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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell et al. (US pub 20050130424) in combination with Ohtani et al. (US pat 6326248).
With respect to claim 1, Bedell et al. teach a device, comprising (see figs. 1-5, particularly figs. 1A-1C and associated text):
a first crystalline material (Si) 10;
a second material 19 in a substantially crystalline form;
a blocking material 12 between the first crystalline material and the second material; and
a third material (Si) 14 in a substantially crystalline form and adjacent the second material, a crystallization temperature of the third material inherently (since 19 portion of 14 has been implanted, its chemical composition must be different from 14) being different from a crystallization temperature of the second material.
Bedell et al. fails to teach the second crystalline material is free of a grain boundary.
Ohtani et al. teach forming a crystalline material is free of a grain boundary. See col. 20, lines 20-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to incorporate the teaching of Ohtani et al. into the device of Bedell et al. to achieve a device having uniform characteristics. See col. 20, lines 20-30.
With respect to claim 2, Bedell et al. teach the third material and the second material together define a substantially continuous crystalline structure. See figs. 1A-1C and associated text.
With respect to claim 5, Bedell et al. teach the third material has a different chemical composition than a chemical composition of the second material (since 19 portion of 14 has been implanted, its chemical composition must be different from 14). See figs. 1A-1C and associated text.
With respect to claim 6, Bedell et al. teach the third material (Si) has the same chemical composition as a chemical composition of the first crystalline material (Si). See figs. 1A-1C and associated text.
With respect to claim 7, Bedell et al. teach at least one of the first crystalline material, the second material, and the third material comprises a dopant. See figs. 1A-1C and associated text and para 0054.
With respect to claim 8, Bedell et al. fail to teach the range for the combined thickness of the second and third materials.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value or range for the combined thickness of the second and third materials through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed range is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell et al. (US pub 20050130424) in combination with Ohtani et al. (US pat 6326248).
With respect to claim 9, Bedell et al. teach a device, (see figs. 1-5, particularly figs. 1A-1C and associated text):
including: one or more transistors comprising:
a first crystalline material (Si) 10;
a substantially continuous crystalline structure comprising a second crystalline material 19 and a third crystalline material (Si) 14 having a different crystallization temperature than the second crystalline material (since 19 portion of 14 has been implanted, its chemical composition must be different from 14); and
a blocking material 12 between the first crystalline material and the substantially continuous crystalline structure.
Bedell et al. fails to teach the the crystalline structure or the second crystalline material is free of a grain boundary.
Ohtani et al. teach forming a crystalline material is free of a grain boundary. See col. 20, lines 20-30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to incorporate the teaching of Ohtani et al. into the device of Bedell et al. to achieve a device having uniform characteristics. See col. 20, lines 20-30.
With respect to claim 10, Bedell et al. teach the third crystalline material is distal to the blocking material and the second crystalline material is proximal to the blocking material. See figs. 1A-1C and associated text.
With respect to claim 11, Bedell et al. teach the second crystalline material is distal to the blocking material and the third crystalline material is proximal to the blocking material (since 14 can be interpreted as the second material and 19 is interpreted as the third material). See figs. 1A-1C and associated text.
With respect to claim 12, Bedell et al. teach at least one of the first crystalline material, the second crystalline material, and the third crystalline material of the one or more transistors comprises silicon, germanium, or both. See figs. 1A-1C and associated text.
With respect to claim 13, Bedell et al. teach the crystallization temperature of the second crystalline material is higher than a crystallization temperature of the first crystalline material and the crystallization temperature of the third crystalline material. See figs. 1A-1C and associated text.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims, 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11532699. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the inventions of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 9 are taught by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11532699.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
Claims 3-4, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner’s Cited References
The cited references generally show the similar or related structure having a second crystalline material and a third crystalline material having different crystallization temperatures and the second or third material is substantially free of grain boundary as presently claimed by applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LONG PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1714. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469-295-9060. 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.
LONG . PHAM
Examiner
Art Unit 2823
/LONG PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
