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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention 1 (product), Group 1 – Species B (Fig. 1), Group 2 – Species B (Chemical formula 1-2), in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-6 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/2/2026.
Regarding claims 4-6, it is noted that the claims require the feature of “the stack structure further includes a third layer disposed between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the third layers acts as a diffusion barrier against diffusion of germanium (Ge),” which is a feature disclosed in accordance with unelected Fig. 2 (see [0114]-[0118] at least). Accordingly, claims 4-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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) 1-3 and 7-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the stack structure includes first and second layers alternately stacked on top of each other,” is unclear as to whether the stack includes a single first layer and a single second layer or if the stack includes a plurality of first layers and a plurality of second layers.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the second layer is made of a compound represented by a following Chemical Formula 2:
[Chemical Formula 1-1] Si1-xGex (m≤x≤1.0)
[Chemical Formula 1-2] Si1-x-yGexBy (m≤x<1.0, 0<y≤0.4, 0.2<x+y≤1)
[Chemical Formula 1-3] Si1-x-zGexPz (m≤x<1.0, 0<z≤0.4, 0.2<x+z≤1)
[Chemical Formula 1-4] Si1-x-zGexCz (m≤x<1.0, 0<z≤0.4, 0.2<x+z≤1)
[Chemical Formula 1-5] Si1-x-y-zGexByPz (0.2<x<1.0, 0<y≤0.4, 0<z≤0.4, 0.2<x+y+z≤1)
[Chemical Formula 2] Si1-aGea (0<a≤m)
where in each of the Chemical Formulas 1-1 to 1-5 and the Chemical Formula 2, m is a real number in a range of 0 inclusive to 1 inclusive, and x-a is equal to or larger than 0.2,” is unclear as to how the conditions set are related to each other. For example, in the instance of Formula 1-2, m is recited as being in a range represented by m≤x<1.0 and is further recited as being “a real number in a range of 0 inclusive to 1 inclusive.” In the first recitation m must be less than 1, however in the second recitation m can be equal to 1. It is therefore unclear as to which range is required and/or allowed. Further, the claim is unclear because, for at least values within the claimed ranges, the result is mathematically impossibilities. For example, in the instance of Formula 1-2, m≤x<1.0 allows for a value of m=0 (regardless of the values of x and y) as does “m is a real number in a range of 0 inclusive to 1 inclusive.” However, if m is equal to 0, the resulting range for a is 0<a≤0. Since a number cannot be both greater than zero and less than or equal to zero, the specified range of a is mathematically impossible. Accordingly, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it cannot be ascertained what materials would or would not be included in the scope.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation each of the first layer and the second layer,” is unclear as to how the recitation of “the first layer” (singular) and “the second layer” (singular) is related to what appears to be a requirement of a plurality of first layers and a plurality of second layers of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the buffer layer is made of silicon (Si) doped with germanium (Ge) at a higher doping concentration than a doping concentration at which the first layer is doped with germanium (Ge),” is unclear as to how the first layer being “doped with germanium (Ge)” is related to the compound formulae recited in claim 1. Specifically, the compounds recited in claim 1 would be understood to be chemical compounds including germanium and not a layer “doped with” germanium. It is therefore unclear if the doping with germanium is referring to the same germanium as claim 1 or requiring a further addition of germanium. Additionally, it is unclear as to how the requirement of the relative doping concentration is related to or compatible with the myriad requirements of the chemical formulae of claim 1. In other words, it would appear to put further constraints on the values of x, y, z, m, and a, and it is unclear how they ranges would be affected, to what extent the ranges would be narrowed, and to what extent additional mathematically impossible ranges result.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Regarding claim 1, (original) An epitaxial wafer comprising:
a substrate; and
a stack structure disposed on the substrate, wherein the stack structure includes first and second layers alternately stacked on top of each other,
wherein the first layer is made of a compound represented by one selected from a group consisting of following Chemical Formulas 1-1 to 1-5,
wherein the second layer is made of a compound represented by a following Chemical Formula 2:
[Chemical Formula 1-1] Si1-xGex (m≤x≤1.0)
[Chemical Formula 1-2] Si1-x-yGexBy (m≤x<1.0, 0<y≤0.4, 0.2<x+y≤1)
[Chemical Formula 1-3] Si1-x-zGexPz (m≤x<1.0, 0<z≤0.4, 0.2<x+z≤1)
[Chemical Formula 1-4] Si1-x-zGexCz (m≤x<1.0, 0<z≤0.4, 0.2<x+z≤1)
[Chemical Formula 1-5] Si1-x-y-zGexByPz (0.2<x<1.0, 0<y≤0.4, 0<z≤0.4, 0.2<x+y+z≤1)
[Chemical Formula 2] Si1-aGea (0<a≤m)
where in each of the Chemical Formulas 1-1 to 1-5 and the Chemical Formula 2, m is a real number in a range of 0 inclusive to 1 inclusive, and x-a is equal to or larger than 0.2.
Regarding claim 2, (original) The epitaxial wafer of claim 1, wherein the first layer is made of a compound represented by one selected from a group consisting of the Chemical Formulas 1-2 to 1-5.
Regarding claim 3, (original) The epitaxial wafer of claim 1, wherein an average thickness of each of the first layer and the second layer is in a range of 0 nm exclusive to 200 nm inclusive.
Regarding claim 7, (original) The epitaxial wafer of claim 1, wherein the epitaxial wafer further comprises a buffer layer disposed between the substrate and the stack structure, wherein the buffer layer is made of silicon (Si) doped with germanium (Ge) at a higher doping concentration than a doping concentration at which the first layer is doped with germanium (Ge).
Regarding claim 8, (original) The epitaxial wafer of claim 7, wherein the germanium concentration in the buffer layer is in a range of 0.01 to 20 atomic%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Enicks (US 20080050883; herein “Enicks”).
Regarding claim 1, Enicks discloses in Fig. 9 and related text an epitaxial wafer comprising:
a substrate (901); and
a stack structure disposed on the substrate, wherein the stack structure includes first (e.g. 909/913) and second layers (e.g. 911/915) alternately stacked on top of each other,
wherein the first layer is made of a compound represented by one selected from a group consisting of following Chemical Formulas 1-1 to 1-5,
wherein the second layer is made of a compound represented by a following Chemical Formula 2:
[Chemical Formula 1-1] Si1-xGex (m≤x≤1.0)
[Chemical Formula 1-2] Si1-x-yGexBy (m≤x<1.0, 0<y≤0.4, 0.2<x+y≤1)
[Chemical Formula 1-3] Si1-x-zGexPz (m≤x<1.0, 0<z≤0.4, 0.2<x+z≤1)
[Chemical Formula 1-4] Si1-x-zGexCz (m≤x<1.0, 0<z≤0.4, 0.2<x+z≤1)
[Chemical Formula 1-5] Si1-x-y-zGexByPz (0.2<x<1.0, 0<y≤0.4, 0<z≤0.4, 0.2<x+y+z≤1)
[Chemical Formula 2] Si1-aGea (0<a≤m)
where in each of the Chemical Formulas 1-1 to 1-5 and the Chemical Formula 2, m is a real number in a range of 0 inclusive to 1 inclusive, and x-a is equal to or larger than 0.2 (see [0053] and Fig. 9).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the composition of each layer to be a result effective variable affecting the band gap and carrier mobility of the respective layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Enick to have the composition within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired heterojunction between the layers, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Enicks further discloses wherein the first layer is made of a compound represented by one selected from a group consisting of the Chemical Formulas 1-2 to 1-5 (see [0053] and Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Enicks further discloses wherein an average thickness of each of the first layer and the second layer is in a range of 0 nm exclusive to 200 nm inclusive (see [0057]-[0058]).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness of each layer to be a result effective variable affecting the resistance and the stress/stain of the respective layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Enick to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve desired electrical properties of the layer, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, Enick further discloses wherein the epitaxial wafer further comprises a buffer layer (e.g. 907) disposed between the substrate and the stack structure, wherein the buffer layer is made of silicon (Si) doped with germanium (Ge) at a higher doping concentration than a doping concentration at which the first layer (909/9013) is doped with germanium (Ge) (see [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Enick further discloses wherein the germanium concentration in the buffer layer is in a range of 0.01 to 20 atomic% (see [0068]).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the atomic% Ge of the buffer layer to be a result effective variable affecting the critical thickness and the stress/stain of the respective layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Enick to have the thickness within the claimed range in order to achieve desired physical and electrical properties of the layer, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights