Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/361,317

SCHOTTKY BARRIER DIODE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 28, 2023
Examiner
RAHMAN, KHATIB A
Art Unit
2813
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Novel Crystal Technology, INC.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
406 granted / 448 resolved
+22.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
479
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
45.4%
+5.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 448 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 teaches d 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 1 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWADA (2022/0149174 A1) in view of Chao et al. (US 8,927,401 B2) Regarding claim 1, SAWADA teaches, PNG media_image1.png 484 606 media_image1.png Greyscale A Schottky barrier diode (FIG. 14), comprising: a semiconductor layer of a first conductivity type (n type 202, para [0055]) comprising a wide-bandgap semiconductor (202/102 may be SiC, para [0029]). and a trench (204, para [0054]) defining a mesa portion (as marked, FIG. 14, FIG. 13) on a first surface (top surface of 202) thereof; a high-resistance region (bottom region of 202P below the surface region 202b. See para [0077], impurity concentration distribution at highest value at surface 202b , therefore the bottom region should have relatively lower dopant concentration than that at the surface 202b and hence should offer high resistance compared to surface region 202b) under the trench of the semiconductor layer, the high-resistance region comprising an impurity of a second conductivity type (P type, para [0077]) different from the first conductivity type; an insulating film or a semiconductor film (208 which maybe polysilicon, para [0069])……., the insulating film or semiconductor film (208) covering at least a bottom surface among inner surfaces of the trench (as seen); an anode electrode (209b, para [0070]) on the semiconductor layer through the insulating film or the semiconductor film (209b penetrates through the semiconductor film 208 at its dip portion as marked above), the anode electrode being connected to the mesa portion (connected via 209a); and a cathode electrode (210, para [0070]) directly or through another layer (201), para [0071] on a second surface (bottom surface of 202) of the semiconductor layer (202) on the opposite side to the first surface (as seen), But SAWADA does not explicitly teach, the semiconductor film (polysilicon film 208) is of the second conductivity type. Meanwhile, Chao teaches, the semiconductor film (polysilicon structure 44, Fig. 20) in a trench may be doped with P-type or N-type (see Col. 4, lines 21-25, boron or phosphorous ions maybe uniformly implanted in a certain depth of the polysilicon structure 44, so as to form a P-type or an N-type area in the polysilicon structure 44). Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope the polysilicon film 208 with P-type dopant (such that 208 is formed of P doped poly-silicon to form a conductive body, e.g. gate electrode such that the semiconductor film 208 is of second conductivity type), according to the teaching of Chao, in order to make polysilicon 208 conductive to connect to surface electrode 209b, as taught by SWADA (see para [0070]), since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as P-type or N-type impurity to dope a polysilicon in a trench, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Regarding claim 3, SAWADA & Chao teach the Schottky Barrier Diode of claim 1 and further teaches, wherein the wide-bandgap semiconductor comprises a gallium oxide-based semiconductor (102/202 may be gallium oxide, SAWADA, para [0029]), and wherein the first conductivity type and the second conductivity type are n-type and p-type, respectively (as asserted in claim 1 rejection above). Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAWADA in view Chao et al. and further in view of MIYAMOTO et al. (US 2020/0161445 A1). Regarding claim 4, SAWADA & Chao teach the Schottky Barrier Diode of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach, wherein the impurity of the second conductivity type comprises nitrogen. But Miyamoto teaches, …P-type impurity such as nitrogen….. (para [0052] Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use nitrogen as a p-type impurity, according to the teaching of Miyamoto, in order to form P-type region 202P, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as nitrogen as a p-type impurity, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. With respect to claims 2, 5-7 the prior art of record does not appear to teaches , suggest, or provide motivation for combination to following limitation: wherein a relationship W×Nd < D×Na is satisfied, where W is a width of a depletion layer formed in the semiconductor layer from the bottom surface of the trench in a depth direction when a reverse voltage is applied, Nd is a donor concentration in the high-resistance region, D is a depth of the high-resistance region from the bottom surface of the trench, and Na is an acceptor concentration in the high-resistance region(claim 2) wherein the trench defines an annular protrusion surrounding a periphery of the mesa portion, and wherein an annular guard ring of the second conductivity type is provided on the protrusion (claim 5) wherein a plane orientation of a principal surface of the semiconductor layer is (001), wherein the mesa portion comprises a line-shaped planar pattern with a length direction along [010], and wherein a surface of a side portion of the mesa portion comprises the impurity of the second conductivity type(claim 6) wherein the mesa portion does not comprise an intentionally doped impurity of the first conductivity type (claim 7) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHATIB A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0494. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00 am- 5:00 pm (Arizona). 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 Steven Gauthier, 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. 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. /K.A.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2813 /STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 28, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 27, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581673
SCHOTTKY DIODE AND METHOD FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575169
COMPACT SWITCHING CIRCUIT PROVIDED WITH HETEROJUNCTION TRANSISTORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568679
CONTACT STRUCTURES IN RC-NETWORK COMPONENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12568721
LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE AND LIGHT-EMITTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557333
SEMICONDUCTOR POWER DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+5.2%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 448 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month