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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 1/31/24, 5/23/24, 12/27/24, and 1/14/25. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “cutting portion” (subject matter of claim 32 and 34) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 21, line 14, change “structure” to - - structures - -;
In claim 21, line 15, change “second” to - - a second - -;
In claim 37, line 6 change “pattern” to - - patterns - -.
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.
Claim 21-40 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 21 recites the limitation "the separation structures" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the separation structures” in line 13 as - - the separation patterns - - to resolve the lack of antecedent basis. However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested. Claims 22-31 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 21.
Claim 21 recites “one of the first gate pattern and the third gate pattern” in line 19. There is a grammatical incongruity between the phrase “one of” and the conjunction “and”. As written, it is unclear if the “one of” comprises one first gate pattern AND one third gate pattern. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as the “one of” comprises one or more of the group of the first gate pattern AND the second gate pattern (i.e., the “one of” comprises the first gate pattern OR the third gate pattern). Because both interpretations differing metes and bounds, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation (i.e., the “one of” comprises “one or more of the group of...”). However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested. Claims 22-31 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 21.
Claim 26 recites “the third gate pattern disposed at least one level among the plurality of third gate patterns”. Claim 26 depends on claim 25, which itself depends on claim 21. Claim 25 states the third gate pattern includes a plurality of third gate patterns. As such, it is unclear how in claim 26, “the third gate pattern” is disposed “at least one level” among “the plurality of third gate patterns”, wherein the plurality of third gate patterns are part of the third gate pattern.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the second gate pattern" in lines 3-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 depends on claim 21 which introduces “a plurality of second gate patterns.” Therefore, it is unclear whether “the second gate pattern” is intended to be “the plurality of second gate patterns” or a single second gate pattern of the plurality of second gate patterns or some other subset of the plurality of second gate patterns.
Claim 32 recites “one of the first gate pattern and the third gate pattern” in lines 16-17. There is a grammatical incongruity between the phrase “one of” and the conjunction “and”. As written, it is unclear if the “one of” comprises one first gate pattern AND one third gate pattern. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as the “one of” comprises one or more of the group of the first gate pattern AND the third gate pattern (i.e., the “one of” comprises the first gate pattern OR the third gate pattern). Because both interpretations differing metes and bounds, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation (i.e., the “one of” comprises “one or more of the group of...”). However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested. Claims 33-36 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 32.
Claim 32 recites “a cutting portion” in lines 16-17 but neither the claim nor the Specification or Drawings (see also Drawings objection above) describes or illustrates what is encompassed by this feature. Claims 33-36 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 32.
Claim 34 recites “a cutting portion” in line 2 but neither the claim nor the Specification or Drawings (see also Drawings objection above) describes or illustrates what is encompassed by this feature.
Claim 37 recites “one of the first gate pattern and the third gate patterns” in line 18 and line 22. There is a grammatical incongruity between the phrase “one of” and the conjunction “and”. As written, it is unclear if the “one of” comprises one first gate pattern AND one third gate patterns. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as the “one of” comprises one or more of the group of the first gate pattern AND the third gate patterns (i.e., the “one of” comprises the first gate pattern OR the third gate patterns). Because both interpretations differing metes and bounds, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation (i.e., the “one of” comprises “one or more of the group of...”). However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested. Claims 38-40 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, rejections based on their dependencies on claim 37.
Claim 38 recites “the second channel structure” in lines 2 and 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 depends on claim 37. Claim 37 refers to “a plurality of second channel structures” in line 18. It is unclear to the examiner whether it is intended that “the second channel structure” in claim 38 refers to “the plurality of second channel structures” or a single second channel structure of the plurality of second channel structures or some other subset of the plurality of second channel structures.
Claim 38 recites “the third gate pattern” in lines 2-3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 38 depends on claim 37. Claim 37 simultaneously refers to “the third gate pattern” (line 6) and “the third gate patterns” (e.g., line 11). It is unclear to the examiner whether it is intended that “the third gate pattern” in claim 38 refers to “the third gate patterns” or a single third gate pattern of the third gate patterns or some other subset of the third gate patterns.
Claim 39 recites the phrase “each of the second trenches”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 39 depends on claim 37. Claim 37 does not refer to “second trenches.” Assuming arguendo that claim 39 was intended to depend on claim 38, claim 38 only refers to a singular second trench (“a second structure”) and not a plurality of “second trenches”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights