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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (MPEP 2173.05(p)). In this case, the amended limitation “wherein the photocurrent includes carriers flowing from said second-type semiconductor light- receiving region to said second-type semiconductor conduction region via said first-type semiconductor substrate” is directed to events that occur during the use of the device, necessarily implying a method of use, rendering the claim indefinite. The limitation will not be read into the claim for purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 20020185665 to Kuhara et al. (Kuhara).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuhara teaches an optoelectronic semiconductor structure, comprising:
a first-type N semiconductor substrate 1/21/22, having a top surface (facing up on page);
a second-type P semiconductor light-receiving region 12; and
a second-type semiconductor conduction region 6, disposed on said top surface of said first-type semiconductor substrate, used for conducting a photocurrent, said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region surrounding said second-type semiconductor conduction region, and said second-type semiconductor conduction region and said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region spaced by a distance (see Figs. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 2, Kuhara teaches the optoelectronic semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region surrounds or partially surrounds said second-type semiconductor conduction region (see Figs. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 3, Kuhara teaches the optoelectronic semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein
said first-type semiconductor substrate includes a spacer part;
the inner side of said spacer part surrounds or partially surrounds said second-type semiconductor conduction region; and
the outer side of said spacer part is adjacent to said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region (gap between 6 and 12 defines a spacer).
Regarding Claim 9, Kuhara teaches the optoelectronic semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region is disposed on said top surface of said first-type semiconductor substrate (see Figs. 7-8).
Regarding Claim 15, Kuhara teaches the optoelectronic semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region is a second-type semiconductor well, and said second-type semiconductor conduction region is a second-type semiconductor with high doping concentration (10^19, [0058]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kuhara teaches the optoelectronic semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein when said first-type semiconductor substrate is n-type, said photocurrent includes the holes flowing from said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region to said second-type semiconductor conduction region via said first-type semiconductor substrate (see Figs. 7-8).
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.
Claims 9, 16 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhara.
Regarding Claim 9, Kuhara teaches the optoelectronic semiconductor structure of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that said second-type semiconductor conduction region is coupled to an analog-to-digital converter. Kuhara does teach in Fig. 12 coupling the output of the detector to an amplifier 28. It would further be obvious to digitize this output in order to more easily manipulate the output data.
Regarding Claim 16, Kuhara teaches the optoelectronic semiconductor structure of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the concentration of ions implanted into said second-type semiconductor conduction region is higher than the concentration of ions implanted into said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region. Kuhara is silent regarding dopant concentrations other than that it is “high.” The person of ordinary skill having the benefit of Kuhara is thus motivated to experiment with various dopant concentrations in the various regions to optimize and best practice the invention of Kuhara and my readily arrive at such an arrangement.
Regarding Claim 17, Kuhara teaches the optoelectronic semiconductor structure of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that when said first-type semiconductor substrate is p-type, said photocurrent includes the photoelectrons flowing from said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region to said second-type semiconductor conduction region via said first-type semiconductor substrate. Kuhara teaches the inverse dopant scheme. Forming the required PN junctions taught by Kuhara throughout may be formed with either dopant scheme and are obvious variants.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art does not teach a bias gate layer, covering said top surface of said first-type semiconductor substrate, and located between said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region and said second-type semiconductor conduction region, or a first-type semiconductor shelter layer, disposed on said second-type semiconductor light-receiving region and said top surface of said first-type semiconductor substrate. The remaining claims are allowable as being dependent on an allowable base claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 EVREN SEVEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5666. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00- 5:00 Pacific.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571) 272-8458. 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.
/EVREN SEVEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812