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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 06/30/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that “The Specification at [00112] provides "The bottom 249 of the gap 246 is defined by the conductive filled gap 240." (emphases added). FIGS. 1C and 1 D are annotated and reproduced below to show the bottom 249 of the gap 246 defined by the conductive filled gap 240, and the metal-containing layer 250 selectively deposited directly on the bottom 249 with no intervening elements. See Specification at [0029]. Based on an interpretation consistent with the specification, the bottom of the gap is NOT an open area that lacks any material, as alleged, and there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity whatsoever as to how the metal-containing layer 250 is formed directly on the bottom 249”.
The Examiner thanks the Applicant for sharing their remarks. The Examiner’s rationale for the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection will be shared below.
Claims 1 and 18 recite “the dielectric layer (245; Figs. 1C-1H; [0056]) including at least one feature defining a gap having sidewalls and a bottom.” Since the dielectric layer includes at least one feature, and at least one feature defines a gap having sidewalls and a bottom, then the dielectric layer includes a gap having sidewalls and a bottom. Thus, the limitation implies that the dielectric layer includes a gap having sidewalls and a bottom, where “a bottom” is in regards to “a bottom” of the dielectric layer. Label 249 in Fig. 1C is not in reference to a bottom of the dielectric layer. Therefore, it is unclear how “selectively depositing a metal-containing layer directly on the bottom” where “the bottom” is in reference to the bottom of the dielectric layer, where the bottom of the dielectric layer (see 245; Fig. 1) is an open space.
Please see the analysis of rejection for claims 1-20 below.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “forming a dielectric layer on a substrate, the dielectric layer including at least one feature defining a gap having sidewalls and a bottom; selectively depositing a metal-containing layer directly on the bottom; forming a blocking layer directly on the metal-containing layer; and selectively forming a transition metal dichalcogenide film on the sidewalls” (Claim 1; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “forming a dielectric layer on a substrate, the dielectric layer including at least one feature defining a gap having sidewalls and a bottom; selectively depositing a metal-containing layer directly on the bottom; forming a blocking layer directly on the metal-containing layer; and selectively forming a transition metal dichalcogenide film on the sidewalls” (Claim 1) is ambiguous and unclear how a metal-containing layer is directly on the bottom, where the bottom is the bottom of a gap. The bottom of the gap is an open area that lacks any material (see gap 246 in Fig 1A of the instant disclosure). To further clarify, Claim 1 recites “the dielectric layer (245; Figs. 1C-1H; [0056]) including at least one feature defining a gap having sidewalls and a bottom.” Since the dielectric layer includes at least one feature, and at least one feature defines a gap having sidewalls and a bottom, then the dielectric layer includes a gap having sidewalls and a bottom. Thus, the limitation implies that the dielectric layer includes a gap having sidewalls and a bottom, where “a bottom” is in regards to “a bottom” of the dielectric layer. Therefore, it is unclear how “selectively depositing a metal-containing layer directly on the bottom” where “the bottom” is in reference to the bottom of the dielectric layer, where the bottom of the dielectric layer (see 245; Fig. 1) is an open space/gap. Thus, it is not clear how a metal-containing layer can be directly on the bottom, when the bottom of the gap is an open area that lacks any material. Therefore, the limitation of “forming a dielectric layer on a substrate, the dielectric layer including at least one feature defining a gap having sidewalls and a bottom; selectively depositing a metal-containing layer directly on the bottom; forming a blocking layer directly on the metal-containing layer; and selectively forming a transition metal dichalcogenide film on the sidewalls” (Claim 1) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claims 2-17, those are rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “forming a dielectric layer on a substrate, the dielectric layer including at least one feature defining a gap having sidewalls and a bottom; selectively depositing a metal-containing layer directly on the bottom; forming a blocking layer directly on the metal-containing layer; and selectively forming a transition metal dichalcogenide film on the sidewalls” (Claim 18; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “forming a dielectric layer on a substrate, the dielectric layer including at least one feature defining a gap having sidewalls and a bottom; selectively depositing a metal-containing layer directly on the bottom; forming a blocking layer directly on the metal-containing layer; and selectively forming a transition metal dichalcogenide film on the sidewalls” (Claim 1) is ambiguous and unclear how a metal-containing layer is directly on the bottom, where the bottom is the bottom of a gap. The bottom of the gap is an open area that lacks any material (see gap 246 in Fig 1A of the instant disclosure). To further clarify, Claim 1 recites “the dielectric layer (245; Figs. 1C-1H; [0056]) including at least one feature defining a gap having sidewalls and a bottom.” Since the dielectric layer includes at least one feature, and at least one feature defines a gap having sidewalls and a bottom, then the dielectric layer includes a gap having sidewalls and a bottom. Thus, the limitation implies that the dielectric layer includes a gap having sidewalls and a bottom, where “a bottom” is in regards to “a bottom” of the dielectric layer. Therefore, it is unclear how “selectively depositing a metal-containing layer directly on the bottom” where “the bottom” is in reference to the bottom of the dielectric layer, where the bottom of the dielectric layer (see 245; Fig. 1) is an open space/gap. Thus, it is not clear how a metal-containing layer can be directly on the bottom, when the bottom of the gap is an open area that lacks any material. Therefore, the limitation of “forming a dielectric layer on a substrate, the dielectric layer including at least one feature defining a gap having sidewalls and a bottom; selectively depositing a metal-containing layer directly on the bottom; forming a blocking layer directly on the metal-containing layer; and selectively forming a transition metal dichalcogenide film on the sidewalls” (Claim 1) is indefinite and unclear.
The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claims 19-20, those are rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 18.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights