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 invention I, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 04/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/02/2025.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a buffer region which is provided between the drift region and the lower surface in the semiconductor substrate and includes three or more doping concentration peaks of the first conductivity type in which a doping concentration is higher than that of the drift region” in lines 4-6. It is not clear whether “a doping concentration” refers as in “a buffer region”, or in one or more of “three or more doping concentrations peaks” of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the slope ratio" in in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similarly, “the absolute value” and “the slope in lines 25-26 lack antecedent basis. Note that previously recited “a slope ratio, an absolute value” and “a slope” refers to “a gradual concentration peak” in lines 13-15, not for “a steep concentration peak” in lines 24-26.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the gradual concentration peak” in line 2-3. It is not clear the limitation refers to “the second doping concentration peak is the gradual concentration peak” of claim 1, or refers to one of “two or more gradual concentration peaks” of claim 2.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a steep concentration peak” in lines 2-3. It is not clear whether the limitation refers to “the third doping concentration peak is a steep concentration peak” of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the gradual concentration peak” in line 2-3. It is not clear the limitation refers to “the second doping concentration peak is the gradual concentration peak” of claim 1, or refers to one of “two or more gradual concentration peaks” of claim 10.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the gradual concentration peak” in line 3-4. It is not clear the limitation refers to “the second doping concentration peak is the gradual concentration peak” of claim 1, or refers to one of “gradual concentration peaks” of claim 12.
Claim 14 recites “the first doping concentration peak … is the steep concentration peak”. However, claim 1 recites “the third doping concentration peak is a steep concentration peak”. It is not clear whether the first doping concentration peak is another steep concentration peak, or the first doping concentration peak is the third doping concentration peak.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the steep concentration peak” in line 3. It is not clear the limitation refers to “the third doping concentration peak is a steep concentration peak” of claim 1, or refers to one of “at least two of the doping concentration peaks of the buffer region are steep concentration peaks” of claim 10.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the gradual concentration peak” in lines 2-3. It is not clear the limitation refers to “the second doping concentration peak is the gradual concentration peak” of claim 1, or refers to one of “one or two gradual concentration peaks” of claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Wakimoto (US 2016/0276446), discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a semiconductor substrate which has an upper surface and a lower surface and is provided with a drift region of a first conductivity type; and a buffer region which is provided between the drift region and the lower surface in the semiconductor substrate and includes three or more doping concentration peaks of the first conductivity type in which a doping concentration is higher than that of the drift region, wherein each of the doping concentration peaks has a local maximum at which the doping concentration shows a local maximum value, a lower tail in which the doping concentration monotonously decreases from the local maximum toward the lower surface, and an upper tail in which the doping concentration monotonously decreases from the local maximum toward the upper surface, at least one of the doping concentration peaks of the buffer region is a gradual concentration peak in which a slope ratio obtained by dividing an absolute value of a slope of the upper tail by an absolute value of a slope of the lower tail is 0.1 or more and 3 or less, the doping concentration peaks includes: a first doping concentration peak having a minimum distance from the lower surface; a second doping concentration peak which is positioned on a side of the upper surface with respect to the first doping concentration peak; a third doping concentration peak which is positioned on the side of the upper surface with respect to the second doping concentration peak, the buffer region is provided between two of the doping concentration peaks and has a local minimum portion at which the doping concentration shows a local minimum value, when a distance between a position of the second doping concentration peak and a position of the local minimum portion, which is closest to the second doping concentration peak, among local minimum portions of the doping concentration provided on the side of the upper surface with respect to the second doping concentration peak is defined as a first distance, and when a distance between a position of the third doping concentration peak and a position of the local minimum portion, which is closest to the third doping concentration peak, among the local minimum portions of the doping concentration provided on the side of the upper surface with respect to the third doping concentration peak is defined as a second distance. See Wakimoto, FIG. 2 and annotated FIG. 10 below; paragraphs [0058]-[0064] and [0103]. Note that in annotated FIG. 10 below, values for slope and slope ratio (R1, R2, R3 and R4) are calculated by the marked points. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “the second doping concentration peak is the gradual concentration peak, the third doping concentration peak is a steep concentration peak in which the slope ratio obtained by dividing the absolute value of the slope of the upper tail by the absolute value of the slope of the lower tail is larger than 3; the first distance is larger than the second distance” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
653
840
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights