biguity parametrization α = γ = − 3 / 4 and β = 1 / 2) that scattering effects are manifested by the particle’s by-product introduction of the derivative-of- Dirac’s delta function, δ $^{′}$( x ), in the PCT process. We were able to obtain the related reflection (15) and (16) transmission coefficients for any U (0) of U ( x ) in (14). We have predicted that a quasi-free PDM quantum particle may very well totally reflect itself (documented in (17)-(20)) by the effective potential it introduces (i.e., the derivative-of-Dirac’s delta function, δ $^{′}$( x ), in this case). Unavoidably, nevertheless, it should be noted that if the PDM quantum particle at hand (1) is also subjected to Dirac delta potential V ( x ) = − aδ ( x ) that appears in equation (1) of Gadella et al. [36] (though rather readily laid far beyond our methodical proposal above), then the reflection and transmission coefficients would, respectively, read and The comprehensive discussion of which is given by Gadella et al. [36]. Finally, we have very recently shown (see Mustafa and mazharimousavi [39] for more details) that the ordering ambiguity conflict (associated with the non- unique representation of the von Roos PDM Schr¨ odinger Hamiltonian) as to which ordering would be the best representative for the PDM Hamiltonian, can not be resolved within the abrupt heterojunction boundary conditions and the Dutra’s and Almeida’s [9] reliability test. The PDM forms have their say in the process. The current Heaviside-dependent mass form/jump (2) was not just an amazing example but yet an additional documentation of this observation. 9 R = − 4 [ a + ikU (0)] 4 a + ik [ 4 + U (0) 2 ] , (21) T = ik [ 4 − U (0) 2 ] 4 a + ik [ 4 + U (0) 2 ] . (22)