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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no support in the specification for the claimed limitation of “wherein the n-type semiconductor layer comprises a guard ring surrounding a junction between the anode electrode and the n-type semiconductor layer”, as recited in claim 1 because the guard ring is located under the junction between the anode electrode and the n-type semiconductor layer and not in the space separating the anode electrode and the n-type semiconductor layer.
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.
Claim 1, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. (206/0042949 in view of Hsu et al. (7,541,298) and supported by Memon et al. (Synthesis, Characterization and Optical Constants of Silicon Oxycarbide, 2017).Regarding claim 1, Sasaki et al. teach in figure 1 and related text a Schottky barrier diode, comprising:
an semiconductor layer 11 comprising a gallium oxide-based semiconductor;
an insulating film 17 comprising SiO2 and covering a portion of an upper surface of the semiconductor layer; and
an anode electrode 13 which is connected to the upper surface of the semiconductor layer to form a Schottky junction with the semiconductor layer and at least a portion of an edge of which is located on the insulating film 17,
wherein the insulating film 17 comprises a first layer (bottom part) in contact with the semiconductor layer and a second layer (top part) on the first layer, and
wherein both of the first and the second layers are SiO2 films, and
wherein the semiconductor layer comprises a guard ring 15 surrounding a junction between the anode electrode 13 and the semiconductor layer.
Sasaki et al. do not explicitly state that the first semiconductor layer is an n-type semiconductor layer, and do not teach that the insulating film comprises a second layer on the first layer, and wherein a refractive index and the density of the first layer are lower than a refractive index of the second layer.
Sasaki et al. teach in paragraph [0006] that that the first semiconductor layer is an n-type semiconductor layer.
Hsu et al. teach in figure 9 and related text a first silicon oxide 124 having a lower carbon concentration than a second silicon oxide 126 having higher carbon concentration and which is laminated on the first silicon oxide layer 124.
Memon et al. is cited to provide evidence for the well-known assertion that higher carbon doping in silicon oxide layer increases the density and thus the refractive index of said layer.
Hsu et al., Sasaki et al. and Memon et al. are analogous art because they are directed to composition of dielectric materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Sasaki et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the first semiconductor layer of an n-type semiconductor layer, and to form the insulating film 17 comprising a second layer on the first layer, and wherein a refractive index and the density of the first layer are lower than a refractive index and the density of the second layer, as taught by Hsu et al., in Sasaki et al.’s device, in order to provide better protection to the device.
The combination is motivated by the teaching of Hsu et al. who point out the advantages of forming two silicon oxide layers having a refractive index and the density of the first layer are lower than a refractive index of the second layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection
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 ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
1/10/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800