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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18593490 filed on 03/01/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 5, 9-11, 18-20 are objected to (pending resolution of 112(b) issue) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (independent claims 1 & 17), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Schulze et al. (US 2007/0246791).
With respect to dependent claim 5, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “wherein the first insulating layer extends over an entire periphery of the first area”.
With respect to dependent claims 9-11, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “forming a second insulating layer including a first opening exposing the substrate inside of the guard ring and a portion of the guard ring; and doping, through the first opening, a portion of the substrate with the second doping level of the second area”.
With respect to dependent claims 18-20, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “forming an insulating layer on the substrate and an opening in the insulating layer, the insulating layer covering an outer portion of the guard ring, the opening being aligned with an inner portion of the guard ring”.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicate of claim 5. When two claims are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP 706.03(k).
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.
Claim 1 is 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 second area partially covering the third area”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: Fig. 1 and the associated specification discloses that the third area partially covers the second area which is contradictory to the claims.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as “the third area partially covers the second area”.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected under 112(b) as they depend on base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6-8, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulze et al. (US 2007/0246791).
Regarding independent claim 1, Schulze et al. teach a method of manufacturing a diode (Fig. 1B, paragraph 0020), the method further comprising:
forming an anode in a substrate, the anode including first (Fig. 1B, element 102, paragraph 0013), second (Fig. 1B, element 112, paragraph 0020), and third areas (Fig. 1B, element 103, paragraph 0013),
the first area partially overlapping the second area (Fig. 1B) and having a first doping level greater than a second doping level of the second area (paragraph 0015 disclose dopant concentration of the order of 10.sup.18 cm.sup.-3 or above for element 102 & paragraph 0023 discloses a dose of the order of 10.sup.13 cm.sup.-2 to 10.sup.15 cm.sup.-2 for element 112),
the second area partially covering the third area (Fig. 1B) and having the second doping level greater than a third doping level of the third area (paragraph 0023 discloses a dose of the order 10.sup.12 cm.sup.-2 to 510.sup.12 cm.sup.-2 for element 103); and
forming a first insulating layer (Fig. 1B, element 105, paragraph 0020) partially overlapping the first and second areas.
Regarding claim 2, Schulze et al. teach further comprising: forming a conductive layer (Fig. 1B, element 104, paragraph 0013) covering the first area and the first insulating layer, wherein the first insulating layer covers the first area (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 3, Schulze et al. teach wherein first the doping level of the first area is at least 10 times greater than the second doping level of the second area, and the second doping level of the second area is at least 10 times greater than the third doping level of the third area (paragraph 0015 disclose dopant concentration of the order of 10.sup.18 cm.sup.-3 or above for element 102 and paragraph 0023 discloses a dose of the order of 10.sup.13 cm.sup.-2 to 10.sup.15 cm.sup.-2 for element 112 and paragraph 0023 discloses a dose of the order 10.sup.12 cm.sup.-2 to 510.sup.12 cm.sup.-2 for element 103).
Regarding claim 6, Schulze et al. teach wherein at least a portion of the third area extends down to a depth greater than a depth of the first area and a depth of the second area (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 7, Schulze et al. teach wherein the first, second, and third areas are in contact with the first insulating layer (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 8, Schulze et al. teach forming, in the substrate, a guard ring (Fig. 1B, element 103) in a periphery of a location of the diode, the guard ring having a doping level substantially equal to the third doping level of the third area.
Regarding independent claim 13, Schulze et al. teach a method, comprising:
forming a guard ring (Fig. 1B, element 103, paragraph 0013) in a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 1B, element 101, paragraph 0013), the semiconductor substrate having a first conductivity type (Fig. 1B, n type), the guard ring having a second conductivity type (Fig. 1B, p type);
performing a first doping of a first region (Fig. 1B, element 112, paragraph 0020) that extends into the semiconductor substrate and the guard ring, the first region having the second conductivity type (Fig. 1B, p type); and
performing a second doping of a second region (Fig. 1B, element 102, paragraph 0013) that extends into the first region, the second region having the second conductivity type (Fig. 1B, p type), the guard ring, the first region, and the second region being an anode of a diode (paragraph 0020).
Regarding claim 14, Schulze et al. teach further comprising: forming an insulating layer (Fig. 1B, element 105, paragraph 0020) that overlaps the semiconductor substrate, the guard ring, the first region, and the second region.
Regarding claim 15, Schulze et al. teach further comprising: forming a conductive layer (Fig. 1B, element 104, paragraph 0013) on the insulating layer and the second region.
Regarding claim 16, Schulze et al. teach wherein the first region has a first doping level, and the second region has a second doping level greater than the first doping level (102 region is p and 112 region is p-, paragraph 0015, 0023).
Regarding independent claim 17, Schulze et al. teach a method, comprising:
forming a guard ring (Fig. 1B, element 103, paragraph 0013) in a substrate (Fig. 1B, element 101, paragraph 0013), the guard ring having a first doping level (paragraph 0023 discloses a dose of the order 10.sup.12 cm.sup.-2 to 510.sup.12 cm.sup.-2 for element 103);
forming a first doped region (Fig. 1B, element 112, , paragraph 0020) in the guard ring, the first doped region having first and second sides opposite to each other and a second doping level different (paragraph 0023 discloses a dose of the order of 10.sup.13 cm.sup.-2 to 10.sup.15 cm.sup.-2 for element 112) from the first doping level, the guard ring extending along the first side of the first doped region, between the first and second sides of the first doped region, and along the second side of the first doped region; and
forming a second doped region (Fig. 1B, element 102, paragraph 0013) in the first doped region, the second doped region having first and second sides opposite to each other and a third doping level (paragraph 0015 disclose dopant concentration of the order of 10.sup.18 cm.sup.-3 or above for element 102) that is different from the second doping level, the first doped region extending along the first side of the second doped region, between the first and second sides of the second doped region, and along the second side of the second doped region (Fig. 1B).
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 of this title, 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze et al. (US 2007/0246791).
Regarding claim 4, Schulze et al. teach wherein the overlapping of the first area by the first insulating layer extends over a portion within a range from one quarter to three quarters of the overlapping of the second area by the first insulating layer (The exact overlapping areas is a design choice that a person skilled in the art could set as appropriate taking into consideration design parameters, die size etc. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHED AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-3477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/SHAHED AHMED/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights