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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the Applicant Election filled on 12/02/2025. Currently, claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claims 16-19 have been withdrawn and cancelled from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, 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.
Regarding claim 11, wherein it recites “wherein a doping level of the third region with the second conductivity type is greater than a doping level of the second region with the second conductivity type” is not defined or explained in the specification or any of the drawings, and hence renders the claim indefinite. However, it seems a doping level of the third region with the second conductivity type is equal to a doping level of the second region with the second conductivity type according to the Applicant’s specification (Page 13, “Take particular note of the N1 and N4 regions, and, in particular, the newly introduced N5 region. Note that the N4 and N5 regions make up a single continuous area, with N5 acting as an extension, or finger, from N4”). Thus, for the purpose of applying prior arts, it will be considered as “wherein a doping level of the third region with the second conductivity type is equal to a doping level of the second region with the second conductivity type”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Menard et al (US 20120146089 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Figure 2 of Menard discloses a TRIAC, comprising:
First and second main terminal contacts (A1 and A2, [0009]), and a gate terminal contact (G, [0010]); and
a plurality of semiconductor regions (between A2 and A1) stacked along a first axis (vertical direction in the Figure 2C) and extending laterally along an intersecting second axis (horizontal direction), defining a first region (Th1 region in the annotated Figure 2C above), a second region (Th2 region in the annotated Figure 2C above), and a middle region (between Th1 region and Th2 region in the annotated Figure 2C above);
the plurality of semiconductor regions including: a third N-type region (30, [0033]) overlying the second main terminal contact (A2), extending laterally through the second region and partially through the middle region;
a second P-type region (5, [0009]) overlying the second main terminal contact (A2), extending laterally through the first region, partially over the third N-type region (30) in the middle region, and over the third N-type region in the second region;
a second N-type region (1, [0032]) overlying the second P-type region (5), extending laterally across the first region, middle region, and second region;
a first P-type region (3, [0032]) overlying the second N-type region (1), extending laterally across the first region, middle region, and second region;
a first N-type region (22, [0032]) partially overlying the first P-type region, extending laterally partly through the first region (left portion in Figure 2);
a fourth N-type region (27, right one in the Figure 2) partially overlying the first P-type region, extending laterally partly through the middle region; and
a fifth N-type region (27, left one in the Figure 2, [0032]) partially overlying the first P-type region, extending laterally partly through the first region and the middle region;
wherein a portion of the first main terminal contact (A1) is disposed on the first N-type region (22) in the first region and another portion (portion A1 on 21) is disposed on the first P-type region in the second region; and wherein the gate terminal contact (G) is disposed partially on the first P-type region (3) and the fourth N-type region (27) in the middle region (between Th1 region and Th2 region in the annotated Figure 2C above).
Regarding claim 4, Figure 2 of Menard discloses that the TRIAC of claim 1, wherein the first, third, fourth and fifth N-type regions have a first doping level (all of them having heavily doped N-type); wherein the first and second P-type regions (5 and 3) have a second doping level that is less than the first doping level (not heavily P-type).
Regarding claim 10, Figure 2 of Menard discloses a TRIAC, comprising:
a first layer (3+29, [0032]) doped with a first conductivity type (p-type);
a first region (22, [0032]) doped with a second conductivity type (n-type) at a surface of the first layer;
the first region forming a cathode (A1, [0009]) of a first thyristor (Th1, please see the attached annotated Figure 2C above) of the TRIAC and the first layer forming a gate (G) of the first thyristor;
a cathode metal layer (A1) in contact with the first region (22);
a second region (27, right one in the Figure 2C) doped with the second conductivity type (n-type) at the surface of the first layer;
a gate metal layer (G, [0005]) in contact with the second region (27, right one in the Figure 2) and in contact with the surface of the first layer; and
a third region (27, left one in the Figure 2C) doped with the second conductivity type (p-type) and extending (please see Figure 2A for 27) from the second region in a position between the first region (22) and where the gate metal layer (G) contacts the surface of the first layer (3+29).
Regarding claim 11, Figure 2 of Menard discloses that the TRIAC of claim 10, wherein a doping level of the third region (27, left portion of 27 in the Figure 2C) with the second conductivity type is equal to a doping level of the second region (27, right portion of 27 in the Figure 2C) with the second conductivity type.
Regarding claim 12, Figure 2 of Menard discloses that the TRIAC of claim 10, wherein the first region (22) has a first doping level; wherein the first layer (3+29) has a second doping level; wherein the second region (27, right one in Figure 2C) has a third doping level; wherein the third region (27, left one in the Figure 2C) has a fourth doping level; and wherein the first doping level is greater than the second doping level (22 is heavily doped N-type and 3 is not heavily doped P-type) and equal to the third and fourth doping levels (27 is heavily doped N-type).
Regarding claim 13, Figure 2 of Menard discloses a TRIAC, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (1, [0009]);
a second P-type region (5, [0009]) formed in the semiconductor substrate;
a third N-type region (30, [0033]) formed in the semiconductor substrate, adjacent to the second P-type region (5);
a second N-type region (1, [0032]) formed in the semiconductor substrate on the second P-type region;
a first P-type region (3+29, [0032]) formed in the semiconductor substrate on the second N-type region (1);
a first N-type region (22, [0035]) formed in the semiconductor substrate, adjacent to the first P-type region (3+29);
a fourth N-type region (27, right one in the Figure 2C, [0032]) formed in the semiconductor substrate, adjacent to the first P-type region at a same level as the first N-type region (22) and spaced apart therefrom;
a fifth N-type region (27, left one in the Figure 2C) formed in the semiconductor substrate, adjacent to the first P-type region at a same level as the first and fourth N-type regions and positioned therebetween but spaced apart therefrom (vertical portion of 27 is spaced apart from each other by the horizontal portion);
a first main terminal (A1, left one in the Figure 2C, [0032]) contact having a first portion disposed on the first N-type region (22) and a second portion (A1 on 21, right one in Figure 2C) disposed on the first P-type region (3+29);
a second main terminal (A2, [0009]) contact disposed on the second P-type region (5) and the third N-type region (30); and
a gate terminal contact (G, [0005]) disposed partially on the first P-type region (3+29) and partially on the fourth N-type region (27, right one in the Figure 2C).
Regarding claim 15, Figure 2 of Menard discloses that the TRIAC of claim 13, wherein the fifth N-type region (27, left one in the Figure 2C) is formed as a finger extending from the fourth N-type region (27 is finger shaped on a broadest reasonable interpretation based on Figure 2A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Menard et al (US 20120146089 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 2 of Menard discloses that the TRIAC of claim 1, wherein a first thyristor (Th1) is formed in the first region (Th1 region in the annotated Figure 2C above) and a second thyristor (Th2) is formed in the second region (Th2 region in the annotated Figure 2C above);
wherein the first thyristor (Th1, please see the annotated Figure 2C above) is formed by the first N-type region (22), the first P-type region (3), the second N-type region (1) and the second P-type region (5);
wherein the second thyristor (Th2, please see the annotated Figure 2C above) is formed by the third N-type region (30), the second P-type region (5), the second N-type region (1), and the first P-type region (3); and wherein the gate terminal contact (G) is connected to the first P-type region (3+29).
Menard does not explicitly teach that the fourth N- type region (27, right one in the Figure 2, [0032]) to control current flow between the first and second main terminal contacts by modulating operation of the first and second thyristors within the TRIAC; and wherein the fifth N-type region (27, left one in the Figure 2, [0032]) is positioned between the first N-type region (22) and the fourth N-type region (27, right one in the Figure 2, [0032]), serving as a serial resistance between the gate terminal contact and the first main terminal contact, improving sensitivity and commutation of the TRIAC in certain operating conditions without causing significant degradation of sensitivity of the TRIAC in other operating conditions.
However, the above limitation does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Menard which teaches the structure as claimed and the materials as specified in the applicant specification, wherein the structure is capable of performing the above function. Moreover, it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, The Examiner notes that where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. (In re Swinehart and Sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971)).
Regarding claim 3, Menard does not explicitly teach that the TRIAC of claim 2, wherein the first and second thyristors are configured to operate in first, second, third, and fourth quadrants based on polarity of a voltage applied across the first and second main terminals and the polarity of a voltage applied between the gate terminal and the first main terminal; wherein presence of the fifth N-type region lowers a gate trigger current in the second and the third quadrant and increases a critical rate of rise of off-state current of the TRIAC when the TRIAC is operating with a negative power current, through the second thyristor, resulting in increased sensitivity and improved commutation when the TRIAC is operating in an I-V+ region.
However, the above limitation does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Menard which teaches the structure as claimed and the materials as specified in the applicant specification, wherein the structure is capable of performing the above function. Moreover, it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, The Examiner notes that where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. (In re Swinehart and Sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971)).
Regarding claim 5, Figure 2 of Menard discloses a TRIAC, comprising:
a first main terminal contact (A1, [0009]), a second main terminal contact (A2, [0009]), and a gate terminal contact (G, [0005]);
a first thyristor (Th1, please see the annotated Figure 2C above) comprising a PNP transistor and a NPN transistor, with a base of the NPN transistor being connected to a collector of the PNP transistor and a base of the PNP transistor is connected to a collector of the NPN transistor, with an emitter-base junction of the NPN transistor having a forward-biased behavior modeled by a diode and a pinch-off resistance in parallel ([0005] and [0009], Figures 2 is TRIAC as claimed);
a second thyristor (Th2, please see the annotated Figure 2C above) comprising a PNP transistor and a NPN transistor, with the base of the NPN transistor being connected to the collector of the PNP transistor and the base of the PNP transistor being connected to the collector of the NPN transistor, with a shared semiconductor region forming the collector of the NPN transistor and the base of the PNP transistor; wherein a shared semiconductor region forms the collector of the NPN transistor and the base of the PNP transistor ([0005] and [0009], Figures 2 is TRIAC as claimed); and
Menard does not explicitly teach wherein the gate terminal contact (G) is connected to the base of the NPN transistor which is involved in the first thyristor, allowing control of current flow between the first and second main terminal contacts by modulating operation of the NPN and PNP transistors; and a serial resistance between the gate terminal contact and the first main terminal contact, thereby improving sensitivity and commutation of the TRIAC in certain operating conditions without causing significant degradation of sensitivity in other operating conditions.
However, the above limitation does not distinguish the present invention over the prior art of Menard which teaches the structure as claimed and the materials as specified in the applicant specification, wherein the structure is capable of performing the above function. Moreover, it has been held that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Further, The Examiner notes that where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. (In re Swinehart and Sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971)).
Regarding claim 6, Figure 2 of Menard discloses that the TRIAC according to claim 5, wherein the first thyristor (Th1, please see the annotated Figure 2C above) is formed in a first semiconductor region, the second thyristor (Th2, please see the annotated Figure 2C above) is formed in a second semiconductor region, and the shared semiconductor region is formed in a third semiconductor region that is located between the first and second semiconductor regions.
Regarding claim 7, Figure 2 of Menard discloses that the TRIAC according to claim 6, wherein the first thyristor (Th1, please see the annotated Figure 2C above) is a two-lead thyristor, the second thyristor (Th1, please see the annotated Figure 2C above) is a two-lead thyristor, and the shared semiconductor region is a common base region of the first and second thyristors.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Menard et al (US 20120146089 A1) in view of KIM (US 20160268933 A1).
Regarding claims 8-9, Figure 2 of Menard does not explicitly teach a system for controlling AC power, the system comprising: the TRIAC of claim 5, having its first main terminal contact connected to an AC power source and its second main terminal contact connected to a load; and a control circuit coupled to the gate terminal contact of the TRIAC, configured to modulate operation of the TRIAC and control power delivery from the AC power source to the load based on a set of operating conditions of the load, wherein he load comprises at least one of a motor, a motor starter, a solid state relay, an AC Switch Transistor device, or a lighting system.
However, KIM is a pertinent art which teaches arc-free phase control circuit for an AC motor that brings about an energy saving effect according to a load change and operates efficiently in terms of cost reduction while securing electrical stability by virtue of an overload protection function. The circuit includes a first relay, a TRIAC, a second relay, a voltage sensing unit, a current sensing unit, a speed voltage sensing unit, a zero-cross point detection unit, and a controller. Figure 1 of KIM teaches such a circuit using a TRIAC wherein KIM teaches such control circuit brings an energy saving effect according to a load change and operates efficiently in terms of cost reduction while securing electrical stability by virtue of an overload protection function ([0001]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a system for controlling AC power, wherein the system comprising: the TRIAC of claim 5, having its first main terminal contact connected to an AC power source and its second main terminal contact connected to a load; and a control circuit coupled to the gate terminal contact of the TRIAC, configured to modulate operation of the TRIAC and control power delivery from the AC power source to the load based on a set of operating conditions of the load, wherein he load comprises at least one of a motor, a motor starter, a solid state relay, an AC Switch Transistor device, or a lighting system according to the teaching of KIM in order to have a system for controlling AC power with energy saving effect according to a load change and operates efficiently in terms of cost reduction while securing electrical stability by virtue of an overload protection function ([0001] of KIM).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claim 13, 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:
Regarding claim 14, here is no prior art available nor obvious motivation to combine elements of prior art which teaches a TRIAC of claim 13, wherein the first and third N-type regions have a first doping level ; wherein the first and second P-type regions have a second doping level; wherein the second and fourth N-type regions have a third doping level; wherein the fifth N-type region has a fourth doping level; and wherein the first doping level is greater than the second doping level and equal to the third and fourth doping levels.
Examiner Notes
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck& Co. v. BiocraftLabs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHAJA AHMAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7991. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern Time).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, GAUTHIER STEVEN B, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHAJA AHMAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813