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 with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 5/3/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I & II have unity of invention. This is not found persuasive for reasons deemed to be of record (e.g., see paragraph 4 of the previous office action). Furthermore, it should be noted that the product as claimed can be also made by another and materially different process such as selectively form the recess/barrier through masking etc.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/3/2026.
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 1-10 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 1, line 9, the phrase “the bottom” lacks antecedent basis.
Re claims 7-8, the instant claims fails to further limit parent claim 1.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Jaeger et al., EP 2806463 A1 from IDS.
Re claim 1. De Jaeger et al disclose a semiconductor device structure comprising: a substrate (e.g., Si, paragraph 26); a Group III-Nitride material channel layer 20 (e.g., GaN, paragraph 26 & figs. 1-2) arranged on the substrate; a Group III-Nitride material barrier layer 30 (e.g., AlGaN, paragraph 26 & figs. 1-2) arranged on the Group III-Nitride material channel layer; an ohmic contact structure 50 comprising a first Ti layer and an Al layer arranged on the first Ti layer (paragraphs 15, 19, 34, 36 etc.), wherein the ohmic contact structure is arranged recessed in the Group III-Nitride material barrier layer such that the bottom of the first Ti layer extends below a 2DEG channel level provided by the Group III-Nitride material channel layer and Group III-Nitride material barrier layer (e.g., paragraph 15), the first Ti layer provided with angled sidewalls with a sidewall angle 40°≤θ≤75° (e.g, the physical angle as shown in fig. 2), as measured as the angle between the respective angled sidewalls and a bottom of the Group III-Nitride material barrier layer; a thickness of the first Ti layer is equal to or less than 5 nm (e.g. fig. 3, paragraphs 34, 36); a thickness ratio between the first Ti layer and the Al-layer is 0.01 to 0.1, see figs 1-6 and pages 1-13 for more details.
De Jaeger et al disclosed above; however, De Jaeger et al. does not explicitly show having a thickness ratio between the first Ti layer and the Al-layer is Ti:Al<1:1000.
The ratio range of claim 1 and the thickness range of claims 7-9 are considered to involve routine optimization while has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As noted in In re Aller, the selection of reaction parameters such as thickness, temperature and concentration etc. would have been obvious:
“Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art...such ranges are termed Acritical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the requisite art before the invention was made would have used any ratio and/or thickness range suitable to the method in device of De Jaeger et al. in order to reduce the contact resistance etc. (e.g., fig. 3). Further in this regard, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e. - thickness ratio between the first Ti layer and the Al-layer is Ti:Al<1:1000 and/or thickness of claims 7-9) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 2. Semiconductor device structure according to claim 1, wherein the ohmic contact structure is arranged recessed in the Group III-Nitride material barrier layer such that the bottom of the first Ti layer extends 5-15 nm below the 2DEG channel level (2DEG) (e.g., 10nm, paragraph 39).
Re claim 3. Semiconductor device structure according to claim 1, comprising a second Ti layer (e.g, paragraphs 18-19) arranged on the Al layer of the ohmic contact structure.
Re claim 4. Semiconductor device structure according to claim 1, comprising a passivation layer 40 arranged on the Group III-Nitride material barrier layer (e.g., paragraph 23).
Re claim 5. Semiconductor device structure according to claim 1, wherein the material of the Group III-Nitride material channel layer is a GaN (e.g., paragraph 22).
Re claim 6. Semiconductor device structure according to claim 1, wherein the material of the Group III-Nitride material barrier layer is Al.sub.x2Ga.sub.1-x2N, In.sub.y2Al.sub.1-y2N or In.sub.y2Al.sub.x2Ga.sub.1-x2-y2N, x2=0-1, y2=0-1, x2+y2≤1 (e.g., paragraph 22).
Re claim 10. Semiconductor device structure according to claim 1, wherein the first Ti layer is a Ti-based layer comprising Ti, and/or the Al layer of the ohmic contact structure is an Al-based layer comprising Al (e.g., paragraphs 15, 18-19 etc.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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 J. 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.
/JACK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights