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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “forming an isolation mask covering an active region of the semiconductor heterostructure having a linear edge extending in a straight line such than an entirety of the gate layer is covered by the isolation mask and a portion of a drain region is exposed by the isolation mask; and performing an ion bombardment process on an inactive region of the semiconductor heterostructure exposed by the isolation mask” The specification and the drawings of the instant application describe drain region (a metallic region) to be formed only after the steps of forming the isolation mask and performing the ion bombardment process (Page 11; Figs. 1E-1I). In other words, when the isolation mask is formed, and the step of ion bombardment process is being carried out there is no existence of drain region yet and hence it could not be said that a portion of a drain region is exposed by the isolation mask. After the isolation mask is formed and the step of ion bombardment performed, a portion of the isolation mask is then removed to form a trench, and a metal is then deposited in that trench to form the drain region. Because the amended claim has introduced completely new matters which are not supported by either the specification or the drawings, claim 1 and its dependent claims will not be examined against any prior arts. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Amended independent claim 18 recites, inter alia, “defining an inactive region of the semiconductor heterostructure laterally outside the isolation mask by performing an ion bombardment process in a present of the isolation mask, wherein the isolation region has a linear edge extending in a straight line such than an entirety of the gate layer is covered by the isolation mask and a portion of a drain region is exposed by the isolation mask”. The specification and the drawings of the instant application describe drain region (a metallic region) to be formed only after the steps of forming the isolation mask and performing the ion bombardment process (Page 11; Figs. 1E-1I). In other words, when the isolation mask is formed, and the step of ion bombardment process is being carried out there is no existence of drain region yet and hence it could not be said that a portion of a drain region is exposed by the isolation mask. After the isolation mask is formed and the step of ion bombardment performed, a portion of the isolation mask is then removed to form a trench, and a metal is then deposited in that trench to form the drain region. Because the amended claim has introduced completely new matters which are not supported by either the specification or the drawings, claim 18 and its dependent claims will not be examined against any prior arts Appropriate correction/clarification is requested. Claims 2-11 & 19-20 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejections based on their dependencies on claims 1 and 18, respectively.
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 1-11, 14-15 and 18-20 were 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Amended independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “forming an isolation mask covering an active region of the semiconductor heterostructure having a linear edge extending in a straight line such than an entirety of the gate layer is covered by the isolation mask and a portion of a drain region is exposed by the isolation mask; and performing an ion bombardment process on an inactive region of the semiconductor heterostructure exposed by the isolation mask” The specification and the drawings of the instant application describe drain region (a metallic region) to be formed only after the steps of forming the isolation mask and performing the ion bombardment process (Page 11; Figs. 1E-1I). In other words, when the isolation mask is formed, and the step of ion bombardment process is being carried out there is no existence of drain region yet and hence it could not be said that a portion of a drain region is exposed by the isolation mask. After the isolation mask is formed and the step of ion bombardment performed, a portion of the isolation mask is then removed to form a trench, and a metal is then deposited in that trench to form the drain region. Because the amended claim has introduced completely new matters which are not supported by either the specification or the drawings, claim 1 and its dependent claims will not be examined against any prior arts. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Amended independent claim 18 recites, inter alia, “defining an inactive region of the semiconductor heterostructure laterally outside the isolation mask by performing an ion bombardment process in a present of the isolation mask, wherein the isolation region has a linear edge extending in a straight line such than an entirety of the gate layer is covered by the isolation mask and a portion of a drain region is exposed by the isolation mask”. The specification and the drawings of the instant application describe drain region (a metallic region) to be formed only after the steps of forming the isolation mask and performing the ion bombardment process (Page 11; Figs. 1E-1I). In other words, when the isolation mask is formed, and the step of ion bombardment process is being carried out there is no existence of drain region yet and hence it could not be said that a portion of a drain region is exposed by the isolation mask. After the isolation mask is formed and the step of ion bombardment performed, a portion of the isolation mask is then removed to form a trench, and a metal is then deposited in that trench to form the drain region. Because the amended claim has introduced completely new matters which are not supported by either the specification or the drawings, claim 18 and its dependent claims will not be examined against any prior arts Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “… wherein the first and second gate fingers extend in a first direction, wherein a boundary between the active region and the inactive region has a first portion that is arced in a shape of an outer edge of the gate arc adjacent to the gate arc” This is in direct contradiction to a limitation of independent claim 12 which recites “the isolation region has a linear edge extending in a straight line such than an entirety of the gate layer is outside the isolation region and a portion of a drain region is within the isolation region”. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Claims 2-11, 15 & 19-20 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejections based on their dependencies on claims 1, 12 & 18, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Brun et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0273065 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brun et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0273065 A1) in view of Brun et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0223699 A1), hereinafter, Brun et al. (‘699).
Regarding Claim 12, Brun et al. discloses a device, comprising: a semiconductor heterostructure including an active region and an inactive region and having a channel layer of a high electron mobility transistor (HEMT) (Par. 0032-0034, 0040-0043; Fig. 7A in light of Fig. 2B - semiconductor heterostructure 1002 comprising channel layer 212 (active layer; GaN) and barrier layer 214 (AlGaN); active region 102, inactive region 104); a gate layer of GaN on the channel layer and including a first gate finger, a second gate finger, and a gate arc connecting the first gate finger and the second gate finger (Par. 0032-0034, 0040-0043; Fig. 7A in light of Fig. 2B - gate layer 216; the inner side of the portion of gate that connects the two fingers has an arch shape);
PNG
media_image1.png
424
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an isolation region including an isolation dopant species (Par. 0032-0034, 0040-0043; Fig. 7A in light of Fig. 2B - isolation region 104); a drain region of the HEMT in contact with the channel region in the inactive region and in the active region (Par. 0032-0034, 0040-0043; Fig. 7A in light of Fig. 2B - drain region 110);
a source region between the first gate finger and the second gate finger and in contact with the channel layer between, wherein the channel layer has a higher concentration of an isolation dopant species in the inactive region than in the active region, wherein an entirety of the gate arc is directly above the active region (Par. 0032-0034, 0040-0043; Fig. 7A in light of Fig. 2B - source region 106A; Fig. 7A presents an embodiment wherein an entirety of the gate arc is directly above the active region 102), wherein the isolation region has a linear edge extending in a straight line such than an entirety of the gate layer is outside the isolation region and a portion of a drain region is within the isolation region (Par. 0047; Fig. 7A in light of Fig. 2B - drain region 110; this prior art teaches “ …active area 102 is surrounded by an isolation region 104. In some embodiments, the isolation region 104 may be completely outside of the plurality of gate structures 108a-108c”. Fig. 7A shows that the top boundary of the isolation region has a linear edge extending in a straight line such than an entirety of the gate layer is outside the isolation region and a portion of a drain region 110a/110b is within the isolation region 104).
In the alternative, assuming arguendo that Brun et al. is not emphatic enough regarding a gate layer including a gate arc connecting the first gate finger and the second gate finger, Brun et al. (‘699) teaches a gate layer including a gate arc connecting the first gate finger and the second gate finger (Par.
PNG
media_image2.png
356
430
media_image2.png
Greyscale
0074-0076; Figs. 12A-13B – this prior art explicitly teaches a gate arc connecting the first gate finger and the second gate finger). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Brun et al. (‘699) to adapt a device, comprising: the gate layer of Brun et al. including a gate arc connecting the first gate finger and the second gate finger in order to deliver lower leakage, sharper switching and higher reliability.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Brun et al., as applied to claim 12, discloses the method, wherein the first and second gate fingers extend in a first direction, wherein a boundary between the active region and the inactive region has a substantially straight edge extending in a second direction transverse to the first direction past the first gate finger, the second gate finger, and the gate arc (Brun et al. - Fig. 7A – a boundary between the active region 102 and the inactive region 104 has a substantially straight edge extending in a second direction transverse to the first direction past the first gate finger, the second gate finger, and the gate arc; also see Brun et al. (‘699) – Figs. 16A-17B in light of Fig. 8B).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Brun et al., as applied to claim 12, discloses the device, wherein the first and second gate fingers extend in a first direction, wherein a boundary between the active region and the inactive region has a first portion that is arced in a shape of an outer edge of the gate arc adjacent to the gate arc (Brun et al. – Fig. 4A; modified Brun et al. already teaches a gate arc connecting the first gate finger and the second gate finger (see rejection of claim 12); furthermore Brun et al. teaches the contour of a portion of the inactive region follows the contour of the outer edge of the gate portion that connects that first gate finger to the second gate finger (Fig. 4A); so when the contour of the outer edge of the gate portion connecting that first gate finger to the second gate finger is arched, the first portion of a boundary between the active region and the inactive region will be arched too).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Brun et al., as applied to claim 14, discloses the device, wherein the boundary between the active region and the inactive region has a second portion that is straight and extends in a second direction transverse to the first direction and connects to the first portion (Brun et al. - Fig. 4A).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Brun et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0273065 A1) and Brun et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0223699 A1), hereinafter, Brun et al. (‘699), claim 12, further in view of Boles et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0301780 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Brun et al., as applied to claim 12, discloses the device, wherein the drain region has a substantially straight edge, wherein the source region also has a straight edge (Brun et al. – Fig. 7A).
Brun et al. does not explicitly disclose the device, wherein the source region has a semicircular edge.
However, Boles et al., at least implicitly teaches the device, wherein the source region has a semicircular edge (Par. 0026; Fig. 8B – source region 104). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the teachings of Boles et al. to adapt the device, wherein the source region of Brun et al. has a semicircular edge in order to improve electrical field distribution around the edges.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed on 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments made to the claims.
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 extension fee 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 SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
07/21/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights