Attorney Docket Number: 130275-0095US01
Filing Date: 06/20/2023
Claimed Priority Dates: 12/02/2021 (371 of PCT/EP2021/083908)
12/21/2020 (EP 20216084.2)
Inventors: Wirths et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 02/05/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 02/05/2026 in reply to the previous Office action mailed on 12/03/2025 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-3, 5-6, and 16-20.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 5-6 of claim 1, “wherein each silicon carbide stack comprises following layers stacked on the first main side…” should read “wherein each silicon carbide stack comprises the following layers stacked on the first main side…”
To improve clarity and legibility of the claim, in line 3 of claim 5, “which largest horizontal width…” should read “wherein the largest horizontal width…”
To improve clarity and legibility of the claim, in line 4 of claim 16, “which largest horizontal width…” should read “wherein the largest horizontal width…”
To improve clarity and legibility of the claim, in line 3 of claim 19, “which largest horizontal width…” should read “wherein the largest horizontal width…”
To improve clarity and legibility of the claim, in lines 7-8 of claim 20, “which largest horizontal width…” should read “wherein the largest horizontal width…”
Appropriate correction is required. No new matter should be added.
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 1-3, 5-6, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein each one of the plurality of silicon carbide layer stacks has a shape of a pillar protruding from the first main side, wherein the first insulating layer portions are tube-shaped, respectively surrounding laterally a corresponding one of the plurality of silicon carbide layer stacks to form a plurality of vertical gate-all-around field effect transistor cells, such that as seen in top view of the first main side the pillars are of circular shape having a largest horizontal width corresponding to a diameter, and a height of the pillars is at least 3 times larger than the largest horizontal width, and that for each channel layer is laterally sandwiched between two opposing portions of the gate electrode layer…”. As written, the claim appears to indicate that for each channel layer an element “that” is laterally sandwiched between two opposing portions of a gate electrode layer. It is unclear what antecedent basis or claim element the term “that” refers to. Subsequently, the use of the demonstrative pronoun “that” lacks clear antecedent basis, making it unclear which distinct element of each channel layer “is laterally sandwiched between two opposing portions of the gate electrode layer”, rendering the claim ambiguous and indefinite. In other words, the term “that” lacks clear antecedent basis. As written, the limitation introduces “that” and “that for each channel layer” as the subjects of “is laterally sandwiched…”, but no corresponding structure is previously recited that can unambiguously be associated with this language.
As a demonstrative example, if the term “that” is intended to refer to previously recited element such as a pillar, the claim would require that the pillar “for each channel layer” be “laterally sandwiched between two opposing portions of the gate electrode layer”. However, no such relationship between a pillar and each channel layer has been previously established in the claim, indicating a lack of proper antecedent basis for such a case. Alternatively, if “that” and “is laterally sandwiched…” are intended to refer to another feature of each channel layer having proper antecedent basis as being integrated “for each channel layer”, the claim fails to identify which specific structure of each channel layer is being described. Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite as it is unclear which element “for each channel layer is laterally sandwiched between two opposing portions of the gate electrode layer”.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, and 16-20 depend from claim 1, and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or otherwise established to overcome the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s on-record clarification (see paragraphs 6-8 of page 8 of “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”), filed on 02/05/2026, is sufficient to overcome the objections to the drawings set forth in the previous Office action mailed on 12/03/2025. Accordingly, the objections to the drawings set forth in the previous Office action are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights