bar #13 connected to gate fingers #14-1 to #14-8)
Titizian teaches the at least one capacitor is electrically coupled in series with the respective one of the RF input, RF output or ground terminals free of a wirebond connection. (Fig.5 Transistor #502 mounted on metallized pad #506, #510 moved to the same metallized pad #506, by mounting, electrical coupling between capacitor #510 and transistor terminal is effectuate, and eliminates the need for wire bond connection between the capacitor and the terminal, see also Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kamioka’s device with the teachings of Titizian, as identified above, in order to reduces parasitic inductance and improves frequency response.
Regarding Claim 5.
Kamioka modified by Titizian teaches The RF transistor die of claim 2,
Kamioka further teaches wherein the manifold is a drain manifold (#36) that electrically couples the plurality of the respective drain fingers to the RF output terminal (#37), and
Titizian also teaches the at least one capacitor is electrically coupled in series with the RF output terminal. (a serious DC blocking capacitor at an output node by moving DC blocking capacitor #510 to the same metallized pad #506 as the transistor terminal, eliminating the wirebond connection between the terminal and the capacitor, see also Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kamioka and Titizian with the teachings of Titizian, as identified above, in order to reduces parasitic inductance and improves frequency response.
Regarding Claim 7.
Kamioka modified by Titizian teaches The RF transistor die of claim 2,
Kamioka further teaches wherein the manifold (#13) is a gate manifold that electrically couples the plurality of the respective gate fingers (#14-1 to #14-8) to the RF input terminal, and
Titizian also teaches the at least one capacitor is electrically coupled in series with the RF output terminal. (a serious DC blocking capacitor at an output node by moving DC blocking capacitor #510 to the same metallized pad #506 as the transistor terminal, eliminating the wirebond connection between the terminal and the capacitor, see also Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kamioka and Titizian with the teachings of Titizian, as identified above, in order to reduces parasitic inductance and improves frequency response.
Regarding Claim 17.
Kimioka modified by Titizian teaches The RF transistor die of claim 2,
Kimioka teaches in Fig.3 wherein the at least one capacitor comprises:
a first capacitor (#39-1 to #39-8 connected to #38) on the semiconductor structure electrically coupled between the RF input terminal (#11) and the ground terminal (through gate bus #38 to ground); and
Titizian further teaches
a second capacitor on the semiconductor structure and electrically coupled in series with the RF input terminal. (a serious DC blocking capacitor at an output node by moving DC blocking capacitor #510 to the same metallized pad #506 as the transistor terminal, eliminating the wirebond connection between the terminal and the capacitor, see also Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kamioka and Titizian with the teachings of Titizian, as identified above, in order to reduces parasitic inductance and improves frequency response.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brindle (US6426525B1, hereinafter Brindle), and further in view of Alcon et. al. (US20210375856A1, hereinafter Alcorn)
Regarding Claim 9.
Brindle teaches The RF transistor die of claim 8,
Brindle does not explicitly disclose further comprising:
one or more conductive pillars protruding from the upper plate of the at least one capacitor on the manifold.
However, Alcorn teaches further comprising:
one or more conductive pillars (Fig. 6B #366) protruding from the upper plate of the at least one capacitor (#375c) on the manifold. ([008-0100])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brindle’s device with the teachings of Alcorn, as identified above, in order to facilitate interconnection/packaging with reduced parasitic interconnect and such substitution yields predictable interconnect benefits.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimioka et. al. (US20220385246A1, hereinafter Kamioka), in view of Titizian et.al. (US6181200B1, hereinafter Titizian), and further in view of Eron et. al. ( US4786881A, hereinafter Eron)
Regarding Claim 11.
Kimioka modified by Titizian teaches The RF transistor die of claim 2,
Eron teaches wherein the RF input or RF output terminal comprises one or more conductive bond pads on the manifold (#16e) adjacent a periphery of the active region (drain pad #18c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kimioka and Titizian with the teachings of Eron, as identified above, as such pad formation is a routine packaging/layout choice to provide bondable terminals to integrate the pad metallization with finger-coupling structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12-16 are rejected.
Claims 6 and 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Claim 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 would be allowable, because of the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein a first portion of the drain manifold that extends adjacent a periphery of the active region; or a second portion of the drain manifold that extends over the active region along ones of the respective drain fingers. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 12 would be allowable, because of the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, ..wherein the ground terminal comprises a source pad that is electrically coupled to the plurality of the respective source fingers, and the at least one capacitor comprises a shunt capacitor that is electrically coupled between the manifold and the source pad. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 13 would be allowable, because of the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, …wherein the shunt capacitor comprises a lower plate that is electrically connected to the source pad, and an upper plate that is electrically connected to the one or more conductive bond pads on the manifold. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 14-16 would be allowable because they depends from the allowable claim 13.
Claim 18 would be allowable, because of the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, …wherein a first shunt inductance element electrically coupled between the RF input terminal and the first capacitor. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/SOPHIA W KAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817