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
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1-7 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-21 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 8-21 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
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.
2. Claims 1-7 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 “a silicon substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface and containing oxygen as impurity; a first electrode provided on the first surface; and a second electrode provided on the second surface, wherein the silicon substrate includes an n type drift layer having impurity concentration that is higher on the second surface side, an n type first buffer layer provided on the second surface side of the drift layer and containing protons as impurity, and a second buffer layer provided on the second surface side of the first buffer layer” (Claim 1; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “a silicon substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface and containing oxygen as impurity; a first electrode provided on the first surface; and a second electrode provided on the second surface, wherein the silicon substrate includes an n type drift layer having impurity concentration that is higher on the second surface side, an n type first buffer layer provided on the second surface side of the drift layer and containing protons as impurity, and a second buffer layer provided on the second surface side of the first buffer layer” (Claim 1) is ambiguous and unclear. It is not clear whether “the second surface side” stated in “wherein the silicon substrate includes an n type drift layer having impurity concentration that is higher on the second surface side” (Claim 1, Lines 8-10) is in reference to “a second surface” stated in Claim 1, Line 4 and Claim, Line 6. Further confusing the limitations of Claim 1 is there is no citation of “a second surface side”. Thus, there is confusion as to what “the second surface side” stated in “wherein the silicon substrate includes an n type drift layer having impurity concentration that is higher on the second surface side” (Claim 1, Lines 8-10) is in reference to. Is this in reference to “a second surface” stated in Claim 1, Line 4 and Claim, Line 6, or is this a new second surface being introduced without proper antecedent basis. Therefore, the limitation of “a silicon substrate having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface and containing oxygen as impurity; a first electrode provided on the first surface; and a second electrode provided on the second surface, wherein the silicon substrate includes an n type drift layer having impurity concentration that is higher on the second surface side, an n type first buffer layer provided on the second surface side of the drift layer and containing protons as impurity, and a second buffer layer provided on the second surface side of the first buffer layer” (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 2-7, those are rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 1.
Relevant Prior Art
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Takishita et al. (US 20140246750 A1)
Otsuka et al. (US 20220115522 A1)
Tanaka et al. (US 20220208962 A1)
Nakamura (US 20220285537 A1)
Conclusion
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