DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 14-70 have been canceled. Claims 11-13 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species IV and Subspecies IVa (FIG. 2B), encompassing claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Chaji fails to teach the common technical feature recited in claim 1. This is not found persuasive because claim 1 is rejected over Obata et al. US 2015/0076456 A1 (Obata) as detailed below. Therefore, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Obata.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons,
“an etched part of the layers” renders the claim indefinite because “the layers” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear what is referred to by “the layer”.
“a dielectric layer formed covering aside wall” is indefinite because it is unclear what constitute “aside wall”
“the etching of the layers” lacks antecedent basis. No “etching of the layers” has been previously recited.
“an ohmic layer formed on the doped layer” is indefinite because it is unclear if “the doped layer” is the same as the previously recited “top doped layer” or is intended to refer to a different doped layer
“to enhance the coupling to the doped layers” lacks antecedent basis. No “coupling” or plural “doped layers” have been previously recited. It is unclear what are referred to by “the coupling” and “the doped layers”.
“an electrode connecting a bottom doped layer to a top surface” is indefinite because it is unclear what is the “top surface” referring to. A top surface of what?
Claim 2 reciting “dielectric layer” renders the claim indefinite due to lack of proper antecedent basis. It is unclear if the “dielectric layer” as recited in claim 2 is the same as the “dielectric layer” previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 2 reciting “other methods” renders the metes and bound of claim indefinite. It is unclear what is sought to be encompassed or excluded by “other methods”.
Claim 4 reciting “the electrode is reflective or transparent”, and claim 5 further specifying only details of the reflective electrode without unequivocally requiring a reflective electrode renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how does claim 5 further limit claim 4 when the electrode is transparent.
Claim 5 reciting “the entire etched area” renders the claim indefinite due to lack of antecedent basis. It is unclear what constitutes “the entire etched area”.
Claim 6 reciting “the ohmic layer and electrode are the same layers” renders the claim indefinite. Firstly, “the same layers” lacks antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear how can the ohmic layer and the electrode be construed as “the same layers” in plural form? Furthermore, “the same layers” as what?
Claim 8 reciting “the second electrode” renders the claim indefinite for lacking antecedent basis. It is unclear what is referred to by “the second electrode”.
Claim 9 reciting “a bump ( a pad)” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if both the bump and the pad are required, or are intended to be recited in alternative, or the “pad” is not required at all by the claim. The intended effect of the parentheses is unclear.
Claim 9 reciting “the top doped layers” renders the claim indefinite. no plural “top doped layers” have been previously recited. It is unclear what are referred to by “the top doped layers”. And how are they related to the previously recited “top doped layer”.
Claim 10 reciting “a microdevice size is limited by a width of an etching edge and a VIA in the dielectric layer” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how do the width and the VIA “limited” the microdevice size, “limited” in what manner? Furthermore, it is unclear what constitute “limited”. Does it set an upper limit or does it require exact matching?
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obata et al. US 2015/0076546 A1 (Obata).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Obata discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1A-1B) a microdevice structure comprising:
an etched part of “the layers” 15 (removed in second portion 15b), a top doped layer 20, and an active layer 30, at an edge of the microdevice (e.g. right side edge shown in FIG. 1);
a dielectric layer 70 formed covering “aside wall” 15t exposed due to “the etching of the layers” 15 (see FIG. 7A);
an ohmic layer 50 formed on “the doped layer” 10 to enhance “the coupling to the doped layers” 10 (¶ 68 discloses ohmic contact material); and
an electrode 53 connecting a bottom doped layer 10 to “a top surface” 15g.
In re claim 2, as best understood, Obata discloses (e.g. FIG. 1B) wherein dielectric layer 70 is deposited using ALD, PECVD or “other methods”. No specific “other methods” disclosed that would distinguish over the method of forming dielectric layer 70 (¶ 59). Furthermore, in regard to the product by process language, since a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao and Sato et al., 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (CCPA 1976) (footnote 3). “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972). See also In re Luck and Gainer, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974); and In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC 1983). It is the final product per se which must be determined for patentability in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not, is not patentable. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based upon the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product is made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In re claim 3, Obata discloses (e.g. FIG. 1B) wherein the dielectric layer 70 is made of Al2O3, SiN, or SiO2 (¶ 31, 59).
In re claim 4, Obata discloses (e.g. FIG. 1B) wherein the electrode 53 is reflective (¶ 25) or transparent.
In re claim 5, as best understood, Obata discloses (e.g. FIG. 1A) wherein “the reflective electrode” 53 covers “the entire etched area” (corresponding to the “entire area” that is covered by 53) to reflect a light toward a bottom surface 15f of the microdevice (¶ 26).
In re claim 6, as best understood, Obata discloses (e.g. FIG. 1B) wherein “the ohmic layer 50 and electrode 53 are the same layers”. As best understood, 50 and 53 being formed simultaneously with respective 40 and 43 are considered to be “the same layers” (see FIG. 6D and 7D, ¶ 69, 83, 87).
In re claim 7, Obata discloses (e.g. FIG. 1B) wherein a second dielectric layer 80 covers the electrode 53.
In re claim 8, as best understood, Obata discloses (e.g. FIG. 1B) wherein a pad 55 is formed over “the second electrode” 53.
In re claim 9, as best understood, Obata discloses (e.g. FIG. 1B) wherein a second electrode 43, a second ohmic layer 40 (¶ 63-68 discloses ohmic contact material), or “a bump ( a pad)” 45 are coupled to “the top doped layers” 20.
In re claim 10, as best understood, Obata discloses (e.g. FIG. 1B) wherein “a microdevice size is limited by a width of an etching edge 15s and a VIA in the dielectric layer 70” (opening in layer 70, ¶ 84). As best understood, the size of the microdevice is “limited” by an etching edge 15s which is the outer side surface of the device. Furthermore, the size of the microdevice is “limited” by the opening in layer 70 in that the lithographic limit to form the opening would determine the size of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM ET.
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 on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896