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 filed on 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that in regard to claim 16 that the combination of ONO and Ang prior art, does not teach the limitation of “wherein the capping material layer is formed of silicon.”
In response to this argument, the Examiner directs the applicant’s attention to the combination of ONO and Ang prior art, which clearly teaches that wherein the capping material layer (96) is formed of silicon (see Ang, Figs.7- 9 as shown below and ¶ [0027]- ¶ [0028]).
In addition, during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). While the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, F.3d, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.) This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) >; Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner would further point out that “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Therefore, the combination of ONO and Ang prior art reference does meet all the limitation in claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for the allowance of the claim is the inclusion of the limitation “forming a trench into the semiconductor substrate before formation of the anode, wherein the trench is positioned in a region of the semiconductor substrate to be formed with the anode, and the trench has a bottom surface between a top surface and a bottom surface of the anode” as recited in independent claim 1, in all of the claims which is not found in the prior art references.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are allowed for the same reasons as claim 1, from which they depend.
The primary reason for the allowance of the claim is the inclusion of the limitation “forming a trench into the front semiconductor layer before formation of the anode, wherein the trench is positioned in a region of the front semiconductor layer to be formed with the anode, and the trench has a bottom surface between a top surface and a bottom surface of the anode” as recited in independent claim 11, in all of the claims which is not found in the prior art references.
Claims 12-15 and 21 are allowed for the same reasons as claim 11, from which they depend.
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 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) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ONO (JP 6184539 B2, hereinafter refer to ONO) in view of Ang et al. (U.S. 2015/0097256 A1, hereinafter refer to Ang).
Regarding Claim 16: ONO discloses a method for manufacturing a photodetection device (see ONO, Figs.1 and 6A-6J as shown below and page.1), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
141
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
173
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
138
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
140
380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
238
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
155
427
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
160
426
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
158
425
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
165
424
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
420
712
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
481
340
media_image11.png
Greyscale
performing an ion implantation process to form a charge region (105) into a semiconductor substrate (101/102/112), wherein the charge region (105) has a first conductive type (note: p-Si region 105 is formed by implanting, for example, B (boron) ions) (see ONO, Fig.6D as shown above and page.3);
performing an ion implantation process to form anodes (104) with a second conductive type (note: P (phosphorus) ions are partially implanted into the Si slab waveguide 103 to form two n-Si contact regions 104) into the semiconductor substrate (101/102/112), wherein the anodes (104) at opposite sides of the charge region (105) are laterally spaced apart from the charge region (105), and portions of the semiconductor substrate (106) in between the charge region (105) and the anodes (104) respectively define a charge multiplication region (see ONO, Figs.6C-6D as shown above and page.3);
forming a recess (107) into the charge region (105), such that the charge region (105) is shaped into a charge layer (105) defining the recess (107) (see ONO, Figs. 6D-6E as shown above);
forming an absorption structure (108) in the recess (107) (see ONO, Figs. 6E-6F as shown above);
forming a capping material layer (111) covering the absorption structure (108) and the charge layer (105) (see ONO, Figs. 6H as shown above); and
wherein the cathode (109) is in contact with the absorption structure (108), and remained portions of the capping material layer (111) define a capping layer (111) entirely covering topmost surfaces of the charge layer (105) (see ONO, Figs.1 and 6J as shown above).
ONO is silent upon explicitly disclose wherein the capping material layer is formed of silicon;
performing an ion implantation process to form a cathode with the first conductive type into the capping material layer.
For support see Ang, which teaches wherein the capping material layer (96) is formed of silicon (see Ang, Figs.7- 9 as shown below and ¶ [0027]- ¶ [0028]);
performing an ion implantation process to form a cathode (104) with the first conductive type into the capping material layer (96) (see Ang, Figs.7- 9 as shown below and ¶ [0027]- ¶ [0028]).
PNG
media_image12.png
212
568
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
213
569
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
309
657
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of ONO and Ang to enable the known silicon capping material layer and form the cathode of ONO’s according to the teachings of Ang because one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable methods of performing the disclosed cathode of ONO and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 17: ONO as modified teaches a method for manufacturing a photodetection device as set forth in claim 16 as above. The combination of ONO and Ang further teaches wherein the charge layer (105), the charge multiplication regions (106) and the anodes (104) extends into the semiconductor substrate (101/102/112) by an identical depth (see ONO, Figs.1 and 6J as shown above).
Regarding Claim 18: ONO as modified teaches a method for manufacturing a photodetection device as set forth in claim 16 as above. The combination of ONO and Ang further teaches wherein patterning the semiconductor substrate (101/102/112) to form a waveguide directly in lateral contact with the absorption structure (108) and the charge layer (105) (see ONO, Figs.1 and 6J as shown above).
Regarding Claim 19: ONO as modified teaches a method for manufacturing a photodetection device as set forth in claim 16 as above. The combination of ONO and Ang further teaches wherein forming a dielectric layer (112) covering the capping layer (96), the cathode (104), the charge multiplications region (14) and the anodes (62/64) (see Ang, Figs.7- 9 as shown above); and
forming a first contact plug (114) and second contact plugs (114) through the dielectric layer (112), wherein the first contact plug (114) is landed on the cathode (104), and the second contact plugs (114) are disposed on the anodes (62/64), respectively (see Ang, Figs.7- 9 as shown above).
Regarding Claim 20: ONO as modified teaches a method for manufacturing a photodetection device as set forth in claim 19 as above. The combination of ONO and Ang further teaches wherein the dielectric layer (112) is spaced apart from the charge layer (48) via the capping layer (96) (see Ang, Fig.9 as shown above).
Furthermore, it would It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the range of dielectric layer spaced apart from the charge layer via the capping layer through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the range of dielectric layer spaced apart from the charge layer via the capping layer is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BITEW A DINKE whose telephone number is (571)272-0534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/BITEW A DINKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights