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 Group I, Species A in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 6, and 9-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/26/29.
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 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (US PGPub 2015/0364461).
Claim 1: Kato teaches (Fig. 5) unidirectional transient voltage suppression (TVS) device, comprising: a first layer, comprising an N+ material, formed on a first part of a first main surface of a substrate; a second layer, extending from a second part of the first main surface, surrounding the first layer, and extending subjacent to the first layer, the second layer comprising an N- material; a third layer, comprising a P+ material, wherein the second layer is disposed between the first layer and the third layer; and an isolation region (110A), extending from the first main surface, and being disposed around the second layer.
Claim 2: Kato teaches (Fig. 5) the substrate comprises a P+ substrate, wherein the third layer extends from a second main surface of the substrate, opposite the first main surface.
Claim 7: Kato teaches (Fig. 5) the isolation region extends through the second layer and into the third layer, and wherein the second layer is disposed directly adjacent to the third layer.
Claim 8: Kato teaches (Fig. 5) the substrate defines a set of side surfaces.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US PGPub 2015/0364461), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US PGPub 2020/0075751)
Regarding claim 4, as described above, Kato substantially reads on the invention as claimed, except Kato does not teach an N+ guard ring, extending from the first main surface, and disposed around the first layer, within the second layer. Hong teaches (Fig. 3) a N+ guard ring, extending from the first main surface, and disposed around the first layer (316), within the second layer (Deep Nwell) as being conventional in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device taught by Kato to have included the guard ring as it is known and conventional in the art as taught by Hong.
5: Kato teaches (Fig. 5) a passivation structure (110B), disposed on the first main surface, and extending over at least a portion of the isolation region, the second layer, the guard ring, and the first layer.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US PGPub 2015/0364461) in view of Hong et al. (US PGPub 2020/0075751)
Claim 17: Kato teaches (Fig. 5) a high voltage unidirectional transient voltage suppression (TVS) device, comprising: a first layer, comprising an N+ material, formed on a first part of a first main surface of a P+ substrate; a second layer, extending from a portion of the first main surface, surrounding the first layer, and extending subjacent to the first layer, the second layer comprising an N- material, wherein a third layer, comprising a P+ material, is formed, the third layer extending below the second layer to a second main surface of the P+ substrate; and an isolation region, extending from the first main surface, and being disposed around the second layer. Kato does not teach an N+ guard ring, extending from the first main surface, and disposed around the first layer, within the second layer. Hong teaches (Fig. 3) a N+ guard ring, extending from the first main surface, and disposed around the first layer (316), within the second layer (Deep Nwell) as being conventional in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the device taught by Kato to have included the guard ring as it is known and conventional in the art as taught by Hong.
Claim 19: Kato teaches (Fig. 5) a passivation structure, disposed on the first main surface, and extending over at least a portion of the isolation region, the second layer, the guard ring, and the first layer.
Claim 20: Kato teaches (Fig. 5) isolation region extends through the second layer and into the third layer, and wherein the second layer is disposed directly adjacent to the third layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 18 are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at 5712721705. 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.
/SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights