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) filed 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.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 6 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claim 6 as presented requires that “the first lightly doped region overlaps a portion of the heavily doped region such that a net doping concentration of the portion is lowered, thereby expanding a depletion region.” This limitation is drawn to Fig. 16 of the present application; where Fig. 16 is drawn to Species 8 as indicated in the Requirement for Restriction/Election dated 12/03/2025.
It should be noted that in the Applicant’s Response to Election / Restriction Filed dated 02/02/2026, the Applicant elected Species 2 (Fig. 4) for prosecution without traverse.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 6 and claims depending on it (i.e., claims 7-10) are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-2, 11, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lo et al. [US PGPUB 20210272990] (hereinafter Lo).
Regarding claim 1, Lo teaches a single-photon avalanche diode comprising:
a heavily doped region (110, Para 23);
a first lightly doped region (108, Para 22/23) covering the heavily doped region (Fig. 1);
a guard ring (109, Para 22) provided on a side surface of the first lightly doped region (Fig. 1);
a first well (114, Para 26) covering the first lightly doped region and the guard ring (Fig. 1); and
a contact (106, Para 21) electrically connected to the first well (Fig. 1; connection via well 104);
wherein the heavily doped region, the first lightly doped region, and the guard ring have a first conductivity type (Para 22/23),
wherein the first well and the contact have a second conductivity type (Para 21/26), and
wherein the first lightly doped region is formed to space the heavily doped region apart from the guard ring and the first well such that the heavily doped region is not in direct contact with the guard ring and the first well (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Lo teaches a single-photon avalanche diode further comprising:
a relief area (104, Fig. 1) provided between the first well and the contact (Fig. 1);
wherein the relief region has the second conductivity type (Para 20) and has a lower doping concentration than the contact (Para 21).
Regarding claim 11, Lo teaches an electronic device comprising (Para 2):
a single-photon avalanche diode (118, Para 28) including a heavily doped region (110, Para 23), a first lightly doped region (108, Para 22/23) covering the heavily doped region (Fig. 1), a guard ring (109, Para 22) provided on a side surface of the first lightly doped region (Fig. 1), a first well (114, Para 26) covering the first lightly doped region and the guard ring (Fig. 1), and a contact (106, Para 21) electrically connected to the first well (Fig. 1; connection via well 104),
wherein the heavily doped region, the first lightly doped region, and the guard ring have a first conductivity type (Para 22/23),
wherein the first well and the contact have a second conductivity type (Para 21/26), and
wherein the first lightly doped region is formed to space the heavily doped region apart from the guard ring and the first well such that the heavily doped region is not in direct contact with the guard ring and the first well (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Lo teaches a single-photon avalanche diode wherein the guard ring protrudes from a top surface of the first lightly doped region (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Lo teaches a single-photon avalanche diode further comprising a buried region (112, Para 24) covering the first well (Fig. 1), wherein the buried region has the second conductivity type (Para 24).
Regarding claim 16, Lo teaches a single-photon avalanche diode wherein a side surface of the relief region is exposed by the first well (Fig. 1/2).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lo in view of Droz et al. [US PGPUB 20200169701] (hereinafter Droz).
Regarding claim 12, Lo teaches an electronic device (Para 2) including a single-photon avalanche diode (118, Para 28) including a heavily doped region (110, Para 23), a first lightly doped region (108, Para 22/23) covering the heavily doped region (Fig. 1), a guard ring (109, Para 22) provided on a side surface of the first lightly doped region (Fig. 1), a first well (114, Para 26) covering the first lightly doped region and the guard ring (Fig. 1), and a contact (106, Para 21) electrically connected to the first well (Fig. 1; connection via well 104),
wherein the heavily doped region, the first lightly doped region, and the guard ring have a first conductivity type (Para 22/23),
wherein the first well and the contact have a second conductivity type (Para 21/26), and
wherein the first lightly doped region is formed to space the heavily doped region apart from the guard ring and the first well such that the heavily doped region is not in direct contact with the guard ring and the first well (Fig. 1).
Lo does not specifically disclose a LiDAR device.
Referring to the invention of Droz, Droz discloses implementation of a photon avalanche diodes or SPADs in a LIDAR receiver to detect a returning light pulse within a relatively short time window (Para 125).
In view of such teaching by Droz, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to at least combine the invention of Lo and Droz at least based on the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143.I.A), such as preventing image smearing (Croz, Para 125)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 14, and 17-20 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.
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 ISMAIL A MUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1470. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 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, William Partridge can be reached at (571)270-1402. 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.
/ISMAIL A MUSE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights