DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse to the restriction requirement mailed on 1/23/26, of Group I (device claims 1-14), in the reply filed on 3/23/26 was acknowledged in a previous office action. Claims 15-21 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/30/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/23/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/14/26. These drawings are unacceptable.
Applicant submitted a change to Fig. 5. It is not entered, as the proposed changes to define CD and CNL amount to new matter. In the originally-filed drawings, CNL did not exist in Fig. 5, and CD pointed to a different region near CNT2. Furthermore, the proposed changes disagree with the text and Figures of many parts of the specification. For example, para 16 and Fig. 4B refer to many CD and CN regions, in an unaltered form that the proposed Fig. 5 disagrees with. Also, the descriptions in para 143, 144, 146, 150, etc., require CN to include CE and CD, which disagrees with the proposed change to Fig. 5.
Applicant’s remarks indicate that the attachment includes replacement sheets for Figs. 5 and for Figs. 12C-12H. However, no sheets showing Figs. 12C-12H were received. Thus, no changes to Figs. 12C-12H have been entered.
Specification
The amendment filed 7/14/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the proposed deletions and additions to paragraphs 210 and 233.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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(s) 1-14 is/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 1 recites the limitation “the second connected portion includes a first tip portion.”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: The “second connected portion” is identified by the Applicant as CD (see e.g. para 143 and Fig. 5) and is shown as a circled region at the bottom of L1 and L2 in a via hole in layer 50 where it contacts the drain electrode pattern W2. The “first tip portion” is identified by the Applicant as TP1 (see e.g. para 211 and Figs. 5 and 12), which is a small circled region far from CD. As shown and described, CD does not include TP1.
Note, it is not reasonable to interpret TP1 to be larger than it is shown, since claim 1 also requires “the first tip portion… is defined as a portion in which an end of the third layer (which the Applicant identifies as L3) protrudes further outward than an end of the second layer (which the Applicant identifies as L2).”
For these reasons, it is unclear how “the second connected portion includes a first tip portion” and the overall geometry of the device is unclear.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and inherit its deficiencies.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
765
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 recites, in part:
“a first layer [L1; see e.g. para 202] is below the second layer [L2; see e.g. para 202], one end of the first portion of the second electrode [EL2] is under the second tip portion [TP] and is in contact with the first layer [L1] and the second layer [L2], and one end of the second portion of the second electrode [EL2] is on the third layer [L3, see e.g. para 202].”
The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: the claim disagrees with the specification. See Fig. 6A, where the second electrode EL2 does not contact the first layer L1. See also Fig. 10A, wherein the second electrode EL2, which includes EN1 and EN2, does not touch L1. See also Fig. 11B, wherein the second electrode EL2, which includes EN1 and EN2, does not touch L1a.
Thus, the exact geometry of the device (including the geometry of the first layer, the second layer, the third layer, the second electrode, and the first portion) is unclear.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive. First, the amended drawings are not entered because the contain new matter. The amended specification is objected to because it contains new matter. The unclear nature of the claims remains, as discussed above, and is perhaps further unclear given the proposed amendments, and how they disagree with other teachings of the specification.
Conclusion
Conclusion / Finality
Applicant's amendment changed the scope of the claims and 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.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights