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 .
This Office action is in response to the arguments filed 12/9/2025.
Claims 5-8 and 21-36 remain pending with claims 30-36 remaining withdrawn and claims 5-8 and 21-29 presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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.
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.
Claims 5-8 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh (US 2013/0313561 and Suh hereinafter) in view of Wong et al (US 2020/0321441 and Wong hereinafter) in view of Green et al (US 2019/0157440 and Green hereinafter) in view of Xu (CN 104950596 and Xu hereinafter).
As to claims 5-8 and 21-23: Suh discloses [claim 5] a transistor (Fig. 7), comprising: a channel layer (104 can serve as a channel and is thus a channel layer; [0020]); an epitaxial barrier layer (106; [0020] and [0065]) on the channel layer; an epitaxial cap layer (108; [0022]-[0023] and [0066]) on the epitaxial barrier layer having an opening (opening in which 118a and 118b are formed; [0054]) through to the epitaxial barrier layer; a dielectric layer (116; [0034]) on the epitaxial cap layer having an opening through to the epitaxial cap layer and the epitaxial barrier layer; a gate stem (118a within 108, 110, and 116; [0034]) having angled sidewalls (angled means placed at an angle relative to something else; the sidewalls of 118a are at approximately 90° with respect to the top of 106 and thus are angled; [0034]) in the openings of the epitaxial cap layer and the dielectric layer; and a gate top (118a on top of 116; [0034]) on the gate; [claim 22] wherein the gate top (118a over 116) comprises two wings (portions of 118a that are directly over 116) that branch out on opposite sides of the gate stem (118a within 108, 110, and 116); [claim 23] wherein the angled sidewalls of the gate stem (118a within 108, 110, and 116) pass through the dielectric layer (116) and the epitaxial cap layer (108).
Suh fails to expressly disclose [claim 5] a mini field plate having angled sidewalls on the gate stem; where the gate top is on the mini field plate, wherein the gate stem, the mini field plate, and the gate top form a “T” shape; [claim 6] wherein the gate stem comprises a length in a range from approximately 20 nanometers (nm) to approximately 500 nm; [claim 7] wherein the mini field plate comprises a width in a range from approximately 1.5 times to approximately 4 times wider than a length of the gate stem; [claim 21] wherein the gate top does not directly contact the dielectric layer, the epitaxial cap layer, or the epitaxial barrier layer; [claim 22] wherein the gate top comprises two wings that branch out on opposite sides of the mini field plate.
Wong discloses [claim 5] a mini field plate (Fig. 1G; 82; [0037]) having angled sidewalls (angled means placed at an angle relative to something else; the sidewalls of 82 are at approximately 90° with respect to the top of 18) on the gate stem (80; [0037]); where the gate top (84; [0037]) is on the mini field plate (82), wherein the gate stem (80), the mini field plate (82), and the gate top (84) form a “T” shape (the shape of Fig. 1G is interpreted to be “T” shaped; [0021]); [claim 6] wherein the gate stem (80) comprises a length in a range from approximately 20 nanometers (nm) to approximately 500 nm (Fig. 3; 40 nm or less; [0039]); [claim 7] wherein the mini field plate (Fig. 3; 82; [0039]) comprises a width in a range from approximately 1.5 times to approximately 4 times wider than a length of the gate stem (gate stem can have a length of 40 nm, the mini field-plate 82 can have a width over each side of the dielectric 64 of an additional 10 nm to 40 nm; therefore, the total width of mini field plate 82 can be from 60 nm to 120 nm); [claim 21] wherein the gate top (84) does not directly contact the dielectric layer (18; [0026]), the epitaxial cap layer (10; [0025]), or the epitaxial barrier layer (12; [0025]); [claim 22] wherein the gate top (84) comprises two wings (portions of 84 that extend beyond 82) that branch out on opposite sides of the mini field plate (82).
Given the teachings of Wong, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Suh by employing the well-known or conventional features of T-gate formation, such as displayed by Wong, by employing a gate neck/mini field-plate between the gate stem/gate foot and the gate top/gate head where the gate top/gate head is spaced apart from the dielectric layer, epitaxial cap layer, and the epitaxial barrier layer and the gate top, mini field plate, and gate stem form a T-gate in order to provide a low/reduced gate parasitic capacitance, produce a device with a higher manufacturing yield, and better repeatability ([0021]).
As to the length of the gate stem and the relative width of the mini field plate and the gate stem, Wong teaches a range for the gate stem 80 that overlaps with the claimed range and a relative width of the mini field plate to gate that overlaps with the claimed range (specifically 1.5 time to 3 times wider). As stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Wong states that the benefit of the small gate length and the width of the mini field plate aids in minimizing gate capacitance ([0023] and [0042]).
Suh in view of Wong fail to expressly disclose [claim 5] wherein the angled sidewalls of the mini field plate comprise exterior angles at a horizontal base in a range from 45 degrees to 89 degrees and [claim 8] wherein the angled sidewalls of the gate stem comprise exterior angles at a horizontal base in a range from approximately 45 degrees to approximately 89 degrees, Green discloses in Fig. 11 and [0057] that an angle 1123 of the gate stem 1120 within 1130 (comparable to 118a within 108 and 110 of Suh and 80 of Wong) can be less than 90° in order to reduce the electric field at the edge of the gate.
Xu discloses in Fig. 7 that for a T-shaped gate, the angle between the gate stem and the opening affects the ability of the transistor work at high frequency and changes the device performance and reliability (see Background Technology).
Therefore, the angle of the sidewalls of the gate stem and the angle of the sidewalls of the mini field plate are result effective variables. 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 sidewalls of the mini field plate and gate within the claimed range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As the range of the angle disclosed by Green, i.e. less than 90°, overlaps the claimed range of 45 to 89 degrees and further that it was known in the art that the angle is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious and within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art using routine experimentation to arrive at an angle within the claimed range.
Further, as stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), ““[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).”
Further, applicant has not demonstrated that there is a criticality to the claimed ranges nor that there is an unexpected result with respect to the claimed ranges.
As to claims 24-29: Suh discloses [claim 24] a gate (Fig. 7) comprising: a gate stem (118a within 108, 110, and 116; [0034]) having angled sidewalls (angled means placed at an angle relative to something else; the sidewalls of 118a are at approximately 90° with respect to the top of 106 and thus are angled; [0034]) configured to be disposed in openings in an epitaxial cap layer (106; [0023]) and a dielectric layer (116; [0034]); and a gate top (118a on top of 116; [0034]) on the gate; [claim 28] wherein the angled sidewalls of the gate stem (118a within 108, 110, and 116) pass through the dielectric layer (116) and the epitaxial cap layer (108); [claim 29] wherein the gate top (118a over 116) comprises two wings (portions of 118a that are directly over 116) that branch out on opposite sides of the gate stem (118a within 108, 110, and 116).
Suh fails to expressly disclose [claim 24] a mini field plate having angled sidewalls on the gate stem; where the gate top is on the mini field plate, wherein the gate stem, the mini field plate, and the gate top form a “T” shape; [claim 25] wherein the gate stem comprises a length in a range from approximately 20 nanometers (nm) to approximately 500 nm; [claim 26] wherein the mini field plate comprises a width in a range from approximately 1.5 times to approximately 4 times wider than a length of the gate stem; [claim 29] wherein the gate top comprises two wings that branch out on opposite sides of the mini field plate.
Wong discloses [claim 24] a mini field plate (Fig. 1G; 82; [0037]) having angled sidewalls (angled means placed at an angle relative to something else; the sidewalls of 82 are at approximately 90° with respect to the top of 18) on the gate stem (80; [0037]); where the gate top (84; [0037]) is on the mini field plate (82), wherein the gate stem (80), the mini field plate (82), and the gate top (84) form a “T” shape (the shape of Fig. 1G is interpreted to be “T” shaped; [0021]); [claim 25] wherein the gate stem (80) comprises a length in a range from approximately 20 nanometers (nm) to approximately 500 nm (Fig. 3; 40 nm or less; [0039]); [claim 26] wherein the mini field plate (Fig. 3; 82; [0039]) comprises a width in a range from approximately 1.5 times to approximately 4 times wider than a length of the gate stem (gate stem can have a length of 40 nm, the mini field-plate 82 can have a width over each side of the dielectric 64 of an additional 10 nm to 40 nm; therefore, the total width of mini field plate 82 can be from 60 nm to 120 nm); [claim 29] wherein the gate top (84) comprises two wings (portions of 84 that extend beyond 82) that branch out on opposite sides of the mini field plate (82).
Given the teachings of Wong, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Suh by employing the well-known or conventional features of T-gate formation, such as displayed by Wong, by employing a gate neck/mini field-plate between the gate stem/gate foot and the gate top/gate head and the gate top, mini field plate, and gate stem form a T-gate in order to provide a low/reduced gate parasitic capacitance, produce a device with a higher manufacturing yield, and better repeatability ([0021]).
As to the length of the gate stem and the relative width of the mini field plate and the gate stem, Wong teaches a range for the gate stem 80 that overlaps with the claimed range and a relative width of the mini field plate to gate that overlaps with the claimed range (specifically 1.5 time to 3 times wider). As stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Wong states that the benefit of the small gate length and the width of the mini field plate aids in minimizing gate capacitance ([0023] and [0042]).
As to [claim 24] wherein the angled sidewalls of the mini field plate comprise exterior angles at a horizontal base in a range from 45 degrees to 89 degrees and [claim 27] wherein the angled sidewalls of the gate stem comprise exterior angles at a horizontal base in a range from approximately 45 degrees to approximately 89 degrees, Green discloses in Fig. 11 and [0057] that an angle 1123 of the gate stem 1120 within 1130 (comparable to 118a within 108 and 110 of Suh and 80 of Wong) can be less than 90° in order to reduce the electric field at the edge of the gate.
Xu discloses in Fig. 7 that for a T-shaped gate, the angle between the gate stem and the opening affects the ability of the transistor work at high frequency and changes the device performance and reliability (see Background Technology).
Therefore, the angle of the sidewalls of the gate stem and the angle of the sidewalls of the mini field plate are result effective variables. 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 sidewalls of the mini field plate and gate within the claimed range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As the range of the angle disclosed by Green, i.e. less than 90°, overlaps the claimed range of 45 to 89 degrees and further that it was known in the art that the angle is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious and within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art using routine experimentation to arrive at an angle within the claimed range.
Further, as stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).”
Further, applicant has not demonstrated that there is a criticality to the claimed ranges nor that there is an unexpected result with respect to the claimed ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance that Suh in view of Wong do not disclose or suggest that the gate neck may include angled sidewalls having “exterior angles at a horizontal base in a range from 45 degrees to 89 degrees.” Green and Xu do not cure the deficiencies of Suh in view of Wong. Xu discloses a grid cover structure 9 and a grid leg structure 6 that form a T-shaped structure. The grid cover structure is in a trapezoidal shape and includes sidewalls having exterior angles that are greater than 90 degrees. Further, as described in the specification, if the exterior angle of the mini-FP is greater than 89°, the gate top 513 may collapse. Thus, there is a criticality to the claimed angle range of the angled sidewalls of the mini field plate.
Examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s remarks. Applicant states that Green does not cure the deficiency of Suh in view of Wong not disclosing that the exterior angle at a horizontal base can be in a range from 45 to 89 degrees. However, Applicant does not address the teaching of Green with respect to the exterior angle. Green states in [0057] that the angle between the sidewalls of the layers 1124 and 1130 and the sidewall of the gate stem (the exterior angle) can be less than 90°. Suh is provided to show that the angle of the gate stem with respect to the horizontal affects the ability of the transistor to work at high frequency and changes the device performance and reliability (see Background Technology) and is thus a result effective variable. As the range of the angle disclosed by Green, i.e. less than 90°, overlaps the claimed range of 45 to 89 degrees and further that it was known in the art that the angle is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious and within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art using routine experimentation to arrive at an angle within the claimed range. In addition, as stated in MPEP 2144.05(I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).” As to the discussion in the specification to what may occur when the angle is “too big”, the specification fails to establish criticality because of the use of the terms “might” and “too big” in [0033], i.e. “[i]f the exterior angle of the mini-FP 511 is too big, the gate top 513 might become unstable and collapse” (emphasis added). “Might” denotes that there are cases or occurrences of the gate top not collapsing if the angle is “too big” and “too big” isn’t properly established in this paragraph to provide specificity to the angle range.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4 pm, EST.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
JOSEPH C. NICELY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
3/20/2026