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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Embodiment 1 as seen in Fig. 1 in the reply filed on March 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1, the phrase, “a semiconductor substrate” in line 3 of Claim 1 is used, but the phrase, “the semiconductor substrate” in line 7 of Claim 1 is used to refer to a different substrate than that seen in line 3. Similarly, the phrase, “the semiconductor substrate” is repeated in line 8 of claim 1 to refer to a different substrate. This is seen as indefinite.
The phrase, “an initial characteristic” in line 3 of Claim 1 is used, but the phrase, “the initial characteristic” in line 7, the phrase, “the initial characteristic” is used to refer to a different characteristic than that referenced in line 3, and it is unclear whether the phrase “the initial characteristic” in line 7 refers to “an initial characteristic” as introduced in line 3 or if it would be a characteristic of “a substrate for manufacture” as seen in line 8.
The phrase, “the doping region in a substrate for evaluation” is seen in line 6, but the doping region is a characteristic of the semiconductor substrate seen in line 3 of the claim, and it is indefinite what is being described as “a substrate for evaluation” and “a semiconductor substrate” are assumed to refer to different elements. It is unclear if the claim is referring to a semiconductor substrate as seen in line 3 or if it is referring to a separate substrate for evaluation as seen in line 6.
The phrase, “the semiconductor substrate” as seen in line 7 of the claim is seen, but this phrase is first used in reference to “a semiconductor substrate” as seen in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear if this claim is referring to the original semiconductor substrate as seen in line 3, or if the substrate being referenced is a substrate for evaluation as referenced in claim 6.
The phrase, “the doping region” is seen in line 10 of the claim, and it is unclear whether “the doping region” in line 10 of the claim refers to a semiconductor substrate as seen in line 3, or if “the doping region” in line 10 of the claim would be meant to refer to a characteristic of a substrate for evaluation as seen in line 7 of the claim.
The phrase, “the first process condition” is seen in line 12 of the claim, and it is unclear whether this limitation refers to “a set first process condition” as seen in line 6 of the claim or if the phrase refers to “a process condition” as seen in line 2 of the claim.
The phrase, “a process of manufacturing the semiconductor device by using the substrate of manufacture” as seen in lines 14-15 of the claim appear to the reference “a semiconductor substrate” as seen in line 3 of the claim as well as “a substrate of manufacture” in lines 7-8 of the claim. It is unclear whether this is a manufacturing step for “a substrate for manufacture” as seen in lines 7-8 or a manufacturing step for “a semiconductor substrate” as seen in line 3.
The 112(b) indefiniteness deficiencies render the application unable to be examined in view of prior art. Claims 2-20 are dependent upon Claim 1, and, therefore, inherit these deficiencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTOR J LASASSO whose telephone number is (703)756-5668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571) 272-2339. 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.
/V.J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights