Attorney’s Docket Number: 10780003.00176
Filing Date: 11/28/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 01/31/2023 (PRO 63/482,348)
Applicants: Iftikhar et al.
Examiner: Younes Boulghassoul
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the application filed on 11/28/2023.
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The application serial no. 18/520,979 filed on 11/28/2023 has been entered. Pending in this Office Action are claims 1-17.
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.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “improved” in claim 10 is a relative and subjective term that does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the invention, thus rendering the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner suggests replacing the term “improved” with objective, technical, or structural limitations in the body of the claim that would capture how the invention is improved instead. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be construed as reciting -- A
Claims 11-17 dependent from claim 10, thus inherit the deficiencies discussed above, in addition to raising similar issues.
Claim 12, L. 2-3 and claim 13, L. 2-3 recite the limitation “wherein the at least one in-situ formed metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be construed as reciting -- wherein the
Claim 14, L. 2 recites the limitation “wherein the ultra-wide-bandgap semiconductor comprises gallium oxide.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear how the limitation relates to the limitation already recited in claim 10, L. 3 “at least one uppermost β-Ga2O3 layer” which already identifies a particular gallium oxide layer, thus potentially broadening the scope of a previously recited narrower limitation.
Claim 15, L. 2 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one high-electron-mobility transistor heterostructure comprises an AlGaN/GaN-based heterostructure.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Furthermore, it is unclear how the limitation relates to the limitation already recited in claim 10, L. 4-5 “a AlGaN barrier layer that is formed above an AlN spacer layer formed above a GaN layer” which already identifies a particular AlGaN/GaN-based heterostructure, thus potentially broadening the scope of a previously recited narrower limitation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16, L. 2-4 recites the limitations “an upper most β-Ga2O3 layer above a AlGaN barrier layer above an AlN spacer layer above a GaN layer over a second AlN layer atop the at least one sapphire substrate”, which are substantially similar to the limitations recited in Claim 10, L. 3-5 “at least one uppermost β-Ga2O3 layer formed above a AlGaN barrier layer that is formed above an AlN spacer layer formed above a GaN layer formed over a second AlN layer formed atop at least one sapphire substrate”, thus fails to further limit claim 10, from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 thus inherits the deficiencies identified supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowable.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action.
Claims 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a method for forming a metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor comprising: employing a single process step in-situ metal-organic chemical vapor phase epitaxy using nitrogen as a carrier gas; wherein at least one ultra-wide-bandgap semiconductor is deposited via metal-organic chemical vapor deposition onto at least one high-electron-mobility transistor heterostructure to form at least one in-situ metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor comprising: at least one uppermost β-Ga2O3 layer formed above a AlGaN barrier layer that is formed above an AlN spacer layer formed above a GaN layer formed over a second AlN layer; wherein the metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor is formed in situ in a single reactor.
Examiner’s Note: The closest identified art, to Lai et al. (US11,799,000) or Chiu et al. (US2015/0060873), discloses methods of forming a metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor and the corresponding metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor structure, comprising the steps of employing an in-situ metal-organic chemical vapor phase epitaxy process to provide for vertical metal-organic chemical vapor deposition; wherein at least Ga2O3 is deposited via metal-organic chemical vapor deposition onto AlGaN/GaN atop at least one sapphire substrate to form a metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor. However, the references are silent about the carrier gas used or the particular phase of Ga2O3 formed, as well as the transistor as a whole being an in-situ metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor, formed in situ in a single reactor, as identified in the claims supra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited disclose metal oxide semiconductor heterojunction field effect transistor and methods of manufacturing thereof, comprising the in-situ formation of a Ga2O3 passivation layer onto a AlGaN/GaN heterostructure, and having some aspects similar to the instant inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younes Boulghassoul at (571) 270-5514. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST (Eastern Standard Time), or by e-mail via younes.boulghassoul@uspto.gov. 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571) 272-1705. 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.
/YOUNES BOULGHASSOUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814