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 Amendment
The 112 rejection of claim(s) 1-4 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments filed 08/10/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khakifirooz et. Al. (US 20120217561 A1 hereinafter Khakifirooz).
Regarding claim 1, Khakifirooz teaches in Fig. 4 with associated text a silicon on insulator (SOI) device, comprising: a wafer comprising a top silicon layer 4 is disposed on a buried oxide layer (part of 3 above 10a in an embodiment wherein 10a extends a dimension from the SOI layer 4 towards the center of the dielectric layer 3 [0089 (Fig. 4, [0089]); and a trap-rich layer (10b and the part of 3 between 10a and 10b) having nano-dots 10b (10b is a charge trapping layer [0089] that is the same as in Figs. 2 or 3 which uses the structure of Fig. 1C [0074] which is a nano-dot layer [0035]) and an oxide layer 22 (Fig. 4, [0031] and [0062]) stacked on a high resistivity substrate 12 (Fig. 11, [0028]) sequentially, wherein the oxide layer is bonded with the buried oxide layer (Fig. 4), and the nano-dots are located on a side of the oxide layer facing away from the buried oxide layer (Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khakifirooz as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Peidous et. Al. (US 20160351437 A1 hereinafter Peidous).
Regarding claim 2, Khakifirooz teaches the silicon on insulator (SOI) device according to claim 1.
Khakifirooz does not specify a positive fixed charge layer is induced at a surface of the buried oxide layer contacting the oxide layer while negative carriers are trapped in the trap-rich layer.
Peidous discloses in Figs. 3 with associated text a positive fixed charge layer 36 is induced at a surface of the buried oxide layer contacting the oxide layer while negative carriers are trapped in the trap-rich layer [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the device of Khakifirooz in such a way that a positive fixed charge layer 36 is induced at a surface of the buried oxide layer contacting the oxide layer while negative carriers are trapped in the trap-rich layer as taught by Peidous because according to Peidous after deposition of a silicon oxide layer, the positive charge, which is generally inherently present, therein needs to be neutralized by negative charge [0027], furthermore Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the function, operation, intent-of-use, and materials upon which the components of the structure work that does not structurally limit the components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus or product from an otherwise identical prior art structure will not support patentability. See, e.g., In re Rishoi, 197 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939-40 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973). The patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure, Catalina Mktg. Int’l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 848 (CCPA 1959). Please also see M.P.E.P. 2114 [R-1].
The following italicized limitations of claim 2 lines 2-4 are understood to be functional (i.e. wherein a positive fixed charge layer is induced at a surface of the buried oxide layer contacting the oxide layer while negative carriers are trapped in the trap-rich layer): the limitation describes purpose, function, operation, or intent -of-use the backside warpage control structure. However, the claim does not disclose a sufficient structure which supports the function. Since Khakifirooz in view of Peidous shows an identical structure as claimed, namely a buried oxide layer and trap rich layer including an oxide layer, the Examiner submits that the buried oxide layer and trap rich layer including an oxide layer is capable of producing the claimed results.
Regarding claim 4, Khakifirooz teaches the silicon on insulator (SOI) device according to claim 1.
Khakifirooz does not specify he silicon on insulator (SOI) device further comprising: radio frequency devices disposed in the top silicon layer.
Peidous discloses in Figs. 2 with associated text a device similar to that of Khakifirooz further comprising: radio frequency devices disposed in a top silicon layer 26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form radio frequency devices similar to those of Peidous in the top silicon layer of Khakifirooz because according to radio frequency devices are suitable on substrates with charge trapping layers [0012]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Khakifirooz and Peidous, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods to form radio frequency devices disposed in the top silicon layer with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khakifirooz as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Cheng et. Al. (US 20140091281 A1 hereinafter Cheng).
Regarding claim 2, Khakifirooz teaches the silicon on insulator (SOI) device according to claim 1.
Khakifirooz does not specify nano-dots comprise a germanium nano-dots ([0031]).
Cheng discloses in Fig. 1 with associated text a SOI device similar to that of Khakifirooz wherein
the nano-dots comprise germanium nano-dots ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Ge nanodots as taught by Cheng in the device of Khakifirooz because according to Cheng an embedded semiconductor nanoparticles 24 can be silicon nanoparticles, germanium nanoparticles, GaAs nanoparticles, or nanoparticles of any other semiconductor material [0037] and embedded nanoparticles can be employed as a charge storage element [Abstract] and so would be suitable for charge storage in the device of Khakifirooz
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights