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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 27 February 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 February 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: P-N HETEROJUNCTION SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE HAVING SPECIFIED MATERIALS FOR N- AND P-TYPE LAYERS.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kub et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0315820, hereinafter Kub ‘820).
With respect to claim 1, Kub ‘820 teaches (FIG. 1B) a semiconductor device as claimed, comprising:
an n type layer (106) disposed on a first surface of a substrate (108), the n type layer comprising beta-gallium oxide (ß-Ga2O3) ([0057]);
a p type layer (104) disposed on the n type layer (106) and comprising nickel oxide represented by a formula MyNi1-yOx, wherein M is a doping element, x is 0.8≤x≤1.0, and y is 0≤y<1 ([0043, 0045, 0053]);
a first electrode (102) disposed on the p type layer (104) ([0043]); and
a second electrode (110) disposed on a second surface of the substrate (108) opposite the first surface ([0043]).
With respect to claim 2, Kub ‘820 teaches wherein a P-N heterojunction is present at a contact surface of the n type layer (106) and the p type layer (104) ([0043, 0045, 0053, 0057]).
With respect to claim 3, Kub ‘820 teaches wherein the substrate (108) comprises n type gallium oxide (Ga2O3) ([0057]).
With respect to claim 6, Kub ‘820 teaches wherein a thickness of the substrate (108) is 100 μm to 700 μm ([0084]).
With respect to claim 9, Kub ‘820 teaches wherein a thickness of the n type layer (106) is 1 μm to 10 μm ([0063]).
With respect to claim 14, Kub ‘820 teaches wherein a thickness of the p type layer (104) is 10 nm to 300 nm ([0046]).
With respect to claim 15, Kub ‘820 teaches wherein the first electrode (102) comprises an anode and the second electrode (110) comprises a cathode ([0043]).
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, 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, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub ‘820 as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2014/0217405, hereinafter Sasaki ‘405).
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Kub ‘820 teaches the device as described in claims 1 and 3 above with the exception of the additional limitations wherein the n type gallium oxide comprises the n type gallium oxide doped with Si or Sn; and wherein the substrate has a doping concentration of 1×1016 cm-3 to 1×1020 cm-3.
However, Sasaki ‘405 teaches (FIG. 1) n type gallium oxide doped with Si or Sn to a concentration between 1×1016 cm-3 to 1×1020 cm-3 as an art-recognized material and concentration suitable for the intended use as a substrate (2) for a Ga2O3-based semiconductor device ([0039]). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07. Still further, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the n type gallium oxide of Kub ‘820 comprising the n type gallium oxide doped with Si or Sn; and wherein the substrate has a doping concentration of 1×1016 cm-3 to 1×1020 cm-3 as taught by Sasaki ‘405 as an art-recognized material and concentration suitable for the intended use as a substrate for a Ga2O3-based semiconductor device.
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Kub ‘820 teaches the device as described in claim 1 above with the exception of the additional limitations wherein the beta-gallium oxide comprises beta-gallium oxide doped with Si or Sn; and wherein the n type layer has a doping concentration of 1×1015 cm-3 to 1×1017 cm-3.
However, Sasaki ‘405 teaches (FIG. 1) n type beta-gallium oxide doped with Si or Sn to a concentration between 1×1015 cm-3 to 1×1017 cm-3 as an art-recognized material and concentration suitable for the intended use as a beta-gallium oxide (3) for a Ga2O3-based semiconductor device ([0044]). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07. Still further, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the beta-gallium oxide of Kub ‘820 comprising beta-gallium oxide doped with Si or Sn; and wherein the n type layer has a doping concentration of 1×1015 cm-3 to 1×1017 cm-3 as taught by Sasaki ‘405 as an art-recognized material and concentration suitable for the intended use as a beta-gallium oxide for a Ga2O3-based semiconductor device.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub ‘820 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoshikawa et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0425656, hereinafter Yoshikawa ‘656).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Kub ‘820 teaches the device as described in claim 1 above with the exception of the additional limitations wherein the doping element comprises a monovalent element, a divalent element, or a combination thereof; and wherein: the monovalent element comprises Li, K, Cu, Ag, Cs, or a combination thereof; and the divalent element comprises Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, or a combination thereof.
However, Yoshikawa ‘656 teaches Mg-doped NiO as an art-recognized substitute for NiO suitable for the intended use as hole-transporting layer of a light emitting device ([0049]). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.06-2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the doping element of Kub ‘820 comprising a monovalent element, a divalent element, or a combination thereof; and wherein: the monovalent element comprises Li, K, Cu, Ag, Cs, or a combination thereof; and the divalent element comprises Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, or a combination thereof as taught by Yoshikawa ‘656 as an art-recognized substitute for NiO suitable for the intended use as hole-transporting layer of a light emitting device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach the semiconductor device of claims 10 and 11 in the combination of limitations as claimed, noting particularly the limitations, “wherein y is 0<y<1,” and, “wherein y is 0.06≤y≤0.1.” Kub ‘820 fails to teach M as a doping element wherein y is between 0 and 1 non-inclusive. Yoshikawa ‘656 teaches Mg-doped NiO as a substitute for NiO. However, Mg is not between 0 and 1 non-inclusive. Huang et al. (US Patent Application 2025/0287605) suffers from similar deficiencies as Yoshikawa ‘656, and further is not prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893