DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
Claims #5-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 5, 2026.
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on March 12, 2024 and September 5, 2025 have been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Specifications
The title is objected to because a more descriptive title is requested.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyake et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0172474 A1), hereafter “Miyake”.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
776
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miyake, Annotated FIG. 1 with outlined “recess” region
PNG
media_image2.png
410
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Miyake teaches:
A semiconductor device including a substrate S, a channel layer CH formed on the substrate and made of Group III nitride semiconductor, and a barrier layer BA formed on and in contact with the channel layer and made of Group III nitride semiconductor having an Al composition (AlGaN) higher than an Al composition of the channel layer (GaN). See Miyake, FIG. 1, ¶¶ [0089], [0091].
The semiconductor device further comprising: a recess formed in a partial region of a surface of the barrier layer and having a depth reaching the channel layer. Refer to Miyake, Annotated FIG. 1 above.
An electrode GE formed to cover along the recess.
Wherein the recess has a first side surface (right vertical side of the recess, forming part of a vertical edge of BA) being an exposed surface of the barrier layer and having an angle (90°) with respect to a main surface of the substrate.
A terrace (right horizontal sides of the recess, forming parts of DB, SB) continuing to the first side surface and being an exposed surface of the channel layer. The part of DB comprising Miyake’s terrace as an exposed surface of the channel layer.
A second side surface (right angled portion of the recess between DB and SB) continuing to the terrace, being an exposed surface of the channel layer, and having an inclination angle smaller than the angle of the first side surface with respect to the main surface of the substrate. Miyake teaches the second side surface, the right angled portion of the recess between DB and SB, forms an exposed surface/acutely angled edge of the channel layer CH. An acute angle necessarily has a smaller angle than a right angle.
As to claim 3, Miyake teaches a right angle. Refer to Miyake, Annotated FIG. 1 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake as applied to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Miyake does not teach a width of the terrace is 100 nm or more.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Miyake as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ohki (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0280110 A1), hereafter “Ohki”.
As to claim 4, Miyake does not teach the first side surface is a m-plane of the barrier layer.
On the other hand, Ohki teaches an m-plane barrier layer. See Ohki, ¶ [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the m-plane barrier layer as taught by Ohki with the transistor device as taught by Miyake, in order to yield the predictable benefit of suppressing leakage current. Id.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights