DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata et al. (US 2012/0025205).
Re Claim 1, Nakata et al. disclose a semiconductor device comprising: a SiC substrate (10, see Figs. 7 and 11); an AlN nucleation layer (12, see Figs. 7 and 11and Paragraphs [0021], [0065]) provided on the SiC substrate (10); an AlGaN buffer layer (18, see Figs. 7 and 11) provided on the AIN nucleation layer (12); a GaN channel layer (14) provided on the AlGaN buffer layer (18); an AlGaN barrier layer (16, i.e., electron supply layer) provided on the GaN channel layer (14); and a drain electrode (24, see Figs. 7 and 11 and Paraph [0090]), a source electrode (22, see Figs. 7 and 11 and Paraph [0090]), and a gate electrode (26, see Figs. 7 and 11 and Paraph [0090]), each provided above the AlGaN barrier layer (16), wherein the AlGaN buffer layer has an Al composition ratio decreasing from the SiC substrate toward the GaN channel layer (see Paragraph [0124]), and a thickness of the AlN nucleation layer is less than or equal to 30 nm (i.e., 25 nm, see Paragraphs [0021] – [0025]). Also see Figs. 9-11 and related text in Paragraphs [0113] – [0139].
Furthermore, the thickness rage above 25 nm up to 30 nm can be routinely optimized.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Re Claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Nakata et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein a maximum value of the Al composition ratio of the AlGaN buffer layer is less than or equal to 10% (see Paragraph [0124])
Re Claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Nakata et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the SiC substrate has semi-insulating properties (i.e., SiC substrate film is insulative prior doping, when it is dopped with boron or phosphorus it become semiconductor, this implies it is semi-insulating also).
Re Claim 4, as applied to claim 2 above, Nakata et al. disclose all the claimed limitations including wherein the SiC substrate has semi-insulating properties (i.e., SiC substrate film is insulative prior doping, when it is dopped with boron or phosphorus it become semiconductor, this implies it is semi-insulating also).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Kosaki et al. (US 2009/0001384), CHIANG et al. (US 2015/0053990), Schultz et al. (2017/0250273) and NAKATA et al. (US 2017/0271496) also disclose similar inventive subject matter.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK KEBEDE whose telephone number is 571-272-1862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday 8:00 AM 5:00 PM.
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.
/BROOK KEBEDE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
/BK/
December 23, 2025