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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
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 1-2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al (US 2016240655A1) in view of Lin et al (CN 111945119A).
Re claim 1 Masuda teaches, a method for manufacturing a semiconductor element, the method comprising:
Preparing a semiconductor structure body (fig 8) that comprises a p-side layer (13, fig 8) [0068] and an n-side layer ( 14, fig 8) [0068];
forming a first carbon film (20, fig 9) [0077] on the p-side layer (13, fig 8)[0068] by vapor deposition [0068],
forming a second carbon film (21, fig 9) [0078] on the n-side layer (14, fig 9) [0079] by the vapor deposition [0007];
removing the first carbon film [0061]; and
removing the second carbon film [0061];
Masuda does not teach the vapor deposition utilizing carbon ions generated by an arc discharge without introducing a gas to a discharge space, the discharge space being a vacuum and
a first bias voltage during the forming of the first carbon film is higher than a second bias voltage during the forming of the second carbon film.
Lin teaches, the vapor deposition utilizing carbon ions generated by an arc discharge (arc evaporation) [page 3 para 10] without introducing a gas to a discharge space, the discharge space being a vacuum [ page 3 para10-11] and
a first bias voltage during the forming of the first carbon film is higher than a second bias voltage during the forming of the second carbon film. [page 17, para 9].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lin into the structure of Masuda to include the vapor deposition utilizing carbon ions generated by an arc discharge space being a vacuum and a first bias voltage during the forming of the first is higher than a second carbon film as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda based on the teaching of Lin in the above manner for the purpose of improving properties of the film [page 5, para 8].
Re claim 2 Masuda in view of Lin teaches, the method according to claim 1,
Masuda does not teach a hydrogen composition ratio of the first carbon film is not more than 1% and a hydrogen composition ratio of the second carbon film is not more than 1%.
Lin does teach a hydrogen composition ration of the first carbon film and second carbon film [page 6, para 4].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lin into the structure of Masuda to include a hydrogen composition ratio of the first carbon film is not more than 1% and a hydrogen composition ratio of the second carbon film is not more than 1% as claimed. Parameters such as ratio of a material in the art of semiconductor process are subject to routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired device characterization during fabrication.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda based on the teaching of Lin in the above manner for the purpose of improving properties of the device.
Re claims 8 and 9 Masuda in view of Lin teach the method according to claim 1,
Masuda and Lin do not teach, the first bias voltage is not less than -40 V and not more than -10 V and second bias voltage is not less than -200 V and not more than -140 V.
Lin does teach the first bias voltage is not less than -40 V and not more than -10 V and second bias voltage is not less than -200 V and not more than -140 V. [Page 3 para 6, 7].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Lin into the structure of Masuda to include the first bias voltage is not less than -40 V and not more than -10 V and second bias voltage is not less than -200 V and not more than -140 V in order to optimize the performance of the device. Furthermore, it has been held that where then general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art , In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore, it has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir 1990).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda modified by Lin as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hata et al (JP2004260152A) and Xing et al (US 20020037637A1)
Re claim 3 Masuda in view of Lin teach the method according to claim 1,
In the first carbon film, a ratio of carbon in Sp3 hybridized orbital is greater than a ratio of carbon in Sp3 hybridized orbitals [Page2 para |,[Page 3, para 1].
Masuda and Lin do not tech the p-side layer is located on the n-side layer and the
method further comprises exposing a portion of the n-side layer from under the p-side layer by etching the p-side layer by using the first carbon film as a first mask.
Hata teaches, the p-side layer (205, fig 36) [page 29, para 4] is located on the n-side layer (202, fig 36) [202, para 3] and the method further comprises exposing a portion of the n-side layer (202, fig 37) [page 29 para 3] from under the p-side layer (205, fig 37) by etching the p-side layer (205, fig 37) [page para 4].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Hata into the structure of Masuda and Lin to include the p-side layer is located on the n-side layer and the method further comprises exposing a portion of the n-side layer from under the p-side layer by etching the p-side layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda and Lin based
on the teaching Hata in the above manner for the purpose of suppressing the emission characteristics of the device from deteriorating.
Masuda, Lin and Hata etching the layer using the first carbon film as a first mask.
Xing does teach etching the layer (fig 2C) using the first carbon film (122, fig 2A) [0016] as a first mask [0015-0016].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Xing into the structure of Masuda, Lin and Hata to include etching the layer using the first carbon film as a first mask as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda, Lin and Hata based on the teaching of Xing in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve the desired results such as sidewall profile angle [0016].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda modified by Lin as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Prechtl et al (US 20170365520A1).
Re claim 10 Masuda in view of Lin teach the method according to claim 1,
Masuda and Lin do not tach the semiconductor structure body comprises InxAlyGa1-x-yN (0 < x < 1, 0 < y < 1, and x+y< 1).
Prechtl teaches “layer 33 InxAlyGa(1−x−y)N with x and y as well as x+y ranging between 0 and 1 may be epitaxially deposited on the GaN-layer 32 to form the heterojunction 104.” [0052].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Prechtl into the structure of Masuda and Lin to include the semiconductor structure body comprises InxAlyGa1-x-yN (0 < x < 1, 0 < y < 1, and x+y< 1) as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda and Lin based on the teaching of Prechtl in the above manner for the purpose of able to control very large current [0003].
Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin , 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda modified by Lin and Prechtl as applied to claims 1 and 10 and further in view of Uda et al (US20110223694A1).
Re claim 12 Masuda in view of Lin and Prechtl teach the method according to claim 10, wherein: in the step of forming the first carbon film the first carbon film (20, fig 8) [0073] directly contacts the p-side layer (13, fig 8) [0068]; and
in the step of forming the second carbon film the second carbon film (21, fig 8) [0029] contacts the n-side layer (14, fig 8) [0068].
Masuda, Lin and Prechtl do not teach the second carbon film directly contacts the n-side layer.
Uda teaches the second carbon film (bottom 61, fig 6) [0054] directly contacts the n-side layer (1, fig 6) [0048].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Uda into the structure of Masuda, Lin and Prechtl to include the second carbon film directly contacts the n-side layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda, Lin and Prechtl based on the teaching of Uda in the above manner for the purpose of improving the yield of the of the semiconductor device [0009].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda modified by Lin as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Uda et al (US20110223694A1).
Re claim 11 Masuda in view of Lin teach the method according to claim 1, wherein: in the step of forming the first carbon film the first carbon film (20, fig 8) [0073] directly contacts the p-side layer (13, fig 8) [0068]; and
in the step of forming the second carbon film the second carbon film (21, fig 8) [0029] contacts the n-side layer (14, fig 8) [0068].
Masuda and Lin do not teach the second carbon film directly contacts the n-side layer.
Uda teaches the second carbon film (bottom 61, fig 6) [0054] directly contacts the n-side layer (1, fig 6) [0048].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Uda into the structure of Masuda and Lin to include the second carbon film directly contacts the n-side layer as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda and Lin based on the teaching of Uda in the above manner for the purpose of improving the yield of the of the semiconductor device [0009].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda modified by Lin as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Hata et al (JP2004260152A) and Xing et al (US 20020037637A1).
Re claim 13 Masuda in view of Lin teach the method according to claim 1,
Masuda and Lin do not tech exposing a portion of the n-side layer from under the p-side layer by etching the p-side layer by using the first carbon film as a first mask.
Hata teaches, exposing a portion of the n-side layer (202, fig 37) [page 29 para 3] from under the p-side layer (205, fig 37) by etching the p-side layer (205, fig 37) [page para 4].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Hata into the structure of Masuda and Lin to include exposing a portion of the n-side layer from under the p-side layer by etching the p-side layer by using the first carbon film as a first mask as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda and Lin based
on the teaching Hata in the above manner for the purpose of suppressing the emission characteristics of the device from deteriorating.
Masuda, Lin and Hata etching the layer using the first carbon film as a first mask.
Xing does teach etching the layer (fig 2C) using the first carbon film (122, fig 2A) [0016] as a first mask [0015-0016].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Xing into the structure of Masuda, Lin and Hata to include etching the layer using the first carbon film as a first mask as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda, Lin and Hata based on the teaching of Xing in the above manner for the purpose of to achieve the desired results such as sidewall profile angle [0016].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda modified by Lin, Hata and Xing as applied to claims 1 and 13 and further in view of Sakuma et al (US 10347650 B1).
Re claim 14 Masuda, Hata and Xing teach the method according to claim 13.
Masuda, Hata and Xing do not teach etching the semiconductor structure body by using the second carbon film as a second mask to form a groove in the semiconductor structure body.
Sakuma teaches etching the semiconductor structure body (125b, fig 17) [col 10 line 34-35] by using the second carbon film (143, fig 17) [col 10, lines 62-63] as a second mask to form a groove (144, fig 17) [col 10, lines 62-63] in the semiconductor structure body (125b, fig 17) [col 10, line 64].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Sakuma into the structure of Masuda, Hata and Xing to include etching the semiconductor structure body by using the second carbon film as a second mask to form a groove in the semiconductor structure body as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda, Hata and Xing based on the teaching of Sakuma in the above manner for the purpose of improving the characteristics of the device [col 11, line 16].
Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007);
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda modified by Lin, Hata, Xing and Sakuma as applied to claims 1 and 13 and further in view of Moore et al (US 20060038212 A1).
Re claim 16 Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing teach the method according to claim 13,
Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing do not teach in the first carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals.
Moore teaches in the first carbon film a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals. ( the first amorphous carbon layer 20 is formed having a greater amount of sp3 hybridized carbon than sp2 hybridized carbon) [0039].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Moore into the structure of Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing to include in the first carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing in the above manner for the purpose to desired to have a memory device with an architecture that permits efficient surface area usage [0004].
Re claim 18 Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing teach the method according to claim 14,
Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing do not teach in the second carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals.
Moore teaches, in the second carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals. (the second amorphous carbon layer 22 is formed having a greater amount of sp3 hybridized carbon than sp2 hybridized carbon) [Moore, 0043].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Moore into the structure of in the second carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals to include in the second carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing in the above manner for the purpose to desired to have a memory device with an architecture that permits efficient surface area usage [0004].
Duplication of Parts in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) for multiple first material layers and multiple second material layers.
Claims 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda modified by Lin, Hata and Xing as applied to claims 1 and 13 and further in view of Moore et al (US 20060038212 A1).
Re claim 15 Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing teach the method according to claim 13
Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing do not teach in the first carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals.
Moore teaches in the first carbon film a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals. ( the first amorphous carbon layer 20 is formed having a greater amount of sp3 hybridized carbon than sp2 hybridized carbon) [0039].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Moore into the structure of Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing to include in the first carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing in the above manner for the purpose to desired to have a memory device with an architecture that permits efficient surface area usage [0004].
Duplication of Parts in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) for multiple first material layers and multiple second material layers.
Re claim 19 Masuda, Lin, Hata, Xing and Moore teach the method according to claim 15, wherein: in the second carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals. (the second amorphous carbon layer 22 is formed having a greater amount of sp3 hybridized carbon than sp2 hybridized carbon) [Moore, 0043].
Re claim 17 Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing teach the method according to claim 13
Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing do not teach in the second carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals.
Moore teaches in the second carbon film a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals. (the second amorphous carbon layer 22 is formed having a greater amount of sp3 hybridized carbon than sp2 hybridized carbon) [0043].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching taught by Moore into the structure of Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing to include in the second carbon film, a ratio of carbon in sp3 hybridized orbitals is greater than a ratio of carbon in sp2 hybridized orbitals as claimed.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Masuda, Lin, Hata and Xing in the above manner for the purpose to desired to have a memory device with an architecture that permits efficient surface area usage [0004].
Duplication of Parts in re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) for multiple first material layers and multiple second material layers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submit “ Masuda absolutely does not tech forming its carbon films 20, 21 by vapor deposition. On the contrary, Masuda teaches away from the use of vapor deposition” page 9.
The examiner respectfully disagrees,
Masuda in para 0029 fig 8 teaches forming a first carbon film 20 on the p-side layer and forming the second film 21 on the n-side layer then removing the first carbon layer film and removing the second carbon film, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The cited reference expressly identifies chemical vapor deposition (CVD) [0040, 0078] as one method for forming the carbon film. A reference teaches way only when it criticizes or otherwise discourages a person of ordinary skill in the art from using the claimed approach. Here, the reference does not state that CVD technique is unsuitable or inoperable for forming the carbon layer. Accordingly, the reference continues to teach forming the carbon layer by CVD, and therefore does not teach away from the claimed limitation of forming the first and second carbon films by deposition.
Masuda does not explicitly tach forming the first carbon film and second carbon film by the vapor deposition utilizing carbon ions generated by an arch discharge in a vacuum. Reference Lin teaches in the step S3 depositing the first carbon film layer specifically a first carbon containing target is evaporated using first arc evaporation source to deposit the first carbon containing film layer, similarly in step S4, depositing a second carbon-containing film layer, particularly the second carbon containing target is evaporated using a second arc evaporation source to deposit a second carbon containing film layer. Hence a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the arc evaporation technique in Lin reference is a known vapor deposition process (as evidenced by Mattox, ScienceDirect, PVD processes Pages 409-410, Sept 2001) capable of producing carbon films with controlled thickness and uniformity.
Furthermore, Since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007); Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’ s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atlantic & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). See MPEP § 2143.02.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PRATIKSHA J LOHAKARE whose telephone number is (571)270-1920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7.30 am-4.30 pm.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at 571-270-3829. 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.
/PRATIKSHA JAYANT LOHAKARE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
6/29/26
Prosecution Insights