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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-2018-0025882 A, with citations taken from the attached translation) in view of Takamure et al. (US 2013/0115763 A1).
Examiner’s note: The claim set submitted 5/29/2024 is examined here. On 7/15/2024 the original claim set was resubmitted, but this is assumed to be by error as the claims were not marked as amended nor was the correspondence in the July submission drawn to the claims.
As to claims 1-2, Kim teaches a method for manufacturing a power semiconductor device (abstract), which comprises forming an active layer comprising a first active layer and a second active layer (130a, 130b), which are doped with impurities different from each other (p3-4), on an SiC substrate (p3 para 1), wherein the forming of the active layer comprises: preparing the SiC substrate comprising a first area and a second area (See Figures, p3) ; injecting a source gas mixed with a first doping gas, a purge gas, a reactant gas, and a purge gas onto the first area of the SiC substrate to form the first active layer; and injecting a source gas mixed with a second doping gas, a purge gas, a
reactant gas, and a purge gas onto the second area of the SiC substrate to form the second active
layer (bottom of p 6 to top of p7). Kim teaches the pulses of source gases, doping gases and reactant gases but does not teach them sequentially as claimed.
Takemure et al. deals with ALD doping of semiconductor layers and teaches a sequence where the source gas is mixed or not with a doping gas, there is a purge, there is a reactant gas and then another purge (Figs 2-3) in order to provide precise control of the dopant content and excellent step coverage in para 0044. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kim to include its dopant ALD as the sequences in the dopant ALD of Takemure et al. in order to provide precise control of the dopant content and excellent step coverage.
As to claim 3, the source gas in Kim includes Zn (abstract) and Takemure Si (abstract).
As to claim 4, the reactant gas includes oxygen in both Kim (p6-7) and Takemure (Figures).
As to claims 5-6, the first dopant layer is deposited by repeating the process cycle in Kim p 6-7 and Takemure Figures then the second dopant layer is deposited by repeating the process cycle in Kim p 6-7.
As to claims 7-8, Takemure teaches using a hydrogen plasma in para 0013, 0048-0050, 0058-0059.
As to claims 9-10, the plasma may be generated in the discharge or as claimed in paras 0048-0050 and 0058-0059, Fig. 16 of Takemure.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-2018-0025882 A, with citations taken from the attached translation) in view of Takamure et al. (US 2013/0115763 A1) and in further view of Kamimura (JP 2010-157551 A)
In Kim, the other doping gas is as claimed (p 6-7) but Kim does not teach magnesium. Kamimura teaches that an Mg gas is used as a semiconductor doping gas in para 0041. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Kim and Takamure to include Mg as a doping gas as Kamimura teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 10-2018-0025882 A, with citations taken from the attached translation) in view of Takamure et al. (US 2013/0115763 A1) and in further view of Jiang (US 2016/0020228 A1)
Kim and Takemure teach the limitations of claims 12-14 as discussed above but do not explicitly teach that the active layers are separately a n-type and p-type layer. Jiang is in the same field of endeavor and provides both an n and p layer that are doped differently in the abstract and paras 0005, 0014 to improve power consumption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify Kim and Takamure to include an n and p layer that are doped differently as taught by Jiang in order to improve power consumption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights