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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the method” in line 1 and should be amended to “the manufacturing method” for being consistent.
Claims 2 and 5 recite “LPCVD” as an abbreviation in line 2 without spelling out the meaning of LPCVD. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “between 20 and 30 nm” in line 2 and should be amended “between 20 nm and 30 nm” for having a proper unit behind a value. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 9 recites “PVD” as an abbreviation in line 2 without spelling out the meaning of PVD. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “between 100 and 150 nm” in line 2 and should be amended “between 100 nm and 150 nm” for having a proper unit behind a value. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the following steps” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 are rejected for depending on claim 1 and having the above issues incorporated into the claims.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the process temperature of the first coating process” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 would be allowed over prior art of record if amened to overcome 112 rejections and objections as set forth in the office action.
The following is an examiner' s statement of reason for allowance: the prior art made of record does not teach or fairly suggest the following:
Regarding claim 1, Liao et al (Patent No.: US 12,015,099) discloses a manufacturing method of a photodiode structure in Figs. 1-9, the method comprising the following steps: providing a substrate (202) (see Fig. 2); performing an active area patterning etching process to form a recessed portion (302) on the substrate; performing a first coating process (coating layer 402) to form a first anti-reflection layer (402) on the first semiconductor layer (see Fig. 3); performing an ion implantation process (process 504) to pass through the first anti-reflection layer (see Fig. 5); performing a second coating process (coating layer 502) to form a second anti-reflection layer on the first anti-reflection layer (see Fig. 5); performing a first metallization process to form a first electrode (metal layer 912) electrically connected to the substrate; and performing a second metallization process to form a second electrode (metal layer 904) electrically connected to the second semiconductor layer (see Fig. 8-9).
Liao et al fails to disclose performing an epitaxial process to form a first semiconductor layer on the substrate and performing the ion implantation process to pass through the first anti-reflection layer to form a second semiconductor layer in the recessed portion.
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1, and therefore also include said claimed limitation.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CUONG B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1509 (Email: CuongB.Nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
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 H. Loke can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/CUONG B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights