DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/30/2026 has been entered.
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 .
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 1-7 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 1 now recites “a silicone core continuously surrounded by the first oxide coating” and “wherein the silicone core forms the substantially flat floor of the cavity”.
There appears to be no support for the underlined limitation, in the application as originally filed. Specifically, referring to Fig. 2B, the silicon core 202 is surrounded by oxide coating 204. Cavity 206 is formed in the oxide coating, having a substantially flat floor 212. See “device comprises a silicon wafer with a first oxide coating and a cavity in the first oxide coating having a substantially flat floor formed of a layer of the first oxide coating that is continuous with the first oxide coating “. See “the cavity having a substantially flat floor formed of a layer of the first oxide coating” in [0037]. See “a bottom (e.g., the floor 212) of the cavity 206” in [0046]. See “the floor 212 of the cavity may have a lower roughness due to a presence of the pad oxide layer 210, relative to a texture provided by the silicon core 202, if the floor 212 of the cavity 206 were instead formed of the silicon core 202” in [0052]. See “Polishing of the floor 212 after the masking layer 216 is removed is thereby obviated and the silicon core 202 is not exposed at the floor 212.” Additionally, if core 202 would be the floor (i.e., bottom) of the cavity 206, the core would no longer be continuously surrounded by the first oxide coating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US2012/0256517A1 discloses polishing an oxide layer 124 to a value below 0.5 nm (see [0080]. However, this value is far from less than 0.1 nm, and the oxide layer 124 does not functionally correspond to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIVIUS R CAZAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday noon-8:30 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/LIVIUS R. CAZAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
Prosecution Insights