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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 6-10 in the reply filed on 2/11/26 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka et al., (Yamanaka) US 2012/0061730 in view of Boone et al., (Boone) US 2020/0105961, and Nakajima et al., (Nakajima) US 2005/0045908.
Regarding claim 6, Yamanaka shows in FIG. 1-24, a opto-thyristor, comprising: a substrate (602); a light emitter (612-646)[0090] (the electronic device can be an LED, [0207]) formed on the substrate (602); and a light-sensitive thyristor (612-646 on opposite side)[0207] formed on the substrate; wherein the opto-thyristor is manufactured by a method comprising the steps of: providing the substrate (602); performing an epitaxial process [0087] to form an N-type epitaxial layer on the substrate [0098]; forming a structure doped with a P-type semiconductor material by implanting [0079] the P-type semiconductor material at multiple positions on the N-type epitaxial layer [0098], wherein a part of P/N junctions formed by P-type dopant and N-type epitaxy constitutes the light emitter [0098]; implanting an N-type semiconductor material in a part of a structure implanted with the P-type semiconductor material to form one or more P/N junctions [0098] and define a region of a basic structure for forming the light-sensitive thyristor [0207]; forming a structure of electrical contacts (644,646)[0099] of the light emitter and the light-sensitive thyristor by a patterning process after forming a metal conductor layer; and performing a packaging process.
Yamanaka differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device comprising: a silicon carbide (SiC) opto-thyristor; a SiC light emitter; wherein a dielectric material is provided between the SiC light emitter and the SiC light-sensitive thyristor; the light emitter has a terminal of an input voltage formed by wire bonding, and the SiC light-sensitive thyristor has a terminal of an output voltage by wire bonding; forming the terminals of the input voltage and the output voltage of the SiC opto-thyristor by wire bonding on the electrical contacts of the SiC light emitter and the SiC light-sensitive thyristor; forming conducting channels in a passivation layer for the SiC light emitter and the SiC light-sensitive thyristor on the N-type epitaxial layer and positions doped with P-type semiconductor material and/or the N-type semiconductor material by an etching process after depositing the passivation layer.
Boone shows in FIG. 1-10, a device comprising: a device comprising: a silicon carbide (SiC) opto-thyristor (12)[0035]; a SiC light emitter (14)[0035]; wherein a dielectric material (54) is provided between the SiC light emitter (12) and the SiC light-sensitive thyristor (14); the light emitter has a terminal of an input voltage formed by wire bonding [0056,0070], and the SiC light-sensitive thyristor has a terminal of an output voltage by wire bonding [0056,0070]; forming the terminals of the input voltage and the output voltage of the SiC opto-thyristor by wire bonding [0056,0070] on the electrical contacts of the SiC light emitter (12) and the SiC light-sensitive thyristor (14).
Boone is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Yamanaka. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Boone in the device of Yamanaka because it will improve the output circuit [0004].
Nakajima shows in FIG. 2, forming conducting channels (1,2)[0006] in a passivation layer (110)[0039] for the SiC light emitter and the SiC light-sensitive thyristor on the N-type epitaxial layer and positions doped with P-type semiconductor material and/or the N-type semiconductor material by an etching process after depositing the passivation layer [0032-0035].
Nakajima is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Yamanaka and Boone. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Nakajima in the device of Yamanaka and Boone because it will provide a device with high sensitivity, and high breakdown voltage [0013].
As to claim 1, the limitations such as, epitaxial process, implanting p or n-type, wire bonding are considered as a product by process limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by- process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even thought the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777F, 2d 659, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka, Boone, and Nakajima as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Goto et al., (Goto) US 2013/0095605.
Regarding claim 7, Yamanaka in view of Boone, Nakajima differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the SiC opto-thyristor is provided with a reflective layer for a spectrum between blue light and ultraviolet light and formed any side of an interior of the SiC opto-thyristor by coating to increase photosensitivity of the interior of the SiC opto-thyristor.
Goto discloses [0196] a device wherein the SiC opto-thyristor is provided with a reflective layer (10)[0305] for a spectrum between blue light and ultraviolet light and formed any side of an interior of the SiC opto-thyristor by coating to increase photosensitivity of the interior of the SiC opto-thyristor.
Goto is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Yamanaka in view of Boone, Nakajima. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Goto in the device of Yamanaka in view of Boone, Nakajima because it will improve the efficiency of the device [0052].
Regarding claims 8-10, Yamanaka in view of Boone, Nakajima differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device wherein the light emitted by the light emitter travels through a structure of the opto-thyristor having a sealant material or being not filled with the sealant material and toward the light-sensitive thyristor after being reflected by the reflective layer, thereby generating a gate current in the light-sensitive thyristor; wherein the passivation layer is made of a transparent passivation layer material for a spectrum between blue light and ultraviolet light so that light emitted by the light emitter travels through an interior of the passivation layer toward the light-sensitive thyristor.
Goto shows in FIG. 2, and discloses a device wherein a device wherein the light emitted by the light emitter travels through a structure of the opto-thyristor having a sealant material (9) or being not filled with the sealant material and toward the light-sensitive thyristor [0196] after being reflected by the reflective layer, thereby generating a gate current in the light-sensitive thyristor; wherein the passivation layer (9) is made of a transparent passivation layer material for a spectrum between blue light [0305] and ultraviolet light so that light emitted by the light emitter travels through an interior of the passivation layer toward the light-sensitive thyristor [0196].
Goto is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Yamanaka in view of Boone, Nakajima. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Goto in the device of Yamanaka in view of Boone, Nakajima because it will improve the efficiency of the device [0052].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 B Gauthier can be reached at 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 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813