DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/28/2025.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0183995 A1.
Re claim 1, Kobayashi et al. disclose a semiconductor device comprising: a repeating layer (e.g. fig. 14, P-type column regions 30-1 to 30-9 and N-type column regions 31-1 to 31-8) in which a first conductivity column (e.g. fig. 14, N-type column regions 31-1 to 31-8) and a second conductivity column (e.g. fig. 14, P-type column regions 30-1 to 30-9) are alternately arranged in a repeating direction when a semiconductor substrate is viewed in a plan view (e.g., fig. 14), wherein the repeating layer includes: a lower layer in which a lower portion of the first conductivity column (e.g. fig. 14, N-type column regions 31-1 to 31-4) and a lower portion of the second conductivity column (e.g. fig. 14, P-type column regions 30-2 to 30-5) are alternately arranged in the repeating direction; and an upper layer in which an upper portion of the first conductivity column (e.g. fig. 14, N-type column regions 31-5 to 31-8) and an upper portion of the second conductivity column (e.g. fig. 14, P-type column regions 30-6 to 30-9) are alternately arranged in the repeating direction, at least one of the lower portion of the second conductivity column (e.g. fig. 14, P-type column regions 30-2 to 30-5) and the upper portion of the second conductivity column (e.g. fig. 14, P-type column regions 30-6 to 30-9) includes a central portion (e.g., the central/mid portion of 30-5, having the width of 1.5micons; fig. 14) and an end portion (e.g., the portion directly under the interface between 30-5 and 30-6; fig. 14) the between the central portion and a boundary surface (e.g., the surface between 30-5 and 30-6; fig. 14) of the lower layer and the upper layer, and a width of the end portion (e.g., the portion directly under the interface between 30-5 and 30-6; fig. 14) in the repeating direction, on the boundary surface, is smaller than a width of the central portion (e.g., the central portion 30-5, having the width of 1.5micons; fig. 14) in the repeating direction, see figs. 1-16 and pages 1-10 for more details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al., U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0183995 A1.
Kobayashi et al. disclosed above and in particular paragraph 78/fig. 14 shows that a width of the first conductivity column (e.g., 31-4, fig. 14) in the repeating direction, adjacent to the central portion of the second conductivity column (e.g., 30-5, fig. 14) may be 1.0 μm.
Although the exact recitation “is less than 1.0 μm” of the instant claim is not explicitly stated by Kobayashi et al. in the related text, it appears that the width of the first conductivity column for the cited prior art is about 1.0 μm. Therefore, the instant claim appears to be Prima Facie obvious over Kobayashi et al.
Furthermore, the width range of instant claim is considered to involve routine optimization while has been held to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As noted in In re Aller, the selection of reaction parameters such as temperature and concentration etc. would have been obvious:
“Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art...such ranges are termed Acritical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality.... More particularly, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
In re Aller 105 USPQ233, 255 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Waite 77 USPQ 586 (CCPA 1948); In re Scherl 70 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1946); In re Irmscher 66 USPQ 314 (CCPA 1945); In re Norman 66 USPQ 308 (CCPA 1945); In re Swenson 56 USPQ 372 (CCPA 1942); In re Sola 25 USPQ 433 (CCPA 1935); In re Dreyfus 24 USPQ 52 (CCPA 1934).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the requisite art before the invention was made would have used any width range (e.g., less than 1.0 μm) suitable to the device of Kobayashi et al. in order to optimize the performance of the device. Further in this regard, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e. - less than 1.0 μm) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/JACK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893