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
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.
(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 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takahashi (US 20200211919 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a multilayer structure (Fig. 16) comprising at least: a semiconductor layer (161) containing a crystalline oxide semiconductor as a major component (Para. 77 "Hereinafter, with reference to figures, examples of the semiconductor device in which the crystalline oxide film according to the present invention is used as an n-type semiconductor layer (that may be an n+-type semiconductor or an n-semiconductor layer) are explained"; para. 50 "The crystalline oxide film containing such a preferable metal oxide as a major component..."); and a conductive substrate (169; para. 54 "The crystal substrate may be… [a] conductive substrate"; Examiner believes substrate 169 to be equivalent to crystal substrate 20. Crystal substrate 20 functions as base on which to grow the crystalline oxide film (see para. 57), and Fig. 16 shows semiconductor layer 161 on substrate 169) layered on the semiconductor layer (Fig. 16 shows 169 layered on the lower surface of the semiconductor layer), wherein the multilayer structure has a first direction (X direction) in a plane perpendicular to a layering direction of the multilayer structure (XY plane, which is perpendicular to the Z direction corresponding to the layering direction) and a second direction perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the first direction (Y direction), and a third coefficient of linear expansion being a coefficient of linear expansion in the first direction of the semiconductor layer is smaller than a fourth coefficient of linear expansion being a coefficient of linear expansion in the second direction of the semiconductor layer (Para. 49 "the crystalline oxide film including: a second side that is shorter than a first side, a linear thermal expansion coefficient of a direction of a first crystal axis that is smaller than a linear thermal expansion coefficient of a direction of a second crystal axis, a direction of the first side that is parallel or substantially parallel to a direction of the first crystal axis, and a direction of the second side that is parallel or substantially parallel to a direction of the second crystal axis", where the first crystal axis corresponds to the first direction, and the second crystal axis corresponds to the second direction), and a first coefficient of linear expansion being a coefficient of linear expansion in the first direction of the conductive substrate is smaller than a second coefficient of linear expansion being a coefficient of linear expansion in the second direction (Para. 2 "When growing crystals on heterogeneous substrates, there have been problems of cracks and lattice defects. To solve these problems, it has been studied to match lattice constants and thermal expansion coefficients between the substrate and the film", therefore Takahashi teaches a substrate’s first coefficient of linear expansion being smaller than its second coefficient of linear expansion by teaching the technique of matching the thermal expansion coefficients of the substrate and the film in addition to a film/semiconductor layer having a third expansion coefficient being smaller than its fourth expansion coefficient) of the conductive substrate.
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi discloses the crystalline oxide semiconductor being made of α-Ga2O3 (as taught in Applicant’s para. 28), and therefore would inherently have a first crystallographic axis and a second crystallographic axis, a coefficient of linear expansion in a first crystallographic axis direction being smaller than a coefficient of linear expansion in a second crystallographic axis direction, and the crystalline oxide semiconductor being parallel or substantially parallel to a layering directing of the multilayer structure and the first crystallographic axis. See MPEP 2112.01. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.".
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses wherein the crystalline oxide semiconductor has a corundum structure (Para. 50 “the crystalline oxide film preferably contains a metal oxide having a corundum structure”).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi discloses the crystalline oxide semiconductor being made of α-Ga2O3 (as taught in Applicant’s para. 28), and therefore would inherently have a first crystallographic corresponding to the m-axis. See MPEP 2112.01. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.".
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi discloses the crystalline oxide semiconductor being made of α-Ga2O3 (as taught in Applicant’s para. 28), and therefore would inherently have a first direction of the semiconductor layer being an a-axis and a second direction of the semiconductor layer being a c-axis. See MPEP 2112.01. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.".
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi discloses wherein the crystalline oxide semiconductor contains at least one metal selected from aluminum, indium, and gallium (Para. 50 "The crystalline oxide film is not particularly limited as long as the crystalline oxide film contains a metal oxide as a major component that contains gallium").
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi discloses wherein the crystalline oxide semiconductor contains at least gallium (Para. 50 "The crystalline oxide film is not particularly limited as long as the crystalline oxide film contains a metal oxide as a major component that contains gallium").
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi discloses wherein a thickness of the conductive substrate is 200 μm or less (Para. 56 "A thickness of the crystal substrate is… preferably in a range of 10 µm-1000 µm", which includes the range < 200 µm).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi discloses a semiconductor device comprising at least the multilayer structure described in claim 1, and an electrode (Fig. 16, electrodes 165a and 165b).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200211919 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4-11 above, and further in view of Matsubara (US 20220384663 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi discloses the multilayer structure according to claim 1. However, Takahashi does not disclose wherein a difference between the first coefficient of linear expansion and the second coefficient of linear expansion is 2.0 ppm/K or less.
On the other hand, the instant application teaches the Cu-Mo substrate having a difference between the first and second coefficients of linear expansion of 2.0 ppm/K or less (Para. 49 of instant application "a Cu-Mo composite substrate obtained by the impregnation method in which copper is impregnated into molybdenum pressed powder... is preferably used as the conductive substrate", para. 48 of instant application "the difference between the first coefficient of linear expansion and the second coefficient of linear expansion is... preferably 2.0 ppm/K"). Matsubara discloses a Cu-Mo substrate which would therefore inherently have the same properties as Applicant’s Cu-Mo substrate, namely a difference between the first and second coefficients of linear expansion of 2.0 ppm/K or less (Para. 79 "it is also preferable that the conductive substrate includes two or more types of metal. Examples of a combination of such two types of metal include… copper (Cu)-molybdenum (Mo)"). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Takahashi according to the teachings of Matsubara such that a difference between the first and second coefficients of linear expansion would be 2.0 ppm or less, in order to reduce the overall structural distortion during manufacturing so that defects do not arise as the device cools after manufacturing.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200211919 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4-11 above, and further in view of Goryu (US 20190221646 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi discloses the multilayer structure according to claim 1. However, Takahashi does not disclose wherein the second coefficient of linear expansion is 10 ppm/K or less.
On the other hand, Goryu discloses wherein the second coefficient of linear expansion is 10 ppm/K or less (Fig. 8, para. 54 "a linear expansion coefficient larger than approximately 4.5x10-6/K can be used for the material of the mounting substrate 41", where 4.5x10-6/K is equivalent to 4.5 ppm/K). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing of the invention to modify Takahashi according to the teachings of Goryu such that the second coefficient of linear expansion would be 10 ppm/K or less, in order to reduce the overall structural distortion due to heat during manufacturing so that defects do not arise as the device cools after manufacturing.
Claim 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200211919 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose a semiconductor apparatus comprising at least the semiconductor device of claim 11 bonded to a lead frame, a circuit board or a heat dissipating substrate by a bonding member. However, Official Notice is taken with respect to it being well known in the art to provide a semiconductor device bonded to a lead frame, a circuit board, or a heat dissipating substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify Takahashi such that the semiconductor device of claim 11 would be bonded to at least a lead frame or circuit board by a bonding member such as an interconnect structure as it is extremely common in the art in order to electrically connect the semiconductor device to a larger electronic system such as a computer, cell phone, tablet, etc.
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose a power conversion device using the semiconductor apparatus described in claim 12. However, Official Notice is taken with respect to it being well known in the art to provide a semiconductor device in use with a power conversion device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify Takahashi such that the apparatus of claim 12 would be implemented in a power conversion device, in order to apply any of the various devices taught by Takahashi (MOSFET, IGBT, Schottky Barrier diode, PN diode, thyristor, power transistors, JFET, HMET, LED indicators, etc.) to convert between different types of electrically power as is extremely common in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose a control system using the semiconductor apparatus described in claim 12. However, Official Notice is taken with respect to it being well known in the art to use a semiconductor device with a control system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to modify Takahashi such that the apparatus of claim 12 would implement in a control system, in order apply any of the various devices taught by Takahashi (MOSFET, IGBT, Schottky Barrier diode, PN diode, thyristor, power transistors, JFET, HMET, LED indicators, etc.) for operating control systems in automobiles, home appliances, etc. as it is extremely common in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL J SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-5706. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights