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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 8, 10, and 25 stand rejected under Section 102. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under Section 103. Claims 17-20 stand rejected under Section 112(a) for failing to meet the written description requirement. Claims 17-20 stand rejected under Section 112(b) for indefiniteness. Claims 17-20 stand restricted by original presentation. Claims 2, 3, 6, 9, and 14 were previously canceled. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 21-24 stand allowed, with claims 15 and 16 being allowable if placed in independent format.
Applicants amended claims 8, 15, 16, 19, and 20, canceled claims 17 and 18, and added new claims 26 and 27. Applicants argue that the application is in condition for allowance.
Turning first to the restriction: Applicants’ cancellation of claims 17 and 18, and amendments to claim 19 to change the dependency of claim 19 to new claim 26 renders moot the restriction noted in the previous office action. This restriction is withdrawn as moot.
Section 112(b) rejections: Applicants’ cancellation of claims 17 and 18, and amendments to claim 19 to change the dependency of claim 19 to new claim 26 renders moot the Section 112(b) rejection noted in the previous office action. The Section 112(b) rejection is withdrawn as moot.
Section 112(a) rejections: Applicants’ cancellation of claims 17 and 18, and amendments to claim 19 to change the dependency of claim 19 to new claim 26 renders moot the Section 112(a) rejection noted in the previous office action. The Section 112(a) rejection is withdrawn as moot.
Section 102 rejections: By placing allowable subject matter from claim 15 in claim 8, applicants have overcome the previously noted Section 102 rejections. These rejections are withdrawn.
Section 103 rejections: By placing allowable subject matter from claim 15 in claim 8, applicants have overcome the previously noted Section 103 rejections of claim 8’s dependent claims. These rejections are withdrawn.
Updated searches yielded no further prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the claims, or that can be used with previously cited prior art to render obvious the claims. For these reasons, claims 1, 4,5, 7-8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 21-25 are allowed. However, claim informalities and bases for Section 112 rejections were introduced in the amendments, which are noted below.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 27, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 26, lines 4, 5: In each line, change “semiconductor substrate” to “substrate”. Compare with line 2.
Claim 26, line 7: Please provide antecedent basis for “the first upper-most surface”. Note the inconsistency between “upper-most” in line 7 and “uppermost” in line 6—please use consistent terminology.
Claims 27, 19, and 20 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 26.
Claim 20, line 2: Please provide antecedent basis for “the first sidewall”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26, 27, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26: Newly added claim 26 requires “a second portion of the first semiconductor layer contiguously extending from the third upper boundary of the oxide structure to a sidewall of the second oxide structure having a varying thickness between a portion adjacent the third oxide structure and a portion adjacent the second oxide structure;….” (emphasis added). However, the originally filed disclosure does not disclose a second portion of the first semiconductor layer having a varying thickness between a portion adjacent the third oxide structure and a portion adjacent the second oxide structure. Instead, the second portion of the first semiconductor layer has two thicknesses. Because the language is not supported by the originally filed disclosure, claim 26 is rejected for failing to meet the written description requirement.
Claims 27, 19, and 20 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 26.
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 26, 27, 19, and 20 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 26: This claim is rejected on three bases. First, there is no antecedent basis for “the semiconductor substrate” of lines 3-4 and 5. Because no antecedent basis has been provided, claim 26 is rejected as indefinite. Second, no antecedent basis has been provided for “the first upper-most surface” in line 7. Because no antecedent basis has been provided, claim 26 is rejected as indefinite. Lastly, claim 26, lines 17-20, require “a second portion of the first semiconductor layer contiguously extending from the third upper boundary of the oxide structure to a sidewall of the second oxide structure having a varying thickness between a portion adjacent the third oxide structure and a portion adjacent the second oxide structure;….” (emphasis added). The context of “having a varying thickness” could refer to the second portion of the first semiconductor layer, or to the sidewall of the second oxide structure, or to the second oxide structure itself. Because the language is vague, claim 26 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 27, 19, and 20 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 26.
Regarding claim 20, which depends from claim 19, which depends from claim 26: Claim 20 refers to “the first sidewall of the first oxide structure”, but this sidewall has not been defined. Because antecedent basis is missing for this sidewall, claim 20 is rejected as indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10-13, 15, 16, and 21-25 are allowed
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein each of the first, second, third and fourth upper boundaries are a contiguous single dielectric material”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 4, 5, 7, and 21-24: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 8: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the second semiconductor region extends to a top of the substrate”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 10-13, 15, 16, and 25: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 8 above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
