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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 09/05/2024. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
This application was filed on the same date that applications 18/826024, 18/825998 and 18/825980 from the same assignee were filed.
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)(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 1-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hussain et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0029625 A1, herein Hussain).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-7, Hussain discloses a bipolar junction transistor ([0020]) comprising: a substrate 101 (Fig. 4C and [0020]); a collector structure 105 (Fig. 4C and [0020]) over the substrate; a base structure 109 (Fig. 4C and [0020]) over the collector structure, the base structure including a III-V ternary semiconductor alloy ([0020]; “… the base 109 may comprise InGaAs”), the base structure having a base contact 119 (Fig. 4C and [0025]) formed thereon; and an emitter structure 111 (Fig. 4C and [0025]) over the base structure, a ledge between the emitter structure and the base contact being 0.3 µm or less ([0025], “…When the base contacts 119 are deposited, the T-top 117a of the T-shaped emitter contact 117 effectively acts as a "mask" for the base contacts 119 and determines the spacing, preferably between 0.15-0.25 microns, between the base contacts 119 and the emitter 111.”).
Regarding claim 2, Hussain discloses the bipolar junction transistor of claim 1 wherein the collector structure includes a gallium arsenide (GaAs) layer ([0020]).
Regarding claim 3, Hussain discloses the bipolar junction transistor of claim 1 wherein the III-V ternary semiconductor alloy of the base structure is gallium arsenide antimonide (GaAsSb) or indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) ([0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Hussain discloses the bipolar junction transistor of claim 1 wherein the emitter structure includes an indium gallium phosphide (InGaP) layer ([0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Hussain discloses the bipolar junction transistor of claim 1 further comprising a sub-collector 103 between the substrate and the collector structure ([0020]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0163193 A1, herein Shiratori).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-7, Shiratori discloses a bipolar junction transistor ([0002]) comprising: a substrate 101 (Figs. 1, 3 and [0031]); a collector structure 103 (Figs. 1, 3 and [0031]) over the substrate; a base structure 104 (Figs. 1, 3 and [0031]) over the collector structure, the base structure including a III-V ternary semiconductor alloy ([0035]; “…The base layer 104 is made of p-type InGaAsSb”), the base structure having a base contact 112 (Figs. 1, 3 and [0037], Base Electrode) formed thereon; and an emitter structure 105 (Figs. 1, 3 and [0035]) over the base structure, a ledge between the emitter structure and the base contact being 0.05 µm ([0008]: “…In principle, the spacing between the emitter layer and the base electrode can be reduced to a distance corresponding to the undercut amount in the emitter cap layer, and a value of about 0.05 μm has been reported as this spacing.”
Shiratori does not specifically state a ledge between the emitter structure and the base contact being 0.3 µm or less. However, Shiratori in paragraphs [0004] and [0011] says “reduction of the spacing between the emitter and the base electrode is important for reduction of the base access resistance. Thickening of the base electrode is important for reduction of the base electrode resistance…There is also a trade-off between the thickness of the base electrode and the spacing between the emitter layer and the base electrode. For these reasons, in the related-art HBT, it is difficult to further improve the high-frequency characteristics.” The claimed ledge range is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose the particular claimed range because applicant has not disclosed that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. The claim(s) is(are) obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
The examiner also notes it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 3, Shiratori discloses the bipolar junction transistor of claim 1 wherein the III-V ternary semiconductor alloy of the base structure is gallium arsenide antimonide (GaAsSb) or indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs) ([0035]; “…The base layer 104 is made of p-type InGaAsSb”).
Regarding claim 4, Shiratori discloses the bipolar junction transistor of claim 1 wherein the emitter structure includes an indium gallium phosphide (InGaP) layer ([0035]; “…The emitter layer 105 is made of InGaP ”).
Regarding claim 10, Shiratori discloses the bipolar junction transistor of claim 1 further comprising a sub-collector 102 between the substrate and the collector structure ([0032]).
Claims 8-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori in view of Umemoto et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0059527 A1, herein Umemoto).
Regarding claims 8-9, Shiratori in paragraph [0049] says “… the thickness of the base electrode 112 depends on the thickness of the first metal layer 213 that serves as the first emitter electrode 113 and the thickness of the emitter cap forming layer 206. For this reason, the thickness of the first metal layer 213 is made larger than a value obtained by subtracting the thickness of the emitter cap forming layer 206 from the thickness of the base electrode 112. Typically, sufficiently low base electrode resistance is obtained as long as the thickness of the base electrode 112 is approximately wo nm to 200 nm, so that the thickness of the first metal layer 213 can also be set to wo nm to 200 nm” but does not specifically state a thickness of the base structure is in a range of 100Å to 500Å or 200Å to 400Å. However, the claimed thickness ranges are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. For example, Umemoto in paragraph [0040] states “the thickness of the base layer 21B is greater than or equal to about 50 nm and less than or equal to about 150 nm (i.e., from about 50 nm to about 150 nm).”
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose the particular claimed range because applicant has not disclosed that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. The claim(s) is(are) obvious without showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art).
Regarding claim 11, the applicant is referred to the rejections applied to claims 1 and 8 above.
Regarding claims 12-18, the applicant is referred to the rejections applied to claims 2-8 respectively.
Regarding claim 19, the applicant is referred to the rejections applied to claim 1 above. Umemoto further discloses a radio frequency device ([0060]), comprising: a bipolar junction transistor power amplifier ([0076]-[0077]) having a collector, and naturally discloses an antenna coupled to the bipolar junction transistor power amplifier.
Regarding claim 20, the applicant is referred to the rejections applied to claims 2-7 respectively.
Prior Art
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. For example:
Obu et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0005841 A1) in Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs [0026], [0031], [0050] discloses a heterojunction bipolar transistor includes a collector layer composed of a semiconductor containing GaAs as a main component; a base layer including a first base layer and a second base layer the first base layer forming a heterojunction with the collector layer and being composed of a semiconductor containing a material as a main component, the material being lattice-mismatched to the main component of the collector layer, the first base layer having a film thickness less than a critical thickness at which a misfit dislocation is introduced, the second base layer being joined to the first base layer and composed of a semiconductor containing a material as a main component, and the material being lattice-matched to the main component of the collector layer; and an emitter layer that forms a heterojunction with the second base layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALIHEH MALEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1874. The examiner can normally be reached M/T/W/R/F, 8:30-5.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
September 26, 2026
/MALIHEH MALEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights