Attorney’s Docket Number: AD8618-US
Filing Date: 12/10/2021
Claimed Priority Date: none
Inventors: Majhi et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 11/12/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 11/12/2025 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 6, mailed on 8/12/2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1, 11 and 19 recite that the outer region comprises carbon. However, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing, particularly with respect to the presence of carbon in the outer region.
The claims recite that the “outer region comprises carbon.” The specification, however, does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors were in possession of an outer region comprising carbon as part of the invention at the time of filing.
The only disclosure of carbon in the specification (see ¶0054) indicates that trace amounts of carbon may be present in the outer region as a byproduct of the monolayer doping process and anneal. This disclosure characterizes carbon as incidental and unintended, rather than as a compositional feature of the outer region.
The specification does not describe carbon being intentionally incorporated into the outer region, carbon being present in any defined concentration or range, carbon contributing to any structural or electrical property of the outer region, or any process conditions for introducing or controlling carbon.
Accordingly, the specification fails to demonstrate possession of an outer region that “comprises carbon” across the scope of the claims, which encompasses embodiments where carbon is a material component of the outer region and not merely an incidental trace impurity.
Therefore, the claims include subject matter not described in the specification and fail to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 19 recite an outer region that “comprises carbon,” which encompasses a broad range of embodiments, including but not limited to outer regions in which carbon is intentionally incorporated, outer regions in which carbon is present in more than trace amounts, and outer regions in which carbon contributes to material or electrical properties. However, the specification provides no guidance regarding how to introduce carbon into the outer region, appropriate concentrations or distributions of carbon, process conditions to achieve such incorporation, or the effect of carbon on device performance.
The only mention of carbon (¶0054) refers to trace amounts resulting from processing residue, which does not enable the full scope of the claimed invention. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be required to engage in undue experimentation to determine how to make and use embodiments in which the outer region meaningfully “comprises carbon,” particularly beyond incidental trace contamination.
Therefore, the claims are not enabled over their full scope.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues:
The specification explicitly discloses that carbon may be present at the outer region of the source/drain region (see, e.g., fig. 6E and ¶0054). Contrary to the examiner’s statement, whether or not carbon is deliberately introduced is immaterial as the claim only requires that the carbon be present. Accordingly, the 112(a) rejection of the claims should be withdrawn.
The examiner responds:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant appears to rely on the disclosure in ¶0054 and fig. 6E as support for the limitation that the outer region “comprises carbon.” However, ¶0054 merely indicates that trace amounts of carbon may be present as a byproduct of processing. This disclosure does not describe carbon as a feature of the invention, nor does it demonstrate that the inventors were in possession of an outer region comprising carbon as claimed.
To the extent that the applicant argues that the term “comprises carbon” encompasses trace amounts, the claims are not so limited and instead encompass embodiments in which carbon is a material component of the outer region. The specification does not provide written description or enablement for such embodiments.
Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
March 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights