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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner also wants to note that the previous rejection also may apply as amended part is just intended use and does not have patentable weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Prior art does not teach or render obvious “a contact provided on the first well, spaced apart from the heavily doped region by 0.2 um to 2.5 um, and having the first conductivity type” in combination with the rest of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 20 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.
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.
Claim(s) 15 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipates by Bose “Parametric Study of p-n Junctions and Structures for CMOS-Integrated Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes”, IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 18, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2018.
Regarding claim 15 Bose teaches
15. (New) A single photon detector comprising:
a first well(fig. 1a dnw) having a first conductivity type(n conductivity) formed on the substrate;
a second well(nw) provided on the first well(dnw);
a heavily doped( p+) region provided on the second well(nw) and having a second conductivity type(p conductivity) different from the first conductivity type(n conductivity);
a guard ring(pwell ring ) in contact with a side surface of the heavily doped region(p+ ) and extending along a side surface of the second well(nw and n+ contact through STI and pwell);
a contact provided(small contact p+) on an opposite side of the heavily doped region with respect to the guard ring(pwell), spaced apart from the guard ring;(fig. 1A) and
a relief region(nw connecting o n+) provided on the first well(dnw) to(intended use no patentable weight) electrically connect the contact to the first well and surrounding a bottom surface and one side surface of the contact(n+); (fig. 1a)
wherein the guard ring(nw part of the guard ring ) has the same conductivity type as the second well(nw). (fig. 1a)
17. (New) The single photon detector of claim 15, further comprising an isolation region(STI) provided on an opposite side of the guard ring with respect to the contact and in contact with one side surface of the contact. (fig. 1A or 1B)
18. (New) The single photon detector of claim 15, wherein the heavily doped region protrudes from a side surface of the second well. (fig. 1a)
20. (New) The single photon detector of claim 18, further comprising an isolation(second STI between NW and pwell) region provided on an opposite side of the guard ring with respect to the contact.(fig. 1a)
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.
Claim(s) 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bose.
Although Bose does not explicitly teach
16. (New) The single photon detector of claim 15, wherein one side surface of the contact is in contact with the first well, and a bottom surface of the contact is in contact with the relief region.
19. (New) The single photon detector of claim 18, wherein one side surface of the contact is in contact with the first well, and a bottom surface of the contact is in contact with the relief region.
It is just a matter of design choice as it does not give any advantages and can contact it with isolation layer for example for easy construction purpose in some cases.
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 HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights