CTNF 18/707,737 CTNF 89877 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 06-14 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 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. Claim 1 recites “a precursor gas containing silicon” in lines 8 and 12. It is unclear if this is the same precursor gas in both process steps or different precursor gases. The issue is further compounded in dependent claims 3 and 16, wherein it becomes further unclear which “a precursor gas containing silicon” is being referred to. Claim 1 recited “-forming the polycrystalline silicon charge-trapping layer” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The preamble recites “a charge-trapping layer”. It is unclear if these are the same charge-trapping layer. The examiner suggests adding “polycrystalline” to all instances of “silicon charge-trapping layer” in all claims. Claim 11 recites “ respective temperatures that are identical to within 50°C”. It is unclear how respective temperatures may be identical within a range. The examiner suggests striking “identical to” from the claim. Claim 2 recites “to comprise or consist of hydrogen”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 2 – 7 recites the broad recitation “comprise of”, and the claim also recites “consist of” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 Claim s 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 11 – 30 of copending Application No. 18/688,606 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the generic claims of the reference application anticipate the specific claims of the instant application, which merely includes an additional epitaxial layer forming step . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-27-aia Claims 1 – 20 are directed to the same invention as that of claims 11 – 30 of commonly assigned application 18/688,606. Under 35 U.S.C. 101, more than one patent may not be issued on the same invention. The USPTO may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). The applicant should amend or cancel claims such that the reference and the instant application no longer contain claims directed to the same invention. 08-39 AIA Claim s 1 – 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim s 11 – 30 of copending Application No. 18/688,606 . This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced copending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that copending application since the referenced copending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: the generic claims of the reference application anticipate the specific claims of the instant application, which merely includes an additional epitaxial layer forming step, which is clearly recited in [0069] of the published reference application . Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other copending application. See In re Schneller , 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11,373,856 teaches forming a silicon dioxide layer prior to a polycrystalline silicon charge trapping layer, but fails to teach an intrinsic epitaxial silicon layer. US 2023/0005787 teaches forming an epitaxial layer, forming an amorphous passivation layer, then forming a polysilicon charge-trapping layer, but fails to teach the carrier gas exposure limitations of the claims. US 2024/0071755 teaches forming an epitaxial silicon layer and a polysilicon charge-trapping layer, but fails to teach forming a dielectric layer between. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CORY W ESKRIDGE whose telephone number is (571)272-0543. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9 - 5. 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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. /CORY W ESKRIDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/707,737 Page 2 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/707,737 Page 3 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/707,737 Page 4 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/707,737 Page 5 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/707,737 Page 6 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/707,737 Page 7 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/707,737 Page 8 Art Unit: 3624
Prosecution Insights