DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the RCE filed 5/5/2026.
Currently, claims 21-22 and 24-44 are pending, of which claims 24-44 are newly added.
Claim Objections
Claims 33, 42 and 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 33, the terms “photo detector” and “photo emitter” should instead be “photodetector” and “photo emitter”, respectively. This is consistent with the specification (para. [0015]).
Claim 42 is presented with a “wherein” clause in the first line, and thus the terms “having” (line 3) and “being” (last line) is improper (these should instead be “has” and “is”, respectively).
In claim 43, a colon is missing at the end of line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 26-32 and 36-37 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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the first dielectric layer having a different thickness than the second dielectric layer”. However, there are in fact a plurality of first and second dielectric layers (“a plurality of alternating layers of a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer”). Referencing FIG. 1C, it appears that different first dielectric layers 117 have different thicknesses. Thus, it is unclear which first dielectric layer is being referenced in the limitation “the first dielectric layer having a different thickness than the second dielectric layer”. Claim 27 recites the same limitation via dependency.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “a barrier layer disposed along lateral surfaces of an outer perimeter of the dielectric plateau”. Referencing FIG. 1C and para. [0046], 120 is the only layer described as a barrier layer. The surface on which it is formed extends in a direction that is nearly vertical. Thus, it is not clear what is meant by “lateral surfaces”. Claims 29-30 recite the same limitation via dependency.
Additionally, claim 30 recites the limitation “the dielectric plateau further includes a second barrier layer disposed along a top surface of the outer perimeter of the dielectric plateau”. This is unclear in view of the disclosure. According to the disclosure, the only layer that is on the top surface of the dielectric plateau is 125, which is described as an upper field reduction layer (para. [0050]). Thus, it is not clear what is meant by “second barrier layer”.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “wherein forming the lower isolation element includes forming a bond pad”. The lower isolation element and the bond pad are distinct features. It is not clear how the formation of the bond pad could be considered to be a part of the step of forming the lower isolation element. Claim 32 recites the same limitation via dependency.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “circuit bias potentials close to a lower end of an operational potential difference between the upper isolation element and the lower isolation element”, while claim 37 recites “circuit bias potentials close to an upper end of an operational potential difference between the upper isolation element and the lower isolation element”. The term “close to” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, it cannot be determined at what point the bias potentials would be considered to be “close to” a lower or upper end of an operational potential difference between the upper isolation element and the lower isolation element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-22, 24-25, 34-35, 38-41 and 44 are allowed. Independent claims 21 and 22 contain subject matter previously identified as allowable in the office action dated 2/6/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights