DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/16/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-7, 9-15, and 17-22 are pending. Claims 8 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 7, 9, 15, 17, and 20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1, 11, 18 and 20 have been amended (although not all amendments are properly identified).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 11, 18 and 20 are not identified with proper claim identifiers and/or submitted with proper markings.
Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
Claim 1 includes the following added texts without underlining “multiple alternating layers of a first material and a second material, the”. Furthermore, “a second material comprising” has been amended to “the second material comprising” without proper markings.
Claim 11 includes the following added texts without underlining“, wherein the plurality of alteranting materials comprises a first amterial comprising a first refractive index alternating with a second material comprising a second refractive index material multiple times”
Claim 18 “the topmost layer of the plurality of alternatinve materials contacts” has not been amended and tehrefore should not be presented with marked texts “[[a]]”. Furthermore “the semiconductor substrate of the SOI substrate” has been amended to “he semiconductor substrate of the SOI substrate” which appears to be improper. Claim 18 should be rewritten as presented in claim filed on 5/13/2025.
Claim 20 includes the following added texts without underlining “multiple alternating layers of” and “, the first material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 10-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kadura et al. US 2021/0082983 A1 (Kadura).
PNG
media_image1.png
584
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) a structure comprising:
at least one device T2-T4 on a front side of a semiconductor substrate S2;
a plurality of grating layers 201 under the at least one device T2-T4, the plurality of grating layers 201 comprising multiple alternating layers of a first material and a second material, the first material comprising a first refractive index alternating with the second material comprising a second refractive index (¶ 83); and
contacts 270 (¶ 73) extending from a front side of and entirely through an interlevel dielectric material 240 and further extending through the semiconductor substrate S2 underlying the interlevel dielectric material 240 to directly contact and terminate at an upper surface of a topmost layer of the at least one of the first material and the second material 201 below the at least one device T2-T4 and below the semiconductor substrate S2 underlying the interlevel dielectric material 240.
In re claim 2, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) the plurality of grating layers 201 is a Bragg mirror comprising alternating silicon oxide layers and doped silicon layers (¶ 83). No specific wavelength has been claimed. As such, there exist a wavelength λ such that the thickness of each layer of the Bragg mirror 201 is (2n+1)/4 × λ, where n=0,1,2,3… (“any odd integer multiple of one quarter wavelength thickness”) since λ can be of any arbitrary value.
In re claim 3, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the first material (e.g. silicon oxide) comprises a first dielectric constant and the second material (e.g. doped silicon) comprises a second dielectric constant different from the first dielectric constant (¶ 83).
In re claim 4, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein a combination of the plurality of grating layers 201 reflect light away from the at least one device T2-T4 (¶ 83).
In re claim 10, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the semiconductor substrate S2 is a top layer of a semiconductor on insulator (SOI) substrate (including SS,205,S1), the SOI substrate further comprises an insulator layer 205 under the top layer S2 and an underlying semiconductor material S1 under the insulator layer 205, the topmost layer of the plurality of grating layers 201 contacts an underside of the insulator layer 205 of the SOI substrate S2+205+S1 and a bottom most layer of the plurality of grating layers 201 contacts (any of electrically or thermally or physically) a top surface of the underlying semiconductor material S1 of the SOI substrate. In another interpretation, the layers of the SOI substrate is constituted of S2, 205 and a silicon layer in 201. As such, the bottom most layer of the remaining overlying grating layers directly contacts a top surface of the underlying semiconductor material (i.e. silicon layer).
In re claim 11, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) a structure comprising:
a substrate S2;
at least one device T2-T4 on a first side of the substrate S2;
a reflector 201 (¶ 83) located on a second side of the substrate S2, the reflector 201 comprising a plurality of alternating materials comprising structural characteristics that reflect incident light from reaching the at least one device T2-T4 (¶ 83), wherein the plurality of alternating materials comprises a first material comprising a first refractive index alternating with a second material comprising a second refractive index material multiple times (¶ 83); and
contacts 270 (¶ 73) extending from a front side of and entirely through an interlevel dielectric material 240 and further extending through the substrate S2 underlying the interlevel dielectric material 240 to directly contact and terminate at an upper surface of a topmost layer of the at least one of a first material and a second material of the alternating materials 201 below the at least one device 504 and below the substrate S2 underlying the interlevel dielectric material 240.
In re claim 12, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the plurality of alternating materials 201 (¶ 83) includes a stack of materials alternating between a high dielectric constant material (silicon) and a lower dielectric constant material (silicon dioxide).
In re claim 13, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) the plurality of grating layers 201 is a Bragg mirror comprising alternating silicon oxide layers and doped silicon layers (¶ 83). No specific wavelength has been claimed. As such, there exist a wavelength λ such that the thickness of each layer of the Bragg mirror 201 is (2n+1)/4 × λ, where n=0,1,2,3… (“an odd integer multiple of one quarter wavelength thickness”) since λ can be of any arbitrary value.
In re claim 18, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the substrate S2 is a top layer of a semiconductor on insulator (SOI) substrate (including SS,205,S1), the SOI substrate further comprises an insulator layer 205 under the substrate S2 and a semiconductor substrate S1 under the insulator layer 205, the topmost layer of the plurality of alternating materials 201 contacts the insulator layer 205 of the SOI substrate S2+205+S1 and a bottom most layer of the plurality of alternating materials 201 contacts (any of electrically or thermally or physically) the semiconductor substrate S1 of the SOI substrate. In another interpretation, the layers of the SOI substrate is constituted of S2, 205 and a silicon layer in 201. As such, the bottom most layer of the remaining overlying alternating material layers directly contacts the semiconductor substrate (i.e. silicon layer).
In re claim 19, Kadura discloses (e.g. FIG. 3) wherein the plurality of alternating materials 201 comprise grating layers (¶ 83).
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.
Claims 5-6, 14 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadura as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chen et al. US 2010/0038661 A1 (Chen).
In re claims 5 and 14, Kadura discloses the claimed invention including grating layers 201, wherein the first material and second material comprises alternating silicon oxide and doped silicon (¶ 83) for forming a Bragg mirror (¶ 83). Kadura does not explicitly disclose the first material comprises SiGe and the second material comprises Si forming alternating SiGe and Si layers.
However, Chen discloses a non-metallic reflective layer 104 formed of alternating layers of materials having different refractive index (¶ 18-28) for improving reflectivity of light having shorter wavelengths (¶ 34). Chen discloses examples of the alternating layers of materials can be alternating silicon/silicon oxide (¶ 41) or alternating Si/SiGe (¶ 26). As such, Chen teaches alternating silicon/silicon oxide and alternating Si/SiGe are obvious alternatives.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the alternating silicon/silicon oxide grating can be substituted with Si/SiGe grating for the purpose of making a reflector with improved reflectivity for short wavelength. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the modification. Finally, the modification achieves the predictable result of obtaining a light reflector with desired reflectivity for selected wavelength range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicon/silicon oxide Bragg mirror of Kadura for Si/SiGe of Chen according to known methods to yield the predictable result of obtaining a light reflector with improved reflectivity for short wavelength as desired as taught by Chen.
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125
In re claim 6, Kadura discloses the first material and the second material comprise doped materials (doped silicon, ¶ 83). Chen discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the first material and the second material comprise doped materials (n-doped Si layer and SiGe layer, ¶ 26).
In re claim 21, Kadura discloses (FIG. 3) the contacts 270 physically contact the uppermost layer of the alternating silicon/silicon oxide (¶ 83). Chen teaches alternating silicon/silicon oxide and alternating doped Si/SiGe are obvious alternative choices for forming a non-metallic reflector (¶ 26, 41). Therefore, it would be obvious to substitute Kadura’s silicon/silicon oxide Bragg mirror with a doped Si/SiGe reflector as taught by Chen as detailed in rejections of claims 5 and 14 above. As such, the first material comprises doped Si (¶ 26 of Chen) and the second material comprises doped SiGe (¶ 26 of Chen). Kadura’s contacts 270 physically contact the topmost layer of the Si/SiGe grating.
It would be within grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art to switch the alternation order of silicon and silicon germanium. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the Si/SiGe alternating layers such that a doped SiGe layer is the top most layer. As such. Kadura’s contacts 270 physically contact the topmost doped SiGe layer of the grating layers.
No specific “different resistor materials” are claimed that would distinguish over Chen’s doped Si and doped SiGe.
In re claim 22, Kadura discloses (FIG. 3) the contacts 270 contact the first material and the second material of alternating silicon/silicon oxide (¶ 83), and the contacts 270 extend through the substrate S2 and the interlevel dielectric material 240.
Chen teaches alternating silicon/silicon oxide and alternating doped Si/SiGe are obvious alternative choices for forming a non-metallic reflector (¶ 26, 41). Therefore, it would be obvious to substitute Kadura’s silicon/silicon oxide Bragg mirror with a doped Si/SiGe reflector as taught by Chen as detailed in rejections of claims 5 and 14 above. As such, the plurality of alternating materials comprises alternating layers of doped Si (¶ 26 of Chen) and doped SiGe (¶ 26 of Chen). Kadura’s contacts 270 contact contacts (any of electrically or thermally or physically) the doped SiGe.
Alternatively, it would be within grasp of one having ordinary skill in the art to switch the alternation order of silicon and silicon germanium. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the Si/SiGe alternating layers such that a doped SiGe layer is the top most layer. As such. Kadura’s contacts 270 physically contact the topmost doped SiGe layer of the grating layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues Kadura's shield 201 fails to teach the claimed plurality of grating layers that include alternating layers of two different materials (Remark, pages 8-9).
This is not persuasive. Kadura discloses in Para [0083] "shield 201 comprises an alternation of silicon oxide layers and of doped silicon layers". Silicon oxide and doped silicon are different materials having different refractive index. Therefore, Kadura explicitly teaches alternating layers of two different materials having different refractive index. The explicit example disclosed by Kadura include alternating layers of silicon oxide and doped silicon.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Applicant argues the rejection is based on a conjecture (Remark, pages 9-10).
This is not persuasive. The claim limitation recites the thickness of each one of the grating layers is “any odd integer multiple of one quarter wavelength”. An “odd integer multiple of one quarter wavelength” can be mathematically expressed as (2n+1)/4 × λ, where n=0,1,2,3… etc. The “wavelength” magnitude is not specific in claim and can be any arbitrary wavelength value. Therefore, mathematically, there must exists a value of λ such that (2n+1)/4 × λ corresponds to the thickness of each layer of Kadura’s Bragg mirror 201. In other words, there must necessarily exist a real value solution to the equation T=(2n+1)/4 × λ for any given thickness T of each of the grating layers when λ can be any value.
The odd integer can be “any” odd integer. For example the odd integer can be 1 (i.e. n=0). In this case, T=1/4 × λ meets the claim thickness. There exists a value of λ for whatever T may be.
For example, if thickness T of each of Kadura’s grating layer is 10 nm. The thickness T of 10 nm is ¼ wavelength of 40nm, where λ=40 nm.
In another example, if thickness T of each of Kadura’s grating layer is 100 nm. The thickness T of 100 nm is ¼ wavelength of 400 nm, where λ=400 nm.
Therefore, because the wavelength λ is not specified, it can be of any value. And there exists a value of λ such that an odd integer multiple of one quarter of such λ is equal to the thickness of each of Kadura grating layers.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights