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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
1) The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“less than 20% open area and a side wall slope of less than 85 degrees” in claims 1, 4 and 9, must be clearly shown in the drawings or the features canceled from the claims.
“the width of each pair of heterostructure devices is 30 – 60 um and the unetched area is 250 – 500 um” in claim 10, must be clearly shown in the drawings or the features canceled from the claim.
No new matter should be entered.
2) In Fig 1 labels b1-e do not conform with the description of these figures in the specification. The labels in Fig 1 should be changes as follows:
Fig 1(b1) => Fig 1(b)
Fig 1(b2) => Fig 1(c)
Fig 1(c) => Fig 1(d)
Fig 1(d) => Fig 1(e)
Fig 1(e) => Fig 1(f)
3) Figs 4A-4C are not of sufficient magnification to permit understanding of details. Please resubmit each figure individually, one per page.
4) Figures 4C and 4D should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated according to the specification. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
5) Fig 6, no legend has been provided to distinguish the top curve and the bottom curve, it is not clear what different testing conditions or devices they represent.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
1) In paragraph 0024, 4th line from the bottom “… according to the ‘in-situ’ process of Figs. 2A(b2) and 2B…”, should be changed to “… according to the ‘in-situ’ process of Figs. 2A(b1) and 2B…”.
2) In paragraph 0024, 1st line from the bottom “an open area of 40/500=~12.5%” is not understood, since dividing 40 by 500 results in 0.08.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
1) The term “narrow” in claims 1, 4 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” 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.
2) The term “minimize” in claims 1, 4 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimize” 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.
3) Claims 1, 4 and 9 recite the limitation "the sidewalls". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
4) The limitations “first dopant type”, “second dopant type”, “active region”, “layer” and “plurality of current blocking layers” all must have articles “a”, “an” and “the” in front of them as appropriate, so as to provide sufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for their dependence on claims 1, 4 and 9. For the purpose of examination, the limitations as presented have been searched and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the meaning of the term “narrow” is not persuasive. All claim limitations must have explicit support in the specification. If the underlying intention of the term “narrow” is to distinguish the two mesas from each other, the examiner suggests referring to them as “a first mesa” and “a second mesa”.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the references cited on form PTO-892 in the previous office action which lists other references with similar features as the invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Info
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. A. GOLUB-MILLER whose telephone number is (571) 272-8602. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MinSun Harvey can be reached on (571) 272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/M. A. Golub-Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights