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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 25, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 18, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 23, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Takeshi et al (JP 2015-213140) view of Tatsuya et al (JP 2017-183400).
In re claim 1, Takeshi et al discloses a semiconductor circuit (i.e. see at least Figures 1 and 4) comprised in a semiconductor device, wherein the semiconductor element (i.e. D1) is in forward connection between a signal line of the semiconductor device and a ground (i.e. see at least Figures 1 and 4).
Takeshi et al does not explicitly disclose a semiconductor element including: a first n-type semiconductor layer; a metal layer; and a Schottky barrier between the first n-type semiconductor layer and the metal layer.
However, Tatsuya et al discloses a Schottky barrier diode that forms a Schottky contact between an n-type semiconductor layer 120 and a barrier metal layer 130 (i.e. see at least Figures 1-3; paragraphs 0023-0037).
The advantage is to obtain a Schottky barrier diode that is capable of increasing reverse surge resistance without increasing forward voltage (i.e. see at least paragraph 0008).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the semiconductor circuit as taught by Takeshi et al with a Schottky barrier diode that forms a Schottky contact between an n-type semiconductor layer and a barrier metal layer as taught by Tatsuya et al in order to obtain a Schottky barrier diode that is capable of increasing reverse surge resistance without increasing forward voltage.
In re claim 3, Takeshi et al, as discussed above, does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal layer is formed of one or more elements selected from a group consisting of Ti, Ni, Pt, W, Mo, Au, Ta, Cu, Fe, Ag, and Cr, or an alloy thereof.
However, Tatsuya et al discloses the metal layer 130 is formed of Ti (i.e. see at least paragraphs 0023-0037).
The advantage is to obtain a Schottky barrier diode that is capable of increasing reverse surge resistance without increasing forward voltage (i.e. see at least paragraph 0008).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the semiconductor circuit as taught by Takeshi et al with the metal layer is formed of Ti as taught by Tatsuya et al in order to obtain a Schottky barrier diode that is capable of increasing reverse surge resistance without increasing forward voltage.
In re claim 6, it is inherent from Takeshi et al that a forward rising voltage of the semiconductor element is a voltage higher than an operating voltage of the semiconductor device as the disclosed circuit of Takeshi et al is the same as the circuit in the present application (i.e. see at least Figures 1 and 4).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshi et al (JP 2015-213140) view of Tatsuya et al (JP 2017-183400) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toru et al (JP 2016-009774).
Takeshi et al, as modified by Tatsuya et al, as discussed above, does not explicitly disclose the n-type semiconductor layer is formed of an oxide or a nitride containing at least one selected from a group consisting of Ga, In, Sn, Mg, Zn, Al, and B, or a compound thereof.
However, Toru et al discloses an n-type semiconductor layer (i.e. NSL2) that is formed of a nitride containing at least Ga and Al (i.e. in this case, AlGaN) (i.e. see at least paragraph 0016).
The advantage is to obtain a semiconductor device in which charges held in the device are prevented from escaping (i.e. see at least paragraph 0008).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the semiconductor circuit as taught by Takeshi et al as modified by Tatsuya et al with an n-type semiconductor layer that is formed of a nitride containing at least Ga and Al as taught by Toru et al in order to obtain a semiconductor device in which charges held in the device are prevented from escaping.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1432. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM, Monday-Friday.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/ANTHONY HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817