Application No.: 17/026,849
`
`Docket No.: P200896US00
`
`REMARKS
`
`By this Amendment, claims 1-8 are pending. Applicant acknowledges with appreciation
`
`the indication of allowability of claim 7 at page 8 of the Office Action. A new dependent claim
`
`8 is added. Support is detailed below.
`
`Applicant’s Response to the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C.§103
`
`Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0079410 Al to Yasumotoet al., “Yasumoto”,
`
`in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0026099 Al to Miyamotoetal.,
`
`“Miyamoto”.
`
`Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0079410 Al to Yasumotoet al., “Yasumoto”,
`
`in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0250274 Al to Nakayamaet
`
`al., “Nakayama”.
`
`Since applicant’s remarks below similarly apply to both of the above rejections, they are
`
`addressed concurrently for the sake of clarity and brevity.
`
`In response thereto, applicant respectfully submits that the claims as now presented are
`
`not obvious over Yasumoto in view of Miyamoto for at least the reason that the combination
`
`does not provide for all the aspects of the claims, nor is there any rationale prompting a skilled
`
`artisan to modify the combination so as to derive the current invention. Likewise, applicant
`
`respectfully submits that the claims as now presented are not obvious over Yasumoto in view of
`
`Nakayamaforat least the reason that the combination does not provide forall the aspects of the
`
`claims, nor is there any rationale prompting a skilled artisan to modify the combination so as to
`
`
`
`Docket No.: P200896US00
`
`REMARKS
`
`By this Amendment, claims 1-8 are pending. Applicant acknowledges with appreciation
`
`the indication of allowability of claim 7 at page 8 of the Office Action. A new dependent claim
`
`8 is added. Support is detailed below.
`
`Applicant’s Response to the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C.§103
`
`Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0079410 Al to Yasumotoet al., “Yasumoto”,
`
`in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0026099 Al to Miyamotoetal.,
`
`“Miyamoto”.
`
`Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0079410 Al to Yasumotoet al., “Yasumoto”,
`
`in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2017/0250274 Al to Nakayamaet
`
`al., “Nakayama”.
`
`Since applicant’s remarks below similarly apply to both of the above rejections, they are
`
`addressed concurrently for the sake of clarity and brevity.
`
`In response thereto, applicant respectfully submits that the claims as now presented are
`
`not obvious over Yasumoto in view of Miyamoto for at least the reason that the combination
`
`does not provide for all the aspects of the claims, nor is there any rationale prompting a skilled
`
`artisan to modify the combination so as to derive the current invention. Likewise, applicant
`
`respectfully submits that the claims as now presented are not obvious over Yasumoto in view of
`
`Nakayamaforat least the reason that the combination does not provide forall the aspects of the
`
`claims, nor is there any rationale prompting a skilled artisan to modify the combination so as to
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/026,849
`
`Docket No.: P200896US00
`
`derive the current invention.
`
`Specifically, both Yasumoto in view of Miyamoto and Yasumoto in view of Nakayamaat
`
`least fail to provide for the aspects of parent claim 1 as to “a third opening at an outermost edge
`
`part in a plan view of the substrate, the third opening penetrating through the electron supply
`
`layer and the electron transport layer to the second nitride semiconductor layer; and a potential
`
`fixing electrode provided in the third opening, the potential fixing electrode being connected to
`
`the second nitride semiconductor layer and in contact with neither the electron transport layer nor
`
`the electron supply layer.”
`
`Per page 2 bridging page 4 and per page 5 bridging page 6 of the Office Action, the
`
`rejections regarding base claim 1 primarily rely on Yasumoto. The rejections acknowledge that
`
`Yasumotofails to teach “a third opening at an outermost edge part in a plan view ofthe substrate,
`
`the third opening penetrating through the electron supply layer and the electron transport layer to
`
`the second nitride semiconductor layer; and a potential fixing electrode provided in the third
`
`opening, the potential fixing electrode being connected to the second nitride semiconductor layer
`
`and in contact with neither the electron transport layer nor the electron supply layer” required by
`
`instant claim 1. The secondary references, Miyamoto and Nakayama, are cited as individually
`
`fulfilling these missing aspects.
`
`In response, applicant respectfully submits that a skilled artisan would not have been
`
`motivated to combine Yasumoto with Miyamoto/Nakayama due to a fundamental structural
`
`difference between the primary and secondary references.
`
`Specifically, related to the third opening the potential fixing electrode of instant claim 1
`
`which are missing in Yasumoto, the current rejection cites to Miyamoto as disclosing “a third
`
`opening (VIA)” and “a potential fixing electrode (voltage clamp 4E, ¥ [0082],[0083]),” and to
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/026,849
`
`Docket No.: P200896US00
`
`Nakayamaas disclosing “a third opening (filled with ISO and VIA)” and “a potential fixing
`
`electrode (VIA, 4 [0080],[0081]).”
`
`Miyamoto per FIG.
`
`1
`
`thereof discloses a horizontal FET structure—as opposed to a
`
`vertical FET structure disclosed in primary reference Yasumoto—wherein the via hole VIA and
`
`the fourth electrode 4E are provided to the outermost edge part, with the fourth electrode 4E
`
`connected to the voltage clamp layer 2S. Miyamoto per paragraph [0114] thereof teaches
`
`operation of its semiconductor device, in which “[w]hen a DC voltage is externally applied to the
`
`fourth electrode 4E,
`
`the second nitride semiconductor layer (voltage clamp layer) 2S has a
`
`voltage equal to that of the fourth electrode 4E, and thus serves as a back gate,” allowing for
`
`control of the threshold of the transistor. As such, the voltage clamp layer 2S and the fourth
`
`electrode 4E of Miyamoto are provided to serve as a back gate to control the horizontal FET’s
`
`threshold value.
`
`Furthermore, since Miyamoto’s horizontal FET structure requires voltage
`
`application horizontally rather than vertically, the reference device does not involve concerns
`
`regarding a leakage current flowing vertically at the end part, the specific problem identified in
`
`the present application.
`
`Nakayamarelates to a horizontal FET structure analogous to that of Miyamoto. Per
`
`paragraph [0080] of Nakayama, “[by] providing the n-type semiconductor region CDn and the
`
`coupling portion VIA and fixing the n-type semiconductor region CDn to a predetermined
`
`potential (e.g., 0 V or a negative potential), it is possible to reduce variations in properties such
`
`as threshold potential and ON resistance.” As such, although Nakayama does disclose a coupling
`
`portion VIA, said coupling portion VIA is not for preventing leakage current.
`
`In addition, the
`
`coupling portion VIA is connected to n-type semiconductor region CDn, whichis different from
`
`the structure of the present application.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/026,849
`
`Docket No.: P200896US00
`
`Accordingly, given the intended purpose of the alleged potential fixing electrode, 1.¢.,
`
`serving as a back gate to control the horizontal FET’s threshold value, a skilled artisan would not
`
`have been motivated to apply the arrangement of Miyamoto/Nakayama to improve Yasumoto’s
`
`vertical FET device. Further, the art of record is silent as to beneficial effects of the potential
`
`fixing electrode, such as, e.g., the capability to prevent leakage current flowing vertically, as
`
`disclosed in the present application. As such, there would have been norationale prompting a
`
`skilled artisan to modify Yasumoto’s device by incorporating the alleged third opening and
`
`potential fixing electrode as taught in Miyamoto/Nakayama, and there would have been no
`
`reasonable expectation of success in performing the suggested modification where so doing
`
`would contradict the operational principle whereby the reference device is designed to function.
`
`Wherefore, applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as now presented, as well as its
`
`respective dependent claims are not obvious over Yasumoto in view of Miyamoto. Also,
`
`applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as now presented, as well as its respective dependent
`
`claims are not obvious over Yasumoto in view of Nakayama.
`
`Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication Number 2016/0079410 Al to Yasumotoet al., “Yasumoto”, in view
`
`of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0026099 Al
`
`to Miyamoto et al.,
`
`“Miyamoto”, further in view of U.S. Patent Number 5,977,609 to Soderbarg et al.,
`
`“Soderbarg”.
`
`Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
`
`Application Publication Number 2016/0079410 Al to Yasumotoet al., “Yasumoto”, in view
`
`of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0026099 Al
`
`to Miyamoto et al.,
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/026,849
`
`Docket No.: P200896US00
`
`“Miyamoto”, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication Number 2012/0153300 A1 to Lidowet al., “Lidow”.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that by addressing the rejection of parent claim 1 as
`
`detailed above, likewise the current rejections of claims 4 and 6 are addressed by nature of their
`
`dependency.
`
`New Claim 8
`
`New dependentclaim 8 recites that “a bottom part of the second opening and a bottom
`
`part of the third opening are at a same height.” Support may be foundin the original disclosure,
`
`for example, at FIGs. 2, 4 and10-12 and accompanying text. Aside from its dependency from
`
`instant claim 1, applicant respectfully submits that new claim 8 is on its own merit distinguished
`
`from the art of record.
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and accompanying remarks, it is submitted that all
`
`pending claims are in condition for allowance. A prompt and favorable reconsideration of the
`
`rejection and an indication of allowability of all pending claims are earnestly solicited.
`
`If the Examiner believes that there are issues remaining to be resolved in this application,
`
`the Examineris invited to contact the undersigned attorney at the telephone number indicated
`
`below to arrange for an interview to expedite and complete prosecution ofthis case.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 17/026,849
`
`Docket No.: P200896US00
`
`If this paper is not timely filed, Applicants respectfully petition for an appropriate
`
`extension of time. The fees for such an extension or any other fees that may be due with respect
`
`to this paper may be charged to Deposit Account No. 50-2866.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WHDA, LLP
`
`/Michael J. Caridi/
`
`MichaelJ. Caridi
`Attorney for Applicants
`Registration No. 56,171
`Telephone: 703-827-3800
`Facsimile: 571-395-8753
`
`MJC/fo
`
`10
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
