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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (US Publication 20190157081).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao teaches a superlattice buffer structure (Fig. 1, 108) comprising:
a plurality of superlattice blocks comprising a first superlattice block and a second superlattice block having different average gallium compositions from one another (plurality of blocks 108-1, 108-2, 108-m, para 67, different average gallium compositions para 68),
wherein each of the plurality of superlattice blocks has a structure in which a plurality of first layers including Al(1-x)GaxN (0≤x≤1) and a plurality of second layers including Al(1-y)GayN (0≤y≤1, x>y) are alternately stacked on each other (block 108-1 with first layer 108-1-1 and second layer 108-2, para 67-68).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 2 depends.
Zhao teaches wherein each of the plurality of superlattice blocks independently comprises a dopant of at least one of carbon, iron, and magnesium (para 68, carbon).
Regarding claim 3, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim 3 depends.
Zhao teaches wherein the average gallium compositions is defined as (xxTx+yxTy)/(Tx+Ty), wherein Tx denotes a total thickness sum of a first of the plurality of first layers in a corresponding superlattice block, and Ty denotes a total thickness sum of the plurality of second layers in the corresponding superlattice block (Fig. 25, para 248).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 2 upon which claim 5 depends.
Zhao teaches wherein a doping concentration of each of the plurality of superlattice blocks increases in a stack direction of the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers (para 70).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 2 upon which claim 7 depends.
Zhao teaches wherein a doping concentration of each of the plurality of superlattice blocks is in a range of about 1E17 atoms/cm3 to about 1E21 atoms/cm3 (para 20).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1, 102);
a superlattice buffer structure on the substrate (Fig. 1, 108); and
an active layer on the superlattice buffer structure (Fig. 1, 112),
wherein the superlattice buffer structure comprises a plurality of superlattice blocks comprising a first superlattice block and a second superlattice block having different average gallium compositions from one another (plurality of blocks 108-1, 108-2, 108-m, para 67, different average gallium compositions para 68), each of the plurality of superlattice blocks has a structure in which a plurality of first layers including Al(1-x)GaxN (0_x<1) and a plurality of second layers including Al(1- y)GayN (0<y<_1, x>y) are alternately stacked on each other (block 108-1 with first layer 108-1-1 and second layer 108-2, para 67-68).
Regarding claim 10, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 9 upon which claim 10 depends.
Zhao teaches wherein each of the plurality of superlattice blocks independently comprises a dopant of at least one of carbon, iron, and magnesium (para 68, carbon).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 9 upon which claim 11 depends.
Zhao teaches wherein the average gallium compositions is defined as (xxTx+yxTy)/(Tx+Ty), wherein Tx denotes a total thickness sum of the plurality of first layers in a corresponding superlattice block, and Ty denotes a total thickness sum of the plurality of second layers in the corresponding superlattice block (Fig. 25, para 248).
Regarding claim 13, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 10 upon which claim x depends.
Zhao teaches wherein a doping concentration of each of the plurality of superlattice blocks increases in a stack direction of the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers (para 70).
Regarding claim 15, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 10 upon which claim x depends.
Zhao teaches wherein a doping concentration of each of the plurality of superlattice blocks is in a range of about 1E17 atoms/cm3 to about 1E21 atoms/cm3 (para 20).
Regarding claim 17, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 9 upon which claim x depends.
Zhao teaches further comprising: a nucleation layer between the substrate and the superlattice buffer structure (para 41).
Regarding claim 18, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 9 upon which claim x depends.
Zhao teaches further comprising: a channel supply layer provided on the active layer and configured to generate a 2-dimensional electron gas in the active layer (para 43), wherein a source electrode and a drain electrode are arranged on the active layer to be apart from each other, and a gate electrode is arranged on the channel supply layer (para 76).
Regarding claim 19, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claim x depends.
Zhao teaches wherein the plurality of superlattice blocks includes three or more superlattice blocks, and each of the three or more superlattice blocks includes a first one of the plurality of first layers, a first one of the plurality of second layers stacked on the first one of the plurality of first layers, a second one of the plurality of first layers stacked on the first one of the plurality of second layers, and a second one of the plurality of second layers stacked on the second one of the plurality of first layers (Fig. 1, plurality of blocks 108-1, 108-2, 108-m, para 67-68).
Regarding claim 20, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 9 upon which claim x depends.
Zhao teaches wherein the plurality of superlattice blocks includes three or more superlattice blocks, and each of the three or more superlattice blocks includes a first one of the plurality of first layers, a first one of the plurality of second layers stacked on the first one of the plurality of first layers, a second one of the plurality of first layers stacked on the first one of the plurality of second layers, and a second one of the plurality of second layers stacked on the second one of the plurality of first layers (Fig. 1, plurality of blocks 108-1, 108-2, 108-m, para 67-68).
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, 6, 8, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US Publication 20190157081) in view of Chou et al (US Publication 20230072850).
Regarding claims 4, 6, and 8, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 1 upon which claims 4, 6, and 8 depend.
Zhao does not specifically teach:
[claim 4] wherein the average gallium compositions of a superlattice block increases in a stack direction of the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers.
[claim 6] wherein a difference in the average gallium compositions between neighboring superlattice blocks of the plurality of superlattice blocks is about 0.01 or more.
[claim 8] wherein the average gallium compositions is are in a range of about 0.25 to about 0.95.
Chou teaches:
[claim 4] wherein the average gallium compositions of a superlattice block increases in a stack direction of the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers (Fig. 25, para 248).
[claim 6] wherein a difference in the average gallium compositions between neighboring superlattice blocks of the plurality of superlattice blocks is about 0.01 or more (Fig. 25, para 248).
[claim 8] wherein the average gallium compositions is are in a range of about 0.25 to about 0.95 (Fig. 25, para 248).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Zhao to include the average gallium composition in the superlattice buffer layer structure as taught by Chou in order to improve the strain management, crystal quality, and buffer growth of the device.
Regarding claims 12, 14, and 16, Zhao teaches the limitations of claim 9 upon which claims 12, 14, and 16 depend.
Zhao does not specifically teach:
[claim 12] wherein the average gallium composition of a superlattice block increases in a stack direction of the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers.
[claim 14] wherein a difference in the average gallium compositions between neighboring superlattice blocks of the plurality of superlattice blocks is about 0.01 or more.
[claim 16] wherein the average gallium composition is in a range of about 0.25 to about 0.95.
Chou teaches:
[claim 12] wherein the average gallium composition of a superlattice block increases in a stack direction of the plurality of first layers and the plurality of second layers (Fig. 25, para 248).
[claim 14] wherein a difference in the average gallium compositions between neighboring superlattice blocks of the plurality of superlattice blocks is about 0.01 or more (Fig. 25, para 248).
[claim 16] wherein the average gallium composition is in a range of about 0.25 to about 0.95 (Fig. 25, para 248).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Zhao to include the average gallium composition in the superlattice buffer layer structure as taught by Chou in order to improve the strain management, crystal quality, and buffer growth of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 NICHOLAS HUTSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1750. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at 571 272 2266. 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.
/NICHOLAS LELAND HUTSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights