DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the communications dated 12/12/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Acknowledges
2. Receipt is acknowledged of the following items from the Applicant.
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 07/11/2024, and 12/12/2024. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 form have been considered.
Applicant is requested to cite any relevant prior art if being aware on form PTO-1449 in accordance with the guidelines set for in M.P.E.P. 609.
Specification
3. The specification is objected to for the following reason:
The drawings show Fig. 24A, Fig. 24B, Fig. 30A, Fig. 30B, and the brief description of the drawings combinedly recites Figs. 10-26 at paragraph [0013], and Figs. 28-25 at paragraph [0015].
MPEP 608.01(f) requires a brief description of Fig. 24A, Fig. 24B, Fig. 30A, Fig. 30B be provided. Appropriate correction is required.
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
5. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).
The drawing fails to show the claimed features recited in claim 13.
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed feature of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. See MPEP § 608.02v.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
7. Claims 12, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
MPEP § 2173: Claims Must Particularly Point Out and Distinctly Claim the Invention [R-10.2019]
Optimizing patent quality by providing clear notice to the public of the boundaries of the inventive subject matter protected by a patent grant fosters innovation and competitiveness. Accordingly, providing high quality patents is one of the agency’s guiding principles. The Office recognizes that issuing patents with clear and definite claim language is a key component to enhancing the quality of patents and raising confidence in the patent process.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph requires that a patent application 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. (Note that although pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, uses the phrase “which applicant regards as his invention,” pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.41(a) provides that a patent is applied for in the name or names of the actual inventor or inventors.) In patent examining parlance, the claim language must be “definite” to comply with35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Conversely, a claim that does not comply with this requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is “indefinite.”
The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability and whether the specification meets the criteria of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph with respect to the claimed invention.
It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. Therefore, claims that do not meet this standard must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph as indefinite. Such a rejection requires that the applicant respond by explaining why the language is definite or by amending the claim, thus making the record clear regarding the claim boundaries prior to issuance. As an indefiniteness rejection requires the applicant to respond by explaining why the language is definite or by amending the claim, such rejections must clearly identify the language that causes the claim to be indefinite and thoroughly explain the reasoning for the rejection.
Claim 11 recites “... a first side of a semiconductor body” at line 2, and “... a second side of the semiconductor body” at lines 4-5.
Claim 12, which depends upon claim 11, recites “... a lower surface of the semiconductor body”.
It is unclear if the lower surface of the semiconductor body is the same as any of the first side and the second side of the semiconductor body, or it is a completely different side/surface of the semiconductor body. That is, the structural relationship between the first side, the second side, and the lower surface is unclear.
Claim 12 is therefore indefinite for not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regards as the Applicant’s invention.
Claim 16 does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regards as the Applicant’s invention.
Claim 16 recites: “... wherein neighboring layers of the first material and the second material meet along an interface that extends laterally between neighboring ones of the one or more conductors.”
The terms “neighboring layers” and “neighboring ones” are indefinite because they fail to particularly point out whether the “neighboring layers” and/or “neighboring ones” comprising just the alternating layers of the first material and the second material (see claim 11) or comprising all other layers as well.
The term “interface” is unclear because it fails to particularly point out the interface being of, or between, what.
The phrase “between neighboring ones of the one or more conductors” is indefinite. If the integrated chip structure in independent claim 11 has only one conductor, then a single conductor (one conductor) alone can not have its neighboring ones of the same kind.
Claim 16 is therefore indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “a front side of a first semiconductor body” at line 2, and “a lower surface of the first semiconductor body” at line 4. The structural relationship between the “front side” and the “lower surface” is unclear. The claim is therefore indefinite.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The phrase “respective layers of the first material continuously extending between opposing outer surfaces that contact closest neighboring layers of the second material” is vague and not understandable.
Claim 20 is indefinite for depend upon indefinite claim 18.
Allowance / Reasons for Allowance
8. Claims 1-11, 13-15, and 17 are allowed (claim 12, 16, and 18-20 are indefinite as set forth above).
A. Prior art which is closest to the claimed invention:
Kato (US 2019/0110686)
With respect to claims 1-10:
Kato discloses:
an integrated chip structure, comprising:
at least one device 132011 (photoelectric conversion element, Fig. 5) on a front side of a semiconductor substrate 132-1;
a plurality of grating layers 132-3 under the at least one device, the plurality of grating layers 132-3 comprising at least a first material 132031 (of SiO2, para. 0097) comprising a first refractive index alternating with a second material 132032 (of Tio2) comprising a second refractive index; and
an interlevel dielectric layer 13204.
Kato fails to disclose:
contacts extending through the interlevel dielectric material, and further extending through the semiconductor substrate, to directly contact at least one of the first material and the second material below the at least one device and below the semiconductor substrate underlying the interlevel dielectric material.
With respect to claims 11, 13-15, and 17:
Kato discloses:
An integrated chip structure, comprising:
at least one device 132011 on a first side of a semiconductor body 132-1;
an interlevel dielectric material 13204 arranged on the first side of the semiconductor body;
a reflector 132-3 comprising a plurality of grating layers 132031, 132032 located on a second side of the semiconductor body, the plurality of grating layers comprising at least a first material 132031 (of SiO2, para. 0097) comprising a first refractive index alternating with a second material 132032 (of Tio2) comprising a second refractive index.
Kato fails to disclose:
one or more conductors extending through the interlevel dielectric material and the semiconductor body to directly contact the reflector.
With respect to claims 18-20:
Kato discloses:
An integrated chip structure, comprising:
a plurality of transistor devices 132011 on a front side of a first semiconductor body 132-11;
an interlevel dielectric 13204 arranged on the front side of the first semiconductor body;
an insulating structure 132-12 arranged along a lower surface of the first semiconductor body 132-11;
a plurality of grating layers 132-3 under the plurality of transistor devices 132011, the first semiconductor body 132-11, and the insulating structure 132-12, wherein the plurality of grating layers 132-3 comprise at least 132031 (of SiO2, para. 0097) comprising a first refractive index alternating with a second material 132032 (of Tio2) comprising a second refractive index, the plurality of grating layers 132-3 laterally extending past the plurality of transistor devices 132011;
a second semiconductor body 132-21 separated from the first semiconductor body 132-11 by the plurality of grating layers 132-3 and the insulating structure 132-12.
Kato fails to disclose:
contacts extending through the interlevel dielectric and the first semiconductor body to directly contact the plurality of grating layers.
B. Other Art that best describes the claimed invention:
Jain et al. (US 2022/0320015)
An integrated chip structure, comprising:
a plurality of devices 16 or transistor devices 16 (see Fig. 1) on a front side of a first semiconductor body/substrate 12c;
an interlevel dielectric 22 arranged on the front side of the first semiconductor body/substrate 12c;
an insulating structure 12b arranged along a lower surface of the first semiconductor body/substrate 12c;
a plurality of grating layers 14 under the plurality of transistor devices 16, the first semiconductor body/substrate 12c, and the insulating structure 12b, wherein the plurality of grating layers 14 comprise at least comprising a first refractive index alternating with a second material comprising a second refractive index, the plurality of grating layers laterally extending past the plurality of transistor devices 16 (see paras. 0018-0023);
contacts 20 extending through the interlevel dielectric 22 and the first semiconductor body/substrate 12c to directly contact the plurality of grating layers 14; and
a second semiconductor body 12a separated from the first semiconductor body/substrate 12c by the plurality of grating layers 14 and the insulating structure 12b.
However, Jain fails to qualify as prior art because it has a later effective filing date than that of the instant claimed invention.
Conclusion
9. A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) day from the day of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will cause the application to become abandoned (see M.P.E.P 710.02(b)).
A shortened time for reply may be extended up to the maximum six-month period (35 U.S.C. 133). An extension of time fee is normally required to be paid if the reply period is extended. The amount of the fee is dependent upon the length of the extension. Extensions of time are generally not available after an application has been allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dao H. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1791. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke, can be reached on (571)272-1657. The fax numbers for all communication(s) is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571)272-1633.
/DAO H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 September 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights