DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed July 16, 2026.
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 .
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 1-5, 7-13, 15, 18, and 21-22 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 claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the original disclosure lacks support for the limitation “asymmetric electrode” because Applicants did not specify which electrode the so-called "asymmetric electrode" is different from in the amended claim; in other words, while Applicants may have originally disclosed that the claimed “asymmetric electrode” is different from a specific electrode, Applicants did not originally disclose that the claimed “asymmetric electrode” is different from “another electrode” or “a second electrode”.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 21-22 depend on claim 1, and claims 10-13, and 15 depend on claim 9, and therefore, claims 2-5, 7-8, 21-22, 10-13, and 15 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18, the original disclosure lacks support for the limitation “an epitaxially grown platform” because the “platform” described in [0056] of the specification is a part of an intermediate device structure rather than a part of a final structure.
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 1-5, 7-13, and 15-22 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.
Claims 1-3, and 9 are rendered as indefinite because they recite the term “asymmetric electrode”. This limitation is indefinite because the as claimed definition for “asymmetric electrode” is relative to the size and shape of another electrode, and not tantamount to the physical structure of the claimed feature. Therefore, it is unclear what kind of structure is being referred to as an “asymmetric electrode”, especially when a size and a shape of two or more electrodes in any semiconductor devices are not exactly the same with each other at least at an atomic scale due to imperfectness of semiconductor device manufacturing processes at an atomic scale, and as currently presented, for example, substantially identical two electrodes with a difference of one missing atom in one electrode in comparison to the other electrode would render both electrodes “asymmetrical.”
Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 21-22 depend on claim 1, and claims 10-13, and 15 depend on claim 9, and therefore, claims 2-5, 7-8, 21-22, 10-13, and 15 are also indefinite.
The limitation “a same field effect transistor” recited in claim 1 is rendered as indefinite because it is unclear. Field effect transistors can have more than one source, drain, and gate structures, and Applicants do not claim or elaborate on the features of the claimed “same field effect transistor”. Therefore, it is unclear what the structure of the claimed “same field effect transistor” is; for example, a CMOS field effect transistor comprising an NMOS field effect transistor and a PMOS field effect transistor is also a transistor, and the NMOS and the PMOS field effect transistor both comprising the claimed “asymmetric electrode” may render the claimed “asymmetric” non-asymmetric since there are two identical electrodes.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 21-22 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-5, 7-8, and 21-22 are also indefinite.
The limitation “an increased interfacial surface area” as recited in claims 1, 9, and 16 is rendered as indefinite because this limitation is relative to another interfacial surface area which is not claimed by Applicants. Therefore, it is unclear what Applicants mean by “an increased interfacial surface area”.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 21-22 depend on claim 1, claims 10-13, and 15 depend on claim 9, and claims 17-20 depend on claim 16, and therefore, claims 2-5, 7-8, 21-22, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are also indefinite.
Claims 3, 11, and 18 are rendered as indefinite because they recite the term “overburden”. It is not clear which feature the “overburden” refers to because the “overburden” appears to be directed to the overburden 174 shown in Fig. 9 of current application, which is not present in the claimed semiconductor device shown in Fig. 16 of current application. Please note that Applicants cannot claim a final product of a semiconductor device with a feature of an intermediate product that does not exist in the claimed final product of the semiconductor device.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of their claim amendment.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA ROSE E. GALVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm ET.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/ANGELICA ROSE GALVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights