DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed 3/2/2026.
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claims 13-17 are cancelled. Claim 1 is currently amended. Claim 1 is independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/7/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-17, which have been canceled, were drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/2/2026.
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 5-6 and 9-10 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the entire structure” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the fourth layer” in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the insulating sixth layer” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the fifth layer” in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the collection region” in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note the dependent claims 6 and 10 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fox et al. (US 2015/0140771 A1, hereinafter “Fox”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Fox discloses a method of manufacturing a bipolar transistor, comprising:
a) manufacturing a first portion 420 (“collector region”- ¶0107) of a collector region 405/406/420 (collectively 405, 406 and 420- ¶0096) in a substrate 410 (“substrate”- ¶0105) (¶0106) (see Fig. 6);
b) forming a stack of layers 401/402/403/430/431 (collectively layers 401, 402, 403, 430 and 431) comprising a first layer 431 (“base connection region”- ¶0099) made of a material of a base region 431/432 (collectively 431 and 432- “base connection regions”- ¶0099) and an insulating second layer 401 (“insulation layer”- ¶0107) made of a first material (i.e., “SiO2”- ¶0107) (see Fig. 6);
c) forming a cavity crossing the stack of layers 401/402/403/430/431 to reach the first portion 420 of the collector region 405/406/420 in the substrate 410 (¶¶0109-0111) (see Fig. 8);
d) forming a second portion 405/406 (collectively 405 “collector region” and 406 “inner region”- ¶0096) of the collector region 405/406/420 and a first portion 432 (“base connection region”- ¶0099) of the base region 431/432 in the cavity (¶¶0114-0117) (see Figs. 8-9);
e) forming an insulating fourth layer 450 (“spacer layer”- ¶0119) made of the first material (i.e., “SiO2”- ¶0120) in a periphery of a bottom of the cavity over the first portion 432 of the base region 431/432, the insulating fourth layer 450 having a same thickness as the insulating second layer 401 (as shown in Fig. 11) (see Fig. 11);
f) forming an emitter region 460 (“emitter”- ¶0095) in front of the first portion 432 of the base region 431/432, wherein a portion (i.e., the portions of 450 on the outermost sides of 460) of the insulating fourth layer 450 is not covered by the emitter region 460 (see Fig. 12); and
g) simultaneously removing the insulating second layer 431 and the portion of the insulating fourth layer 450 not covered by the emitter region 460 (¶¶0122-0125) (see Fig. 5).
Alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103, Fox does not expressly disclose the insulating fourth layer having a same thickness as the insulating second layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to for the insulating fourth layer to have a same thickness (i.e., same thickness value) as the insulating second layer given Fox discloses overlapping ranges for the respective thicknesses of the insulating second layer 401 (i.e., 20 nm to 200 nm- ¶0107) and the insulating fourth layer 450 (i.e., 20 nm to 80 nm- ¶0120) and for the purpose of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)), specifically the same thickness value or different thickness values.
Regarding claim 2, Fox discloses wherein step a) comprises forming an insulating layer 430 (“insulating layer”- ¶0096) covering a portion of the first portion 420 of the collector region 405/406/420, and wherein forming the cavity comprises forming the cavity to cross through the insulating layer 430 to reach the first portion 420 of the collector region 405/406/420 (see Figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 3, Fox discloses wherein the stack of layers 401/402/403/430/431 comprises an insulating fifth layer 403 (“auxiliary layer”- ¶0107), the first layer 431, and the insulating second layer 401 located between two insulating sixth layers 402 (“auxiliary layer”- ¶0107), 430 (“insulating layer”- ¶0096) the two insulating sixth layers 402, 430 being made of materials different from the first material of the insulating second layer 401 (¶¶0100, 0107) (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Fox discloses wherein step d) comprises epitaxially growing the second portion 405/406 of the collector region 405/406/420 (¶0114) and the first portion 432 of the base region 431/432 in the cavity (¶0117).
Regarding claim 5, Fox discloses wherein step e) comprises forming the insulating fourth layer 450 over the entire structure, and further comprising: forming spacers 409 (“spacer layer”- ¶0119) on the insulating fourth layer 450 against lateral walls of the cavity, wherein a central portion of a bottom of the cavity is not covered with the spacers 409, and etching portions of the fourth layer 450 which are not covered with the spacers 409 (¶¶0119-0120) (see Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 7, Fox discloses wherein step f) comprises forming a seventh layer (i.e., “a polycrystalline layer”- ¶0121) made of a material of the emitter region 460 and etching the seventh layer (i.e., “chemical-mechanical polishing”- ¶0121) to partially expose the insulating fourth layer 450 around the emitter region 460 (see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 11, Fox discloses wherein at step f) it is an upper surface of said portion of the insulating fourth layer 450 is not covered by the emitter region 460 (see Fig. 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox.
Regarding claim 12, Fox discloses the respective thicknesses of the insulating second layer 401 (i.e., 20 nm to 200 nm- ¶0107) and the insulating fourth layer 450 (i.e., 20 nm to 80 nm- ¶0120), which both overlap the claimed range of “5 nm to 30 nm”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record including Fox, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “[the] method… comprising, after step g), a step h) epitaxially growing the first layer”.
Claims 6 and 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record including Fox, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “[the] method… comprising, between steps f) and g), a step f1) removing the spacers and the insulating sixth layer covering the insulating second layer”.
Regarding claim 9 (which claim 10 depends from), the prior art of record including Fox, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including, but not limited to, “wherein the stack of layers comprises an insulating fifth layer, the first layer, and the insulating second layer located between two insulating sixth layers, the insulating sixth layers being made of materials different from the first material of the insulating second layer, the method further comprising: after step g), a step h) epitaxially growing the first layer; and after step h), a step i) etching the first layer and the fifth layer to partially expose the first portion of the collection region”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chantre et al. (US 2013/0270649 A1), which discloses method of manufacturing a bipolar transistor comprising forming a cavity crossing a stack of layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY C CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6132. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 12pm-10pm.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571)-272-7925. 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 CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817