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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramu et al (US 2019/0267480) “480” in view of Ramu et al (US 2019/0267481) “481”.
With respect to Claim 1, 480 discloses a pseudomorphic high electron mobility transistor (PHEMT) (Figure 6) comprising a channel layer (Figure 6, 124); a lower barrier layer (Figure 6, 146) and an upper barrier layer (Figure 6, 140) that are respectively disposed on two sides of the channel layer, wherein the lower barrier layer is connected to the channel layer; and a first isolation layer (Figure 6, 142) and a first doped layer (Figure 6, 122) that are disposed between the channel layer and the upper barrier layer, wherein the first isolation layer is configured to isolate the first doped layer from the channel layer, and the first doped layer is configure to provide two-dimensional electron gas (paragraph 80). See Figures 6-10 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 47-80.
However 480 does not disclose when an output current of the PHEMT is less than a first threshold, a conduction band energy level of the channel layer is less than a Fermi energy level.
481 discloses similar HEMT devices (Figure 6) and discloses an output current 60 mA/mm (Figure 7A) and the energy distribution in Figure 7E shows that the conduction band energy level of the channel level is less than the Fermi energy level (Figure 7E), and the improvement of the HEMT linearity. See Figure 6-9D and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 63-94.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to arrive at the limitation “when an output current of the PHEMT is less than a first threshold, a conduction band energy level of the channel layer is less than a Fermi energy level “, in the HEMT device of 480, for its known improvement in HEMT linearity as disclosed by 481. As both references pertain to HEMT devices a prima facie case of obviousness is established. Moreover, 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. See Allen v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Furthermore, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 2, 480 discloses the limitation “wherein the lower barrier layer is directly connected to the channel layer”. See Figure 6, 124 and 146, and corresponding text.
With respect to Claim 3, the combined references make obvious the limitation “ wherein the first doped layer is silicon doped, and a doping concentration of the first doped layer is 3 to 5 e(12) cm(-2) “. See paragraph 62 of 481; and paragraph 10 of 480. Moreover, 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. See Allen v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Furthermore, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 4, and the limitation “wherein the lower barrier layer is connected to the channel layer through a second isolation layer and a second doped layer, the second isolation layer is configured to isolate the channel layer from the second doped layer, and the second doped layer is configured to provide two-dimensional electron gas”, the use of second layers would be a duplication of parts, and would be prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Harza, 274 F 2d 669 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to Claim 5, and the limitation” wherein a doping concentration of the first doped layer is 3.5 to 4.5 e(12) cm(-2) , and a doping concentration of the second doped layer is 3 to 5 e(11) cm(-2) “, 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. See Allen v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Furthermore, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 6, and the limitation “wherein a ratio of a doping concentration of the first doped layer to a doping concentration of the second doped layer is greater than a preset threshold value”, 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. See Allen v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Furthermore, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 7, the preset value is greater than 9, 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. See Allen v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Furthermore, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 8, and the limitation, “wherein values of the concentration of the first doped layer and the concentration of the second doped layer enable the conduction band energy level of the channel layer to be less than the Fermi energy level when the PHEMT is in an on state”, 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. See Allen v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Furthermore, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 9, wherein a thickness of the channel layer is 15-20 nm, changes in size are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 10, and the limitation “wherein the output current of the PHEMT is less than a second threshold, the conduction band energy level of the channel layer decreases substantially in a thickness direction”, 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. See Allen v Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Furthermore, discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to Claim 11, the combined references make obvious the limitation “further comprising a cap layer, a drain and a gate, wherein the cap layer is disposed on a side of the upper barrier layer away from the channel layer and provided with a through hole for providing ohmic contact, the gate is disposed in the through hole, and the source and drain are both disposed on a side of the cap layer away from the upper barrier layer, and are respectively located on two sides of the through hole”. See paragraph 64 of 481; and paragraph 3 of 480.
With respect to Claim 12, 480 discloses wherein the channel layer is made of indium gallium arsenide, and the upper barrier layer, the lower barrier layer, or the first isolation is made of aluminum gallium arsenide. See paragraphs 25-27.
With respect to Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, the use of pseudomorphic HEMT in radio frequency chips is well known in the art. Official Notice is taken by the Examiner of this fact.
With respect to Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected as discussed above with respect to Claim 1. Moreover, the use of pseudomorphic HEMT in electronic devices is well known in the art. Official Notice is taken by the Examiner of this fact.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
July 22, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights