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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/23/2026 has been entered.
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 1-11 and 16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the limitation “the plurality of first p-side openings are every opening in the first conductive layer through which the first conductive layer is electrically connected to the p-side semiconductor layer,” as best understood, does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, while it is noted that there is support for first p-side openings being “away” from the second p-side openings (as shown in Fig. 3), the support does not make explicit the lack of any other first p-side openings (i.e. openings in the first insulating film) through which the first conductive layer is electrically connected to the p-side semiconductor layer.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the limitation “the one or more second p-side openings are every opening in the second insulating film through which the second conductive layer is electrically connected to the first conductive layer,” as best understood, does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, not only does the disclosure not make explicit the lack of any other second p-side openings (i.e. openings in the second insulating film) through which the second conductive layer is electrically connected to the first conductive layer Applicant’s specification appears to show a conductive layer 42/44 electrically connected to conductive layer 41 through a hole 22/32 in insulating film 30, which could be understood as an opening meeting the requirements of the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the limitation “and in the plan view, all of the one or more second p-side openings in the second insulating film are located away from all of the plurality of first p-side openings in the first insulating film,” as best understood, does not have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, it appears to require that the set (i.e. “all”) of the second p-side openings is “away from” the set (i.e. “all”) of the first p-side openings. Applicant’s specification, however, does not appear to show any embodiments with this feature. In particular, only one embodiment (Figs. 1-3) shows both the first and second p-side openings, and the first and second p-side openings are interspersed with each other. Additionally, the limitation does not appear to have support in combination with “a second insulating film located on the first conductive layer and having one or more second p-side openings located above the first conductive layer.” It is noted that the only disclosure of the first p-side openings being “away” from the second p-side openings is in association with Figs. 1-3, which has a single second p-side opening.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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 1-11 and 16 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the limitation “the plurality of first p-side openings are every opening in the first conductive layer through which the first conductive layer is electrically connected to the p-side semiconductor layer,” appears to contain a grammatical error such that the meaning cannot be ascertained. Specifically, “the plurality…are every opening” appears to require that every opening comprise a plurality. Applicant’s specification, however, does not appear to show any embodiments with this feature, and thus it is unclear as to how the limitation should be interpreted.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the limitation “the plurality of first p-side openings are every opening in the first conductive layer through which the first conductive layer is electrically connected to the p-side semiconductor layer,” is unclear as to how the limitation is related to the plurality of first pi-side openings in the first insulating film. It is further unclear as to how the first conductive layer is connected to the p-side layer through openings in the first conductive layer (i.e. itself).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the limitation “the one or more second p-side openings are every opening in the second insulating film through which the second conductive layer is electrically connected to the first conductive layer,” appears to contain a grammatical error such that the meaning cannot be ascertained. Specifically, “the plurality…are every opening” appears to require that every opening comprise a set of one or more. Applicant’s specification, however, does not appear to show any embodiments with this feature, and thus it is unclear as to how the limitation should be interpreted. It is additionally unclear as to how the limitation should be interpreted because conductive layer 42/44 is electrically connected to conductive layer 41 through a hole 22/32 in insulating film 30, however it would not appear that applicant is intending hole 22/32 to be included as a “second p-side opening.”
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the limitation “in the plan view, all of the one or more second p-side openings in the second insulating film are located away from all of the plurality of first p-side openings in the first insulating film,” is unclear as to what applicant intends. Specifically, the recitation appears to require that the set (i.e. “all”) of the second p-side openings is “away from” the set (i.e. “all”) of the first p-side openings. Applicant’s specification, however, does not appear to show any embodiments with this feature, and thus it is unclear as to how the limitation should be interpreted.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 7, the limitation “the second p-side opening” is unclear as to how it is related to the one or more second p-side openings of claim 1.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights