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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the second source/drain electrode” and “the shielding structure directly contacts at least one of the first source/drain electrode and the second source/drain electrode.”
The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, "does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed." In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc. V. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result, but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed, or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. V. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
In this instance, claim 13 includes the language, “wherein the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the second source/drain electrode” and “the shielding structure directly contacts at least one of the first source/drain electrode and the second source/drain electrode.” however, the Examiner notes the specification as of originally filed (instant application) does not have support for the scope of these limitations. Claim 13 recites the limitation “a first source/drain electrode directly above the drift area” and “a second source/drain electrode below the drift area.” The claim also requires the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the second source/drain electrode which seems to be referring to Fig. 3D wherein a section of the drift region (212) is above the shielding region (214) while the second source/drain electrode (218) is below the shielding region (214). However, when the newly amended subject matter, “the shielding structure directly contacts at least one of the first source/drain electrode and the second source/drain electrode” is not supported in the configuration of Fig. 3D. Applicant do not provide enough information for in the specification or the drawing to support both, “the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the second source/drain electrode” AND “the shielding structure directly contacts at least one of the first source/drain electrode and the second source/drain electrode.” Applicant points to Fig. 2A, in which a first source/drain electrode directly above the drift area; a second source/drain electrode below the drift area; and a shielding structure, which is situated laterally adjacent to at least one side wall of the semiconductor fin in the drift area; wherein the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the FIRST source/drain electrode, and wherein the shielding structure directly contacts the first source/drain electrode. There is no support for configuration of the device that supports the second source/drain electrode to be in direct contact with the shielding structure when the second source/drain electrode is below the drift area.
Further, the limitation of claim 18, “the shielding structure is completely enclosed by the drift area” also conflicts with the newly amended limitation, “the shielding structure directly contacts at least one of the first source/drain electrode and the second source/drain electrode”.
Even further, the limitation of claim 19, “the shielding structure includes at least one area that extends to a surface of the drift area” also conflicts with the limitation in claim 1, “the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the second source/drain electrode”.
Claims 14-22 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 13 respectively.
Claim 23 also suffers from the same issues as claim 13. Claim 23 recites “the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the second source/drain electrode” (as in Fig. 3D) and “ the shielding structure directly contacts at least one of the first source/drain electrode (Fig. 2A) and the second source/drain electrode.” There is no configuration within the specification, or the drawing supports the combination of this scope of this limitation. Further, there is no support for the shielding structure to directly contact the second source/drain electrode (drain electrode -218). Nor is there support (specification or drawing) for the shielding structure to have direct contact to the first source/drain electrode while “the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the second source/drain.
Claim 24 also suffers from the same issues as claim 13. Claim 24 recites “the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the second source/drain electrode” (as in Fig. 3D) and “ the shielding structure directly contacts at least one of the first source/drain electrode (Fig. 2A) and the second source/drain electrode.” There is no configuration within the specification, or the drawing supports the combination of this scope of this limitation. Further, there is no support for the shielding structure to directly contact the second source/drain electrode (drain electrode -218). Nor is there support (specification or drawing) for the shielding structure to have direct contact to the first source/drain electrode while “the shielding structure is positioned between the drift area and the second source/drain. electrode”.
Consequently, the invention as now claimed was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, has possession of the claimed invention. It seems that several portions of various embodiments are overlapping creating a device that is not supported within the specification or the drawings.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments and amends filed 08/31/2026 have been fully considered, however, as there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claim 13, 23 and 24, it would not be proper for the Examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706. 03.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims. The claims have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is sufficient uncertainty that it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deng et al. [US 2020/0020798 A1] discloses a semiconductor region with a fin structure. Deng does not disclose the source/drain electrode is formed laterally adjacent to at least one side wall of the semiconductor fin and is electrically conductively connected to the shielding structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)272-3464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 9am-6pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571)270-7996. 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.
PRIYA M. RAMPERSAUD
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights