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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Rejection 1/2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agata et al. (US 2021/0082702), Kreszowski (US 2007/0238189), and Nakamura (US 2020/0058506), all of record.
(Re Claim 1) Agata teaches power semiconductor device comprising: a semiconductor substrate (10; Fig. 30) having a first main surface (21) and a second main surface (23) facing each other; a first metal layer (52) provided on the first main surface of the semiconductor substrate; and a second metal layer (54) provided on the second main surface of the semiconductor substrate, wherein the semiconductor substrate includes a drift layer (18) of a first conductivity type, a buffer layer (Compare Fig. 30 with the Fig. 32 markup) of a first conductivity type provided between the drift layer and the second main surface, and a diffusion layer (22+82+remainder of 20 not assigned to the buffer layer) provided between and in contact with the buffer layer and the second metal layer, and has a partial region (80) in plan view being a diode region that operates as a diode, the diffusion layer includes a cathode layer (82) of a first conductivity type provided in contact with the buffer layer and the second metal layer in at least a part of the diode region, the cathode layer of a first conductivity type includes a first cathode layer that has one impurity concentration peak point (Fig. 32 markup) and is in contact with the second metal layer, and a second cathode layer (Fig. 32 markup) having one impurity concentration peak point and provided between the first cathode layer and the buffer layer so as to be in contact with the buffer layer.
Agata has not been shown to explicitly teach a power semiconductor device wherein a crystal defect density of the first cathode layer is higher than crystal defect density of another one of the diffusion layer, and
the first cathode layer includes composite CiCs defects as a first defect and interstitial Si pairs as a second defect.
However, Agata does state “[i]n this example, hydrogen is also implanted to the first depth position Z1 and the second depth position Z2 in the diode section 80. Moreover, the passage region similar to that in the transistor section 70 is also formed in the diode section 80. Each concentration distribution in the transistor section 70 may be the same as any of the aspects described with respect to FIGS. 1 to 29. A hydrogen chemical concentration distribution in the depth direction of the diode section 80 may be the same as the hydrogen chemical concentration distribution in the depth direction of the transistor section 70.” From the passage region 106 shown in Fig. 2, the vacancy defect concentration and the hydrogen concentration are shown to follow each other.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the power semiconductor device of Agata with the vacancy defect concentration distribution shown in Fig. 2 as a consequence of hydrogen implantation at depths Z1 and Z2 in this embodiment. From the quoted text above, each concentration distribution in the transistor section 70 “may be the same as any of the aspects described with respect to FIGS. 1 to 29”, and the passage region similar to that in the transistor section 70 is also formed in the diode section 80 (see also ¶99). See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
PNG
media_image1.png
802
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kreszowski teaches that silicon formed through well known methods such as the Czochralski process may be contaminated with carbon (¶12).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious for the semiconductor substrate of Agata to contain carbon at some concentration at least due to natural contamination from raw materials used to produce the ingot used to form the semiconductor substrate (Kreszowski: ¶12; Agata: ¶93).
Nakamura teaches that lattice defects form “[w]hen protons are introduced into Si” (¶221).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious that, as the semiconductor substrate contains carbon (Kreszowski: ¶12), is annealed (Agata: ¶281), and has protons introduced into it (Agata: ¶89), as taught by Nakamura, a crystal defect that is a first lattice defect (Nakamura: CiCs (G-centers); ¶221) that is a composite CiCs defect, and a second lattice defect (Nakamura: W-centres; ¶221) that is an interstitial silicon pair, will form within the semiconductor substrate as a consequence.
(Re Claim 2) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first lattice defect and the second lattice defect are configured to be detected by a photoluminescence method (the instant specification recognizes that defects identical to both the first and second lattice defects of modified Agata are detected by a photoluminescence method (e.g., Fig. 5)).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971).
(Re Claim 3) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein photon energy of the second lattice defect is 1.018 eV (Instant: Fig. 5).
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). See also In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness. However, the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.).
(Re Claim 4) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein photon energy of the first lattice defect is 0.969 eV (Instant: Fig. 5).
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). See also In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness. However, the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.).
(Re Claim 5) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a dose amount of the first cathode layer is 0.3 times or more a dose amount of the second cathode layer (the structure of claim 1 is demonstrated above, and a dose amount is a process parameter).
Claim 5 is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, the claimed first and second cathode layers need not be formed by a process having a particular dose amount ratio. A dose amount is a process parameter, which is different than claiming the concentration of the layer which would be a characteristic of the device itself. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
(Re Claim 13) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprising an anode layer (14; Fig. 30) of a second conductivity type provided between the drift layer and the first main surface.
(Re Claim 21) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first cathode layer is configured such that a photoluminescence spectrum of the cathode layer includes a peak at 0.969 eV (the instant specification recognizes that G-center defects, identical to those of modified Agata, when present in the cathode layer cause a peak to be present at 0.969 eV in a photoluminescence spectrum of the cathode layer (e.g., Fig. 5)).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971).
Rejection 2/2
Note the different interpretation of Agata’s cathode and buffer layer compared to the first rejection.
Claims 1-6, 13, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agata et al. (US 2021/0082702), Kodama (US 2019/0206803), Kameyama (US 2014/0306267), Nakamura (US 2020/0058506), and Kreszowski (US 2007/0238189), all of record.
(Re Claim 1) Agata teaches a power semiconductor device comprising: a semiconductor substrate (10; Fig. 30) having a first main surface (21; Fig. 30) and a second main surface (23; Fig. 30) facing each other; a first metal layer (52; Fig. 30) provided on the first main surface of the semiconductor substrate; and a second metal layer provided (54; Fig. 30) on the second main surface of the semiconductor substrate, wherein the semiconductor substrate includes a drift layer (18; Fig. 30) of a first conductivity type, a buffer layer (20; Fig. 30) of a first conductivity type provided between the drift layer and the second main surface, and a diffusion layer (22+82; Fig. 30) provided between and in contact with the buffer layer and the second metal layer, and has a partial region in plan view being a diode region (80; Fig. 30) that operates as a diode, the diffusion layer includes a cathode layer (82; Fig. 30) of a first conductivity type provided in contact with the buffer layer and the second metal layer in at least a part of the diode region.
Agata has not been shown in this interpretation to teach a power semiconductor device where the cathode layer of a first conductivity type includes a first cathode layer that has one impurity concentration peak point and is in contact with the second metal layer, and a second cathode layer having one impurity concentration peak point and provided between the first cathode layer and the buffer layer so as to be in contact with the buffer layer, and crystal defect density of the first cathode layer is higher than crystal defect density of another one of the diffusion layer.
Kodama teaches that either a p-type collector layer (70; Fig. 16) may be formed first along the back of a device, and then a n-type cathode layer (71; Fig. 16) is formed through inverting the collector layer, or the n-type cathode layer may be formed along the back of the device and then the p-type collector layer is formed through inverting the cathode layer (¶¶125-126).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the diffusion layer of Agata such that the p-type layer 22 is formed first along the back of the semiconductor substrate, rather than the cathode layer 82 (Agata: ¶290), as taught by Kodama, as these are alternative ways to predictably achieve a target dopant concentration in the diffusion layer of a power semiconductor device. See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 69 USPQ2d 1686 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Kameyama teaches forming a cathode layer (111; Fig. 1) with a first cathode layer 511a; Fig. 2 and 6) having one impurity concentration peak point (Fig. 2) and second cathode layer (511b; Fig. 2 and 5) having one impurity concentration peak point (Fig. 2; “an impurity concentration of second conductivity type impurities of the cathode layer is distributed in a curve pattern having at least two peaks”; ¶39).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the impurity concentration of the cathode layer of modified Agata such that there is a first cathode layer and second cathode layer corresponding the first and second cathode layer of Kameyama, with associated one impurity concentration peak points, to compensate for the presence of p-type dopants within the cathode layer, preventing snap back (Kameyama: ¶56), due to adopting Kodama’s cathode layer fabrication sequence described above.
From Kameyama, the first cathode layer will be closer to the second main surface than the second cathode layer (Fig. 9 markup).
A crystal defect density of the first cathode layer is then higher than a crystal defect density of another one of the diffusion layer, the second cathode layer (the crystal defect density at the second main surface of the semiconductor substrate is greater than the crystal defect density at the boundary between the cathode layer and the buffer layer; Agata: Fig. 32).
Kreszowski teaches that silicon formed through well known methods such as the Czochralski process may be contaminated with carbon (¶12).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious for the semiconductor substrate of Agata to contain carbon at some concentration at least due to natural contamination from raw materials used to produce the ingot used to form the semiconductor substrate (Kreszowski: ¶12; Agata: ¶93).
Nakamura teaches that lattice defects form “[w]hen protons are introduced into Si” (¶221).
A PHOSITA would find it obvious that, as the semiconductor substrate contains carbon (Kreszowski: ¶12), is annealed (Agata: ¶281), and has protons introduced into it (Agata: ¶89), as taught by Nakamura, a crystal defect that is a first lattice defect (Nakamura: CiCs (G-centers); ¶221) that is a composite CiCs defect, and a second lattice defect (Nakamura: W-centres; ¶221) that is an interstitial silicon pair, will form within the semiconductor substrate as a consequence.
PNG
media_image2.png
547
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Re Claim 2) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first lattice defect and the second lattice defect are configured to be detected by a photoluminescence method (the instant specification recognizes that defects identical to both the first and second lattice defects of modified Agata are detected by a photoluminescence method (e.g., Fig. 5)).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971).
(Re Claim 3) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein photon energy of the second lattice defect is 1.018 eV (Instant: Fig. 5).
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). See also In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness. However, the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.).
(Re Claim 4) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 2, wherein photon energy of the first lattice defect is 0.969 eV (Instant: Fig. 5).
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). See also In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness. However, the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.).
(Re Claim 5) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a dose amount of the first cathode layer is 0.3 times or more a dose amount of the second cathode layer (the structure of claim 1 is demonstrated above, and a dose amount is a process parameter).
Claim 5 is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, the claimed first and second cathode layers need not be formed by a process having a particular dose amount ratio. A dose amount is a process parameter, which is different than claiming the concentration of the layer which would be a characteristic of the device itself. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
(Re Claim 6) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein a transistor region (Agata: 70; Fig. 11) operating as a transistor is alternately arranged with the diode region in plan view (Agata: Fig. 11, ¶263), and the diffusion layer includes a diffusion layer of a second conductivity type (Agata: 22; Fig. 30) provided in contact with the buffer layer and the second metal layer in the transistor region.
(Re Claim 13) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 1, further comprising an anode layer (14; Fig. 30) of a second conductivity type provided between the drift layer and the first main surface.
(Re Claim 21) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 1, wherein the first cathode layer is configured such that a photoluminescence spectrum of the cathode layer includes a peak at 0.969 eV (the instant specification recognizes that G-center defects, identical to those modified Agata, when present in the cathode layer cause a peak to be present at 0.969 eV in a photoluminescence spectrum of the cathode layer (e.g., Fig. 5)).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 169 USPQ 563 (CCPA 1971).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agata et al. (US 2021/0082702), Kameyama (US 2014/0306267), and Kodama (US 2019/0206803) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Miyata et al. (US 2021/0217845), all of record.
(Re Claim 7) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 6, but has not been shown to explicitly teach the power semiconductor device wherein the diffusion layer of a second conductivity type includes a first diffusion layer that has one impurity concentration peak point and is in contact with the second metal layer, and a second diffusion layer that has one impurity concentration peak point and is provided between the first diffusion layer and the buffer layer so as to be in contact with the buffer layer.
Miyata teaches forming a diffusion layer of a second conductivity type including a first diffusion layer (from lowest depth to local minimum between peaks in layer 21; Fig. 12) that has one impurity concentration peak point and is in contact with a second metal layer (Fig. 1), and a second diffusion layer (from the local minimum between peaks in layer 21 to the upper boundary of layer 21; Fig. 12) that has one impurity concentration peak point and is provided between the first diffusion layer and a buffer layer (20; Fig. 1) so as to be in contact with the buffer layer (Fig. 12).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to form the diffusion layer of a second conductivity type with a first and second diffusion layer as taught by Miyata, such that the first diffusion layer is in contact with the second metal layer of modified Agata and the second diffusion layer is in contact with the buffer layer of modified Agata, to improve the short-circuit capacity of the power semiconductor device (Miyata: ¶66).
(Re Claim 8) Modified Agata teaches the power semiconductor device according to claim 7, wherein
a dose amount of the second cathode layer is twice or more a dose amount of the second diffusion layer (the structure of claim 7 is demonstrated above, and a dose amount is a process parameter).
Claim 8 is a product-by-process claim. A product-by-process claim is a product claim. Applicant has merely chosen to define the claimed product by the process by which it was made. It has been well established that process limitations do not impart patentability to an old/obvious product. Process limitations are significant only to the extent that they distinguish the claimed product over the prior art product. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir.1985). In this case, the claimed first and second diffusion layers need not be formed by a process having a particular dose amount ratio. A dose amount is a process parameter, which is different than claiming the concentration of the layer which would be a characteristic of the device itself. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Though Nakamura’s Fig. 36 does not appear to show G-centres (remarks, p. 3), it is not evident the embodiment shown there meets the carbon impurity and proton introduction requirements as described in Nakamura’s ¶221. Nowhere was Fig. 36 described as a result of injecting protons into silicon and then annealing (“Nakamura itself indicates that G-centres may not be present, even if an Si layer includes injected protons and is then annealed”; remarks, p. 3). Based on ¶221, it is unclear if Fig. 36 demonstrates an embodiment that formed G-centres to begin with. Furthermore, this embodiment was not relied upon in the rejection of record.
Applicant points to embodiments in their own specification to demonstrate that injecting protons into silicon and then annealing will not necessarily result in the presence of CiCs defects (e.g., Fig. 19; remarks, p. 3). However, here too it is not evident that silicon was ever injected with protons and then annealed in the region discussed in the remarks, as the buffer layer 82 may be formed using protons or helium (p. 35 ln. 16-17), and nowhere is there a description definitively meaning the third preferred embodiment “does not include a trap derived from composite CiCs defects” (emphasis added; remarks, p. 3). Of note also is that there appears to be a CiCs peak visible in the PL spectrum for the n buffer layer 81.
PNG
media_image3.png
701
935
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification describes CiCs defects as a composite defect (p. 15 ln. 3-5), and then describes the critical conditions necessary for removing composite defects, those formed when a proton is introduced into Si, as annealing at a 375°C or more and 425°C or less, in a nitrogen atmosphere, for 90 minutes or more (p. 36 ln. 5-8). Applicant’s description of what is required to remove defects formed through proton injection sets the lower bound of the annealing temperature higher than that experienced by the device of Agata.
As for the affidavit, Applicant is thanked for the submission, but it is unpersuasive.
Applicant’s submission shows that CiCs defects may be present even when conditions are right to remove them (“Under the conditions of the example in Fig. 23 of Material 1, the normalized PL intensity from G-centres may decrease by over 1000 times, depending on the annealing temperature”; p. 1, 5th paragraph), and the PL intensity of the G-centres are resolvable with equipment even at these lower intensities. Furthermore, the affidavit never describes Agata as teaching conditions that result in removing CiCs.
Applicant also describes a lower temperature removal of CiCs defects (p. 2, 6th paragraph), but the “certain conditions” of the reference are never described in the affidavit as taught by Agata.
For arguments with respect to claim 21, Applicant’s submission shows that CiCs defects may be present even when conditions are right to remove them (“Under the conditions of the example in Fig. 23 of Material 1, the normalized PL intensity from G-centres may decrease by over 1000 times, depending on the annealing temperature”; p. 1, 5th paragraph), and the PL intensity of the G-centres are resolvable with equipment even at lower intensities. A peak, even at reduced concentrations, will still be present in modified Agata as described in the rejections above.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher A Schodde whose telephone number is (571)270-1974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1000-1800 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at (571)272-2339. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A. SCHODDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JESSICA S MANNO/SPE, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights