DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the substrate protrusion is integrally continuous with the substrate such that no material interface exists therebetween,” is unclear as to the scope of the claim. In particular, it is unclear as to what would or would not read on “material interface.” For example, would a crystal boundary or a crystal defect constitute a “material interface.” Further, since “material” can be more than one substance, it is unclear how “material interface” should be interpreted. Lastly, it is unclear as to how it is related to the substrate protrusion extending from the upper surface of the substrate. Specifically, if the protrusion extends from the surface (i.e. the surface is below the protrusion and between the protrusion and the substrate), is that surface not construed interface?
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “each of the plurality of nanowires comprises a plane…” is unclear because it appears to require each plurality to comprise the subsequent elements, however there is understood to be only a single plurality of nanowires. Further, it is unclear as to if the plurality comprises each feature, or if a nanowire/each of the nanowires of the plurality comprise each feature.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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 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.
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) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellianitis (US 2020/0035840; herein “Vellianitis”) in view of Yu et al. (US 20210408247; herein “Yu”).
Regarding claim 1, Vellianitis teaches in Fig. 16C (including features disclosed in association with Figs. 2-12) and related text a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate (e.g. 102/116, see [0020], [0021], and [0028]) having an upper surface (e.g upper surface of bottommost 106/206); and
substrate protrusion (e.g. bottommost 208) and a plurality of nanowires (e.g. the five upper 208, see [0060]; note that one can choose a subset of 208 as the “plurality of nanowires”), the plurality of nanowires stacked on the substrate protrusion along a first direction, and the substrate protrusion is triangular in a cross section (see Fig. 16C);
wherein each nanowire of the plurality of nanowires comprise a triangle in the cross section (see Fig. 16C), and each of the plurality of nanowires comprises a plane extending along a second direction and corresponding to a top surface of a bottom surface of the triangle, a first down-slant facet on a (111) plane and corresponding to a sidewall of the triangle, and a second down-slant facet on an additional (111) plane corresponding to another sidewall of the triangle (see [0061]); and
the substrate protrusion (bottommost 208) is mirror-symmetrical (see Fig. 16C) to a bottommost nanowire (e.g. 208 directly above bottommost 208) in the plurality of nanowires stacked along the first direction ;
a total number of the plurality of nanowires (the five upper 208 as shown in Fig. 16C) stacked along the first direction is an odd number (e.g. five).
Vellianitis does not explicitly disclose
the substrate protrusion extending from the upper surface, wherein the substrate protrusion is integrally continuous with the substrate such that no material interface exists therebetween.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu teaches in Fig. 16A and related text a semiconductor device comprising
the substrate protrusion (e.g. protruding protrusion of 66) extending from the upper surface, wherein the substrate protrusion is integrally continuous with the substrate such that no material interface exists therebetween.
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 invention of Vellianitis by having the substrate protrusion extending from the upper surface, wherein the substrate protrusion is integrally continuous with the substrate such that no material interface exists therebetween, as taught by Wong, in order to decrease the profile of the device. Additionally, it is noted that Vellianitis further discloses that the epitaxial layers can be deposited in any number (see [0023]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to omit the bottommost 206 of Vellianitis since it represents a simple change in number of epitaxial layer 206, and since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 2, Vellianitis further discloses wherein an included angle between the plane extending along the second direction and the first down-slant facet ranges from 54.5 degrees to 55 degrees, and an included angle between the plane extending in the second direction and the second down-slant facet ranges from 54.5 degrees to 55 degrees (Ɵ4 and Ɵ5 equal 54.7˚, see [0062]).
Regarding claim 3, Vellianitis further discloses wherein at least two of the plurality of nanowires are symmetrical to each other about a plane of symmetry extending along the second direction (see Fig. 16C).
Regarding claim 6, Vellianitis further discloses wherein a topmost nanowire and a bottommost nanowire in the plurality of nanowires (the five upper 208) stacked along the first direction are inverted triangles in the cross section (see Fig. 16C; note that the bottommost nanowire of the “plurality of nanowires” is the fifth 208 from the top as shown in Fig. 16C).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vellianitis and Yu, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Cea et al. (US 2014/0042386; herein “Cea”).
Regarding claim 4, Vellianitis does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the substrate and the plurality of nanowires comprise a same single crystalline semiconductor material.
In the same field of endeavor, Cea teaches in Figs. 1A-C and related text a semiconductor device wherein each of the substrate (102) and the plurality of nanowires (104) comprise a same single crystalline semiconductor material (see [0039] and [0041]).
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 device of Vellianitis by having the substrate and the nanowires comprise a same single crystalline semiconductor material, as shown by Cea, in order to improve electrical properties of the nanowires.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights