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 I, Species I, Sub-Species A, Sub-Sub Species i, Sub-Sub-Sub Species a, and Sub-Sub-Sub-Sub Species α (claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 11-14) in the reply filed on 6/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6, 9, 10, and 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/22/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 8, and 11-14 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.
The term “high-resistivity” in claim 1, lines 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-resistivity” 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. The relative term “high” of the resistivity of the epitaxial layer is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and 11-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “heavily-doped” in claim 1, lines 6 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavily-doped” 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. The relative term “heavily” of the doping concentration of the cathode and/or anode regions is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and 11-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “low” in claim 3, line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” 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. The relative term “low” of the resistivity of the epitaxial layer is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “lightly-doped” in claim 7is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightly” 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. The relative term “lightly” of the doping concentration of the channel region is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Claims 8 and 11-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “high-resistivity” in claim 7, lines 3-4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-resistivity” 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. The relative term “high” of the resistivity of the epitaxial layer is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Claims 8 and 11-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “heavily-doped” in claim 75 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavily-doped” 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. The relative term “heavily” of the doping concentration of the first gate region is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Claims 8 and 11-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “heavily-doped” in claim 78 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavily-doped” 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. The relative term “heavily” of the doping concentration of the first source/drain regions is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Claims 8 and 11-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “lightly-doped” in claim 11is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightly” 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. The relative term “lightly” of the doping concentration of the well is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “lightly-doped” in claim 13is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lightly” 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. The relative term “lightly” of the doping concentration of the channel region is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “high-resistivity” in claim 8, line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-resistivity” 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. The relative term “high” of the resistivity of the epitaxial layer is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “heavily-doped” in claim 135 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavily-doped” 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. The relative term “heavily” of the doping concentration of the second gate region is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “heavily-doped” in claim 137 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavily-doped” 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. The relative term “heavily” of the doping concentration of the second source/drain regions is indefinite without improperly importing information from the specification into the claims. Claims 8 and 11-14 inherit the deficiencies of claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4 pm, EST.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
JOSEPH C. NICELY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights