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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,695,052).
Regarding to claim 1, Lu teaches a Group-III-nitride high-electron-mobility transistor (HEMT) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element SUBSTRATE);
a channel layer on the substrate (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element CHANNEL);
a barrier layer on the channel layer (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element BARRIER);
a source contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element SOURCE) and a drain contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element DRAIN) that are on the barrier layer; and
a Group-III-nitride capping layer on the barrier layer, the Group-III-nitride capping layer including a first sidewall and a second sidewall between the source contact and the drain contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element CAP LAYER; column 7, line 11),
wherein the first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer faces the source contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E, the left sidewall of CAP LAYER), and
wherein the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer faces the drain contact and is spaced apart from the drain contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E, the right sidewall of CAP LAYER).
Regarding to claim 2, Lu teaches a gate on the Group III- nitride capping layer (Fig. 4D; element GATE), wherein the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the drain contact by at least 1% of a distance between the drain contact and the gate (Fig. 4D, distance between the CAP and the DRAIN is 100% of distance between the GATE and the DRAIN).
Regarding to claim 4, Lu teaches the first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is in contact with the source contact. (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E, the claim does not require a direct contact).
Regarding to claim 5, Lu teaches the first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the source contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E).
Regarding to claim 6, Lu teaches first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the source contact by at least 1 % of a distance between the source contact and the gate (Fig. 4D, distance between the CAP and the SOURCE is 100% of distance between the GATE and the SOURCE).
Regarding to claim 8, Lu teaches the first sidewall of the Group III- nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the source contact by a smaller percentage of the distance between the source contact and the gate than a percentage of the distance between the drain contact and the gate by which the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the drain contact (Fig. 4D, the CAP is nearer to the SOURCE than to the DRAIN).
Regarding to claim 9, Lu teaches an insulating capping layer that is on an upper surface of the Group-III-nitride capping layer and between the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer and the drain contact (Fig. 2E, element 70; column 6, line 26).
Regarding to claim 12, Lu teaches the Group-III-nitride capping layer includes gallium nitride (column 5, lines 39-40).
Regarding to claim 13, Lu teaches material of the Group-III nitride capping layer is different from a material of the barrier layer (column 4, lines 50-52; column 5, lines 39-40).
Regarding to claim 14, Lu teaches the material of the barrier layer includes aluminum (Al) (column 4, lines 50-52) and the material of the Group-III-nitride capping layer does not include Al (column 5, lines 39-40).
Regarding to claim 15, Lu teaches a Group-III-nitride high-electron-mobility transistor (HEMT) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element SUBSTRATE);
a barrier layer on the substrate (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element BARRIER);
a source contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element SOURCE) and a drain contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element DRAIN) that are on the barrier layer; and
a Group-III-nitride capping layer on the barrier layer and separated from the source contact by a first gap and from the drain contact by a second gap (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E).
Regarding to claim 16, Lu teaches an insulating capping layer that is on an upper surface of the Group-III-nitride capping layer and in the first gap and the second gap (Fig. 2E, element 70; column 6, line 26).
Regarding to claim 17, Lu teaches a Group-III-nitride high-electron-mobility transistor (HEMT) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element SUBSTRATE);
a barrier layer on the substrate (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element BARRIER);
a source contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element SOURCE) and a drain contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element DRAIN) that are on the barrier layer; and
a Group-III-nitride capping layer on the barrier layer, layer, between the source contact and the drain contact (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E; element CAP LAYER; column 7, line 11); and
a gate on the Group-III-nitride capping layer (Fig. 4D; element GATE),
wherein the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the source contact by a first distance comprising a first percentage of a third distance between the source contact and the gate (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E),
wherein the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the drain contact by a second distance comprising a second percentage of a fourth distance between the drain contact and the gate (Fig. 4D, Fig. 2E), and
wherein the first percentage and the second percentage are each at least 1 % (Fig. 4D, distance between the CAP and the DRAIN or the SOURCE is 100% of distance between the GATE and the DRAIN or the SOURCE; Fig. 2E, distance between the CAP and the DRAIN or the SOURCE is more than 1% of distance between the GATE and the DRAIN or the SOURCE. “100%” is greater than “1%”).
Regarding to claim 18, Lu teaches the second percentage is larger than the first percentage (Fig. 4D, the CAP is closer to the SOURCE than to the DRAIN).
Regarding to claim 19, Lu teaches the second percentage is at least 10% (Fig. 4D, distance between the CAP and the DRAIN is 100% of distance between the GATE and the DRAIN; Fig. 2E, distance between the CAP and the DRAIN is more than 10% of distance between the GATE and the DRAIN).
Regarding to claim 20, Lu teaches the first percentage is at least 10% (Fig. 4D, distance between the CAP and the DRAIN is 100% of distance between the GATE and the SOURCE; Fig. 2E, distance between the CAP and the DRAIN is more than 10% of distance between the GATE and the SOURCE).
Claims 1, 9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0043810).
Regarding to claim 1, Pei teaches a Group-III-nitride high-electron-mobility transistor (HEMT) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2E; element 10);
a channel layer on the substrate (Fig. 2E; element 40);
a barrier layer on the channel layer (Fig. 2E; element 50a);
a source contact (Fig. 2E; element 100) and a drain contact (Fig. 2E; element 120) that are on the barrier layer; and
a Group-III-nitride capping layer on the barrier layer, the Group-III-nitride capping layer including a first sidewall and a second sidewall between the source contact and the drain contact (Fig. 2E; element 50b, [0043], lines 13-17),
wherein the first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer faces the source contact (Fig. 2E, the left sidewall of cap 50b), and
wherein the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer faces the drain contact and is spaced apart from the drain contact (Fig. 2E, the right sidewall of cap 50b).
Regarding to claim 9, Pei teaches an insulating capping layer that is on an upper surface of the Group-III-nitride capping layer and between the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer and the drain contact (Fig. 2E, element 60).
Regarding to claim 12, Pei teaches the Group-III-nitride capping layer includes gallium nitride ([0043], last 2 lines).
Regarding to claim 13, Pei teaches material of the Group-III nitride capping layer is different from a material of the barrier layer ([0043], last 2 lines; [0033], lines 2-3).
Regarding to claim 14, Pei teaches the material of the barrier layer includes aluminum (Al) (column 4, lines 50-52) and the material of the Group-III-nitride capping layer does not include Al ([0043], last 2 lines; [0033], lines 2-3).
Regarding to claim 15, Pei teaches a Group-HI-nitride high-electron-mobility transistor (HEMT) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2E; element 10);
a barrier layer on the substrate (Fig. 2E; element 50a);
a source contact (Fig. 2E; element 100) and a drain contact (Fig. 2E; element 120) that are on the barrier layer; and
a Group-III-nitride capping layer on the barrier layer and separated from the source contact by a first gap and from the drain contact by a second gap (Fig. 2E; element 50b, [0043], lines 13-17).
Regarding to claim 16, Pei teaches an insulating capping layer that is on an upper surface of the Group-III-nitride capping layer and in the first gap and the second gap (Fig. 2E).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0043810), as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding to claim 2, Pei teaches a gate on the Group III- nitride capping layer (Fig. 2E; element 110). In Fig. 2E, Pei indicates the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the drain contact by at least 1% of a distance between the drain contact and the gate (Fig. 2E, w2 is more than 1% w4). However, Pei is silent as to the dimensions in the text. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to space the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer apart from the drain contact by at least 1% of a distance between the drain contact and the gate in order to reduce leakage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image1.png
775
1282
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding to claim 3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to space the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer apart from the drain contact by 11-19% of the distance between the drain contact and the gate in order to reduce leakage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 5, Pei teaches the first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the source contact (Fig. 2E).
Regarding to claim 6, in Fig. 2E, Pei indicates the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the source contact by at least 1% of a distance between the source contact and the gate (Fig. 2E, w1 is more than 1% w3). However, Pei is silent as to the dimensions in the text. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to space the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer apart from the source contact by at least 1% of a distance between the source contact and the gate in order to reduce leakage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 7, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to space the first sidewall of the Group III-nitride capping layer apart from the source contact by 6-14% of the distance between the source contact and the gate in order to reduce leakage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 8, Pei teaches the first sidewall of the Group III- nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the source contact by a smaller percentage of the distance between the source contact and the gate than a percentage of the distance between the drain contact and the gate by which the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the drain contact (Fig. 2E, the CAP is nearer to the SOURCE than to the DRAIN).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0043810, hereafter Pei810), as applied to claims 1-2 above, in view of Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0098274, hereafter Pei274).
Regarding to claim 4, Pei810 does not disclose the first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is in contact with the source contact. Pei274 discloses the first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is in contact with the source contact (Fig. 2G, the sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer 14 is in contact with the source contact 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pei810 in view of Pei274 to configure the first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer in contact with the source contact in order to increase switching speed.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0043810, hereafter Pei810), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0098274, hereafter Pei274).
Regarding to claim 10, Pei810 does not disclose the Group-III-nitride capping layer is thinner than the barrier layer. Pei274 discloses the Group-III-nitride capping layer is thinner than the barrier layer (Fig. 2G, [0023], last 2 lines; [0024], last 2 lines, the Group-III-nitride capping layer 14 is thinner than the barrier layer 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pei810 in view of Pei274 to configure the Group-III-nitride capping layer to be thinner than the barrier layer in order to increase switching speed.
Regarding to claim 11, Pei274 discloses a thickness of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is less than 5 nanometers ([0024], last 2 lines).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0043810).
Regarding to claim 17, Pei teaches a Group-III-nitride high-electron-mobility transistor (HEMT) comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2E; element 10);
a barrier layer on the substrate (Fig. 2E; element 50a);
a source contact (Fig. 2E; element 100) and a drain contact (Fig. 2E; element 120) that are on the barrier layer; and
a Group-III-nitride capping layer on the barrier layer, layer, between the source contact and the drain contact (Fig. 2E; element 50b, [0043], lines 13-17); and
a gate on the Group-III-nitride capping layer (Fig. 2E; element 110),
wherein the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the source contact by a first distance comprising a first percentage of a third distance between the source contact and the gate (Fig. 2E),
wherein the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the drain contact by a second distance comprising a second percentage of a fourth distance between the drain contact and the gate (Fig. 2E), and
In Fig. 2E, Pei indicates the first percentage and the second percentage are each at least 1 % (Fig. 2E, w2 is more than 1% w4, w1 is more than 1% w3). However, Pei is silent as to the dimensions in the text. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the first percentage and the second percentage each at least 1 % in order to reduce leakage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 18, Pei teaches the second percentage is larger than the first percentage (Fig. 2E, the CAP is closer to the SOURCE than to the DRAIN).
Regarding to claim 19, in Fig. 2E, Pei indicates the sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the drain contact by at least 10% of a distance between the drain contact and the gate (Fig. 2E, w2 is more than 10% w4). Pei is silent as to the dimensions in the text. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the second percentage to be at least 10% in order to reduce leakage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding to claim 20, in Fig. 2E, Pei indicates the sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the source contact by at least 10% of a distance between the source contact and the gate (Fig. 2E, w12 is more than 10% w3). Pei is silent as to the dimensions in the text. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the first percentage to be at least 10% in order to reduce leakage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Pertinent Art
For the benefits of the Applicant, US US-7728356-B2, US-11776934-B2, US-11935947-B2, US-10937873-B2, US-20240274507-A1, US-12622012-B2, US-20210399121-A1, and US-11516042-B2, are cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These references fail to disclose the combination of limitations including “the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer faces the drain contact and is spaced apart from the drain contact, the first sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is in contact with the source contact, the second sidewall of the Group-III-nitride capping layer is spaced apart from the drain contact by 11-19% of the distance between the drain contact and the gate”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VU A VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, CHAD M DICKE can be reached at (571) 270-7996. 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.
/VU A VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights