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 .
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.
Claim(s) 6 to 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Sasaki (2020/0235234).
The Sasaki reference teaches a gallium oxide layer, note entire reference. The gallium oxide has a thickness of 2um and breakdown voltage higher then 80V/um, note para 0034 and 0035.
With regards to claim 7, the Sasaki reference teaches breakdown over 100v/um, note para 0034.
With regards to claim 8, the Sasaki reference teaches a thickness of 2um, note para 0034.
With regards to claim 9, the gallium oxide layer is similar to that claim and inherently has the same full width at half maximum.
With regards to claim 11, the Sasaki reference teaches depositing gallium oxide on gallium oxide note para 0030-0033.
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.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (CN111916341).
The Yang et al reference teaches a method and apparatus for gallium oxide growth, note entire translation. The apparatus consists of a reaction chamber with a substrate disposed in which allows for gallium oxide growth, note figure 2. There is a means for feeding or supplying a gallium element, note , translation embodiment 2. There is an oxygen supply means, note figure 2. The oxygen can be a mixed gas. The mixed gas can include ozone and oxygen. The mixed gas can also be in the form of a plasma, note, translation page 3. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the setup of the oxygen and mixed gas supply means. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Yang et al reference to have the a separate mix gas supply means fed into the plasma in order to have a more uniform plasma and oxygen supply for deposition.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (CN111916341).
The Yang et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and fifers from the instant claim in the oxygen to ozone mix. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Yang et al reference to have the an oxygen to ozone mix in order to increase the amount of plasma.
Claim(s) 3 to 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (CN111916341) in view of Jp 2016-064691.
The Yang et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and fifers from the instant claim in the growth of beta gallium oxide. However, the Jp 2016-064691 reference teaches growing beta gallium oxide by vapor deposition, note, page 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Yang et al reference by the teachings of the Jp 2016-064691 reference to grow the beta gallium oxide in order to have the desired properties in the layer.
With regards to claim 5, the Yang et al reference teaches substrate temperatures under 700c note page 2.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (2020/0235234)
The Sasaki reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the surface roughness. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Sasaki reference to have the surface roughness in order to aid in further deposition of layers..
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (2020/0235234) in view of Jp 2016-064691
The Sasaki reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the surface roughness. However, the Jp 2016-064691 reference teaches growing beta gallium oxide by vapor deposition, note, page 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Sasaki reference by the teachings of the Jp 2016-064691to use beta gallium oxide in order to have the desired lattice structure.
Claim(s) 13 to 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (2020/0235234) in view of Jp 2016-064691
The Sasaki and Jp 2016-064691 references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the orientation of the substrate. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have a set orientation in order to grow the further layers with that orientation.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in gallium oxide growth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights