DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application filed June 21, 2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species D drawn to the embodiment shown in Fig. 11 of current application, claims 1, 2 and 4-7, in the reply filed on January 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “second mask multilayer, …, and N-th mask multilayer” should be amended on line 2 to clarify what “, …,” implies, and whether “, …,” implies consecutive numbers. 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.
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, 2 and 4-7 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 claim 1, it is not clear what the claimed “semiconductor structure” recited in the preamble refers to, because (a) the only possible “semiconductor” material recited in claim 1 appears to be “a base” recited in claim 2 since the first mask layer 121 shown in Fig. 11 of current application can be formed of silicon dioxide as disclosed in paragraph [0063] of current application and the second mask layer 122 shown in Fig. 11 of current application can be formed of silicon nitride as also disclosed in paragraph [0063] of current application, (b) however, Applicant’s inventive concept is directed to forming an epitaxial layer 21 shown in Fig. 11 of current application where “the material of epitaxial layer 21 can be GaN-based material, such as at least one of GaN, AlGaN, InGaN and AlInGaN, which is not limited in this embodiment” as disclosed in paragraph [0067] of current application rather than stacking recessed silicon dioxide and silicon nitride layers on a semiconductor base, (c) without a subsequently deposited semiconductor material, which is not recited in claim 1, the intermediate structure shown in Fig. 3C of Purayath et al. (US 2020/0227433), which is directed to an intermediate structure of a memory device, reads on claim 1 as discussed below under 35 USC 102 rejection, but the teachings of Purayath et al. are distinct from Applicant’s inventive concept and in distinct fields of endeavor, and (d) therefore, it is not clear whether the claimed semiconductor structure is directed to a composite structure of a semiconductor base and a stack of a plurality of insulating layers, or the claimed semiconductor structure requires a subsequently deposited semiconductor material layer; if it is the latter, claim 1 omits essential elements for the claimed “semiconductor structure”, and therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements, see MPEP § 2172.01, and the omitted elements are: “semiconductor material” or “semiconductor layer” for the claimed “semiconductor structure” since, while the claimed invention is directed to “A semiconductor structure”, no semiconductor material or semiconductor layer is recited in claim 1. Claims 2 and 4-7 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2 and 4-7 are also indefinite.
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.
In the below prior art rejection, the claim limitation “mask” specifies an intended use or field of use, and is treated as non-limiting, because (a) Applicant does not specifically claim what the “mask” layers are for, and (b) Applicant does not specifically claim what the “mask” layers are formed of, either, since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claims 1, 2 and 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshida (US 11,145,742)
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses a semiconductor structure (Fig. 4A or 4B), comprising: a base (10); a first-type mask layer (composite layer of SiN film 21 and SiO2 film 22) (col. 4, lines 52-53) on the base, wherein the first-type mask layer comprises a first-type window (empty space between adjacent layers 21 and empty space between adjacent layers 22), the first-type mask layer comprises a first mask multilayer (composite layer of 21 and 22), the first mask multilayer comprises a first mask layer (21) close to the base (10) and a second mask layer (22) far from the base, the first mask layer comprises a first window (empty space between adjacent layers 21), the second mask layer comprises a second window (empty space between adjacent layers of 22), the second window connects to the first window, the first window and the second window constitute the first-type window, and an area of a cross-section of the second window is larger than an area of a cross-section of the first window, because the adjacent layers 22 are separated by a wider gap than the adjacent layers 21, wherein the cross-section refers to a section parallel to a plane of the base; and a second-type mask layer (second SiN film 23) (col. 5, line 4) on a side of the first-type mask layer far from the base (10), especially because Applicant claims that “a material of the first mask layer is the same as a material of the second-type mask layer” in claim 2, wherein the second-type mask layer comprises a second-type window (empty space between layers 23), the second-type window connects to the first-type window (empty space between adjacent layers 21 and empty space between adjacent layers 22), and an area of a cross-section of the second-type window is smaller than the area of the cross-section of the second window (empty space between layers 22).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Yoshida further discloses that a material of the first mask layer (SiN film 21) is the same as a material of the second-type mask layer (second SiN film 23) and is different from a material of the second mask layer (SiO2 film 22) (claim 2), further comprising an epitaxial layer (15 or 16) (col. 2, lines 56-57, and col. 6, lines 21-23) in or within the boundary of the first-type window (empty space between adjacent layers 21 and empty space between adjacent layers 22) and second-type window (empty space between layers 23) in plan view, because Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the preposition “in” as “within the boundary of” (claim 7).
Claims 1, 2 and 4-6, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Purayath et al. (US 2020/0227433)
Regarding claim 1, Purayath et al. disclose a semiconductor structure (Fig. 3C), because the base 310 is formed of a semiconductor material, comprising: a base (301) ([0016]-[0017]); a first-type mask layer (composite layer indicated by an arrow in illustration below) ([0018]-[0019]) on the base, because (a) Applicant’s first-type mask layer comprises a plurality of insulating layers, and (b) the limitation “mask” is directed to an intended use of the plurality of insulating layers,
PNG
media_image1.png
446
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the first-type mask layer comprises a first-type window (empty space between adjacent pillars of 302 and 304), the first-type mask layer comprises a first mask multilayer (bottommost multilayer pair of 302 and 304), the first mask multilayer comprises a first mask layer (bottommost 304) close to the base (301) and a second mask layer (bottommost or topmost 302) far from the base, the first mask layer comprises a first window (empty space between adjacent layers of bottommost 304), the second mask layer comprises a second window (empty space between adjacent layers of bottommost/topmost 302), the second window connects to the first window, because (a) Applicant does not specifically claim what the verb “connects” implies for the first and second window, (b) the empty space between the bottommost 302 is directly connected to the empty space between the bottommost 304, and (c) the empty space between the topmost 302 is also connected, although indirectly, to the empty space between the bottommost 304, the first window (empty space between bottommost 304) and the second window (empty space between bottommost/topmost 302) constitute the first-type window, and an area of a cross-section of the second window is larger than an area of a cross-section of the first window, because the adjacent bottommost/topmost layers 302 are separated by a wider gap than the adjacent bottommost layers 304, wherein the cross-section refers to a section parallel to a plane of the base (301); and a second-type mask layer (topmost 304) on a side of the first-type mask layer far from the base, especially because Applicant claims that “a material of the first mask layer is the same as a material of the second-type mask layer” in claim 2, wherein the second-type mask layer comprises a second-type window (empty space between topmost 304), the second-type window (directly or indirectly) connects to the first-type window, and an area of a cross-section of the second-type window is smaller than the area of the cross-section of the second window (empty space between bottommost/topmost 302), because the adjacent bottommost/topmost layers 302 are separated by a wider gap than the adjacent topmost layers 304.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-6, Purayath et al. further disclose that a material of the first mask layer (bottommost 304) is the same as a material of the second-type mask layer (topmost 304) and is different from a material of the second mask layer (bottommost/topmost 302) (claim 2), the first-type mask layer (composite layer indicated by an arrow in illustration above) further comprises a second mask multilayer (second bottommost pair of 302 and 304), …, an N-th mask multilayer (pair of topmost 302 and second topmost 304), N is an integer greater than or equal to 2, a M-th mask multilayer comprises a (2M-1)-th mask layer close to the base and a (2M)-th mask layer far from the base, M is an integer greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to N, the (2M-1)-th mask layer comprises a (2M-1)-th window, the (2M)-th mask layer comprises a (2M)-th window, the (2M)-th window connects to the (2M-1)-th window, the (2M)-th window and the (2M-1)-th window constitute at least part of the first-type window, an area of a cross-section of the (2M)-th window is larger than an area of a cross-section of the (2M-1)-th window, and the area of the cross-section of the second-type window is smaller than an area of a cross-section of a (2N)-th window, which are arrangements of directly connected openings between adjacent pairs of 302 and 304 (claim 4), wherein the area of the cross-section of the (2M-1)-th window (empty space between adjacent layers 304) is smaller than an area of a cross-section of a (2M-2)-th window (empty space between adjacent layers 302) (claim 5), and in the first-type mask layer (composite layer indicated by an arrow in illustration above), all even-numbered mask layers have the same refractive index, all odd-numbered mask layers have the same refractive index, because the layers 302 and the layers 304 are repeatedly deposited, and the refractive index of the even-numbered mask layers is different from the refractive index of the odd-numbered mask layers to form a Bragg reflector, because (a) the material composition of the layers 302 is different from the material composition of the layers 304, and (b) in this case, “a Bragg reflector” is inherently formed, especially when Applicant does not specifically claim when and how “a Bragg reflector” is used (claim 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kunisato et al. (US 6,759,139)
Lee et al. (US 9,455,144)
Choi et al. (US 9,190,566)
Ruecherl et al. (US 10,566,210)
Tsuda et al. (US 6,294,440)
Chung et al. (US 10,770,476)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 January 23, 2026