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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Applicant Election filled on 02/17/2026. Currently, claims 1-18 are pending in the application. Claim 8 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Species I (Figures 1-2), claims 1-7 and 9-18, in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsujimura et al (US 20010008285 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 2 of Tsujimura discloses a nitride semiconductor device comprising:
an SiC substrate (21, n-type 6H-SiC , [0081]) of a hexagonal crystal system (6H-SiC is a hexagonal crystal system, [0081]) that has a first main surface (surface of 21 in contact with 22) and a second main surface (surface of 21 in contact with 32) at an opposite side thereof; and
a nitride epitaxial layer (22-25, layers are grown on 21 epitaxially, [0081] and [0089]) that is formed on the first main surface; and
wherein the first main surface has an off angle of greater than 1° with respect to a c-plane of the hexagonal crystal (two degrees, [0027] and [0082], (0001) is the c-plane in the hexagonal crystal system).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 2 of Tsujimura discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first main surface (surface of 21 at 22) has the off angle that is inclined at an angle of not less than 1° and not more than 8° in a [11-20] direction with respect to the c-plane of the hexagonal crystal (two degrees, [0027] and [0082], (0001) is the c-plane in the hexagonal crystal).
Regarding claim 3, Figure 2 of Tsujimura discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first main surface (in contact with 22) has the off angle that is inclined at an angle of not less than 2° and not more than 6° in a [11-20] direction with respect to the c-plane of the hexagonal crystal (two degrees, [0027] and [0082], (0001) is the c-plane in the hexagonal crystal).
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 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 of this title, 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 1-7, 9 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Saxler et al (US 20060226412 A1) in view of Tsujimura et al (US 20010008285 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses a nitride semiconductor device comprising:
an SiC substrate (1010, [0080] and [0120]) that has a first main surface (at the interface of 1015) and a second main surface (at the interface of 1090) at an opposite side thereof; and
a nitride epitaxial layer (530, [0009] and [0097]) that is formed on the first main surface.
Saxler does not explicitly teach that the SiC substrate of a hexagonal crystal system, wherein the first main surface has an off angle of greater than 1° with respect to a c-plane of the hexagonal crystal.
However, Tsujimura is a pertinent art which teaches a nitride semiconductor formed on a SiC substrate, wherein Tsujimura teaches the substrate 11 may also be made of GaN, SiC, Si, Spinel, ZnO, GaAs or the like, instead of sapphire. Also, the substrate 11 may be of n-type, p-type or insulating. The plane orientation of the substrate 11 is not necessarily defined by a low-index plane. Alternatively, the plane orientation of the substrate 11 may be defined by an inclination in a certain direction. For example, if the substrate 11 is made of SiC, the zone axis thereof may be inclined from the (0001, c-plane) plane of 4H-SiC by two degrees in the [11-20] direction for reducing lattice mismatch with the layers grown on the substrate ([0027] and [0082]), wherein (0001) is the c-plane in the hexagonal crystal.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the SiC substrate of a hexagonal crystal system in the device of Saxler, wherein the first main surface has an off angle of greater than 1° with respect to a c-plane of the hexagonal crystal according to the teaching of Tsujimura in order to reduce lattice mismatch between the substrate (1010, Figure 11 of Saxler) and the layers grown on the substrate ([0081]-[0082] of Tsujimura).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 11 of Saxler in view of Tsujimura teaches that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first main surface has the off angle that is inclined at an angle of not less than 1° and not more than 8° in a [11-20] direction with respect to the c-plane of the hexagonal crystal (two degrees, [0027] and [0082] of Tsujimura, (0001) is the c-plane in the hexagonal crystal).
Regarding claim 3, Figure 11 of Saxler in view of Tsujimura teach that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first main surface has the off angle that is inclined at an angle of not less than 2° and not more than 6° in a [11-20] direction with respect to the c-plane of the hexagonal crystal (two degrees, [0027] and [0082] of Tsujimura, (0001) is the c-plane in the hexagonal crystal).
Regarding claim 4, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the nitride epitaxial layer (530, [0100]) comprises: a first nitride semiconductor layer that constitutes an electron transit layer and a second nitride semiconductor layer that is disposed on the first nitride semiconductor layer, constitutes an electron supply layer, and is higher in bandgap than the first nitride semiconductor layer (GaN/AlGaN HEMT meets the limitation considering GaN as the first nitride semiconductor layer and AlGaN as the second semiconductor layer, wherein AlGaN has higher bandgap than GaN, [0008] and [0122]).
Regarding claim 5, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 4, comprising: a semi-insulating nitride layer (520, [0097]) that is disposed between the SiC substrate (1010) and the first nitride semiconductor layer (GaN of 530) and with which an acceptor concentration is higher than a donor concentration (concentration formed between the layers due to the difference in materials).
Regarding claim 6, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 5, comprising: a buffer layer (not shown, [0114]) that is disposed between the SiC substrate (1010) and the semi-insulating nitride layer (520) and is constituted of a nitride semiconductor ([0114]).
Regarding claim 7, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 4, comprising: a source electrode (540, [0098]); a drain electrode (550); and a gate electrode (560, [0098]) that are disposed on the second nitride semiconductor layer (530); a back electrode (1090, [0120]) that is formed on the second main surface; and a conductive member (1080, [0120]) that penetrates through the nitride epitaxial layer and the SiC substrate (1010) and electrically connects the source electrode to the back electrode (1090).
Regarding claim 9, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 4, wherein the first nitride semiconductor layer (GaN in 530 for HEMT device) is constituted of a GaN layer and the second nitride semiconductor layer is constituted of an AlGaN layer ([0007] and [0122]).
Regarding claim 13, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein the nitride epitaxial layer (530, [0122]) comprises: a first nitride semiconductor layer that constitutes an electron transit layer and a second nitride semiconductor layer that is disposed on the first nitride semiconductor layer, constitutes an electron supply layer, and is higher in bandgap than the first nitride semiconductor layer (GaN/AlGaN HEMT meets the limitation considering GaN as the first nitride semiconductor layer and AlGaN as the second semiconductor layer, wherein AlGaN has higher bandgap than GaN, [0008] and [0122]).
Regarding claim 14, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 3, wherein the nitride epitaxial layer (530) comprises: a first nitride semiconductor layer that constitutes an electron transit layer and a second nitride semiconductor layer that is disposed on the first nitride semiconductor layer, constitutes an electron supply layer, and is higher in bandgap than the first nitride semiconductor layer (GaN/AlGaN HEMT meets the limitation considering GaN as the first nitride semiconductor layer and AlGaN as the second semiconductor layer, wherein AlGaN has higher bandgap than GaN, [0008] and [0122]).
Regarding claim 15, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 13, comprising: a semi-insulating nitride layer (520, [0097]) that is disposed between the SiC substrate (1010) and the first nitride semiconductor layer (530, [0098]) and with which an acceptor concentration is higher than a donor concentration (acceptor concentration is higher than a donor concentration since 520 is Fe doped, [0090]).
Regarding claim 16, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 14, comprising: a semi-insulating nitride layer (520, [0090]) that is disposed between the SiC substrate (1010) and the first nitride semiconductor layer (530) and with which an acceptor concentration is higher than a donor concentration (acceptor concentration is higher than a donor concentration since 520 is Fe doped, [0090]).
Regarding claim 17, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 15, comprising: a buffer layer (1015, [0114]) that is disposed between the SiC substrate (1010) and the semi-insulating nitride layer (520) and is constituted of a nitride semiconductor ([0114]).
Regarding claim 18, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 16, comprising: a buffer layer (1015, [0114]) that is disposed between the SiC substrate (1010) and the semi-insulating nitride layer (520) and is constituted of a nitride semiconductor ([0114]).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Saxler et al (US 20060226412 A1) in view of Tsujimura et al (US 20010008285 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of HUANG et al (US 20100295100 A1).
Regarding claims 10-12, Figure 11 of Saxler discloses that the nitride semiconductor device according to claim 5, wherein the first nitride semiconductor layer (530) is constituted of a GaN layer ([0122]), the second nitride semiconductor layer is constituted of an AlGaN layer, and the semi-insulating nitride layer (520) is constituted of a GaN layer that contains iron ([0090]), wherein the first nitride semiconductor layer (530) is constituted of a GaN layer, the second nitride semiconductor layer is constituted of an AlGaN layer (considering GaN/AlGaN HEMT, [0122]), the semi-insulating nitride layer is constituted of a GaN layer, and the buffer layer is constituted of a laminated film of an AlN layer formed on the first main surface and an AlGaN layer that is laminated on the AlN layer or wherein the first nitride semiconductor layer is constituted of a GaN layer ([0090]), the second nitride semiconductor layer is constituted of an AlGaN layer, the semi-insulating nitride layer is constituted of a GaN layer that contains iron ([0090]), and the buffer layer is constituted of an AlN layer or an AlGaN layer ([0061]).
Saxler in view of Tsujimura does not teach that the GaN layer contains carbon.
However, HUANG is a pertinent art which teaches a HEMT device, wherein HUANG teaches that to make the GaN layer 14 semi-insulating it may be doped during the growth process with a dopant, such as iron or carbon ([0017] and [0019]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use carbon instead of iron according to the teaching of HUANG in order to reduce cost and availability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material such as carbon instead of ion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights