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 without traverse of Group 1, Species A in the reply filed on 8/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2, Subspecies C in the reply filed on 8/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search and/or examination burden because “a search for a main category planar MOSFET with subcategory relationship between channel length and oxide thickness would reasonably yield results that may be available in the prior art for the allegedly patentably distinct subspecies A-B, and D (now withdrawn) as well as the elected Subspecies C.”
This is not found persuasive because the examiner notes that a search yielding some results pertaining to the unelected species does not compromise the fact that a complete search and/or examination of the plural species presents a serious search and/or examination burden because the species/subspecies or groupings of patentably indistinct species/subspecies require a different field of search, at least due to the need to employ different search queries
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 8/6/2026.
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 1-9 and 15 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 claim(s) contains 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the predetermined doping profile is a P-type dopant having a concentration of between about 4x1017 and about 1x1018 per cm3 at depth of between about 0 µm to about 0.2 µm below surface of the channel” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there is no disclosure of a range of dopant concentration with the specified endpoints. It is noted that, while Fig. 5 shows doping profiles which are close to the range recited, it cannot be construed to support the specific currently claimed endpoints.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the predetermined doping profile is a P-type dopant having a concentration of between about 4x1017 and about 1x1018 per cm3 at depth of between about 0 µm to about 0.2 µm below surface of the channel” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure in combination with the silicon dioxide having a corresponding thickness range of between about 5 nm to about 15 nm. Specifically, the doping profiles shown in Figs. 5 and 12 are disclosed as being for a device with a thickness of 12.5 µm (see [0036] of published version of applicant’s disclosure) and therefore the disclosure does not support the claimed doping profile for the range of thicknesses also claimed.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the silicon dioxide has a corresponding thickness range of between about 5 nm to about 10 nm,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure in combination with “wherein the predetermined doping profile is a P-type dopant having a concentration of between about 4x1017 and about 1x1018 per cm3 at depth of between about 0 µm to about 0.2 µm below surface of the channel,” required by claim 1. Specifically, the doping profiles shown in Figs. 5 and 12 are disclosed as being for a device with a thickness of 12.5 µm (see [0036] of published version of applicant’s disclosure) and therefore the disclosure does not support the claimed doping profile for the range of thicknesses also claimed.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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) 1-9 and 15 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 “a drain region”, “a source region,” and “a base region” are each unclear as to how they are related to the previously recited “semiconductor region.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein to avoid punchthrough, defined as depletion region of the pn junctions on either side of the base region reaching through the base region and merging thus allowing a substantial current flow through the source electrode when the device is in an off state: wherein the channel has a length of between about 0.3 pm and about 0.2 pm, and the silicon dioxide has a corresponding thickness range of between about 5 nm to about 15 nm, the base region has a 17 and about 1x1018 per cm3 at depth of between about 0 µm to about 0.2 µm below surface of the channel,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, “to avoid punchthrough” and “when the device is in an off state” appear to be indicate the limitation is a conditional limitation and it is unclear if the limitations following are required. Additionally or alternatively, “wherein to avoid punchthrough, defined as depletion region of the pn junctions on either side of the base region reaching through the base region and merging thus allowing a substantial current flow through the source electrode when the device is in an off state” appears to be related to the intended use of the device, and it is therefore unclear if the limitations following are required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the predetermined doping profile is a P-type dopant having a concentration of between about 4x1017 and about 1x1018 per cm3 at depth of between about 0 µm to about 0.2 µm below surface of the channel” is unclear as to how a doping profile of the base region is taken as a depth “below surface of the channel.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the pn junctions” is unclear because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “substantial” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the channel” is unclear as to how it is related to the previous recitation of “a conductive channel.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a corresponding thickness range” is unclear as to what the thickness range is required to correspond to.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “its associated channel length” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “length” of the channel and the recited range.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a near minimum specific,” is unclear because “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is further unclear because it appears to require a specific threshold value, however said value is not defined by the claim and therefore the scope of the claim is undefined.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein material of the drain, source, and gate electrodes comprises one or more of…” is unclear as to if the drain, source and gate are required to have a shared “material,” of if the claim merely requires each to include one of the recited elements.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the semiconductor region comprises…a P-type conductivity type” is unclear as to how it is related to the P-type dopant and doping profile recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “a first semiconductor region,” “a second semiconductor region,” and “a third semiconductor region,” are unclear as to how they are related to the “drain region” the “source region,” and the “base region” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein the first semiconductor region has a dopant level higher than a dopant level of the second semiconductor region,” is unclear as to how it is related to the P-type dopant and doping profile recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “wherein the third semiconductor region has a dopant level higher than a dopant level of the second semiconductor region,” is unclear as to how it is related to the P-type dopant and doping profile recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “thickness of the dielectric material,” is unclear as to how it is related to the “corresponding thickness” of the “silicon dioxide” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “thickness of the dielectric material,” is unclear as to how it is related to the “corresponding thickness” of the “silicon dioxide” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the gate material,” is unclear because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the semiconductor in the channel region,” is unclear because it lacks proper antecedent basis. It is further unclear as to how it is related to the “semiconductor region,” the “base region,” the “conductive channel,” and the “channel” recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the semiconductor,” is unclear because it lacks proper antecedent basis. It is further unclear as to how it is related to the “semiconductor region,” the “base region,” the “conductive channel,” and the “channel” recited in claim 1 and the “semiconductor in the channel region,” previously recited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the thickness of the dielectric material between the gate and the semiconductor” is unclear as to how it is related to the “corresponding thickness” of the “silicon dioxide” recited in claim 1 and to the “thickness of the dielectric material,” previously recited in claims 7 and 8.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the silicon dioxide has a corresponding thickness range of between about 5 nm to about 10 nm” is unclear as to how it is related to the “corresponding thickness range” of the silicon dioxide in claim 1 and is further unclear as to what the thickness range is required to correspond to.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Note that the claims have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20060011975 is cited for showing a MOSFET with channel length in the range recited in the claim (see [0053]), dielectric thickness in the range recited in the claim (see [0056]) and an impurity concentration in the range recited in the claim (see [0048]).
WO 2015015938 for showing a MOSFET with channel length in the range recited in the claim, dielectric thickness in the range recited in the claim, and an impurity concentration in the range recited in the claim.
US 20190386124 is cited for showing a structure that is identical to the disclosed structure having dielectric thickness in the range recited in the claim and establishing channel length as a result effective variable related to the dielectric thickness.
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