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 of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 04/09/2024 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). More specifically, merely stating there is no serious search burden (even admitting that a search burden was established) does not distinctly and specifically point out errors in the restriction requirement.
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.
Claims 3, 12, and 13 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 3 recites “, wherein the inward taper of the sidewalls is approximately 89 degrees to approximately 89.5 degrees.” Similar language occurs in claims 12 and 13.
The term "approximately" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Approximately” is defined as "close to but not exactly” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe how many degrees the angle may be off and still be “approximately” within the range.
The term “approximately” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “approximately” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target (in this case, the target is degrees, and possible values of angles), and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Similar arguments are being made for claims 12 and 13.
Therefore, claims 3, 12, and 13 are rejected 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wahl et al. (US 20130307058 A1, hereinafter Wahl)
With regards to claim 1, Wahl discloses a method for forming a superjunction structure, (FIGS. 8A-8E) comprising:
forming an opening in a first n-type material layer (semiconductor layer 870 having first conductivity type, i.e. N-type, see Paragraph [0073]) on a substrate, (substrate 806) wherein the opening has sidewalls with an inward taper from top to bottom; (See FIG. 8B, showing the inward taper)
forming a p-type material layer (doped semiconductor region 879, see Paragraph [0075], where the region 879 is complimentarily doped, i.e. P type doping) on or into the sidewalls of the first n-type material layer and into a bottom of the opening in the first n-type material layer; (see FIG. 8C)
removing a portion of the p-type material layer at the bottom of the opening; (See FIG. 8D) and
depositing a second n-type material layer (first type, i.e. N-type, semiconductor material 881) to fill the opening. (See FIG. 8E)
With regards to claim 2, Wahl discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the superjunction structure is part of a superjunction metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET). (See Paragraphs [0001] and [0010], See also FIGS. 1-8E)
With regards to claim 4, Wahl discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the p-type material layer is formed into the sidewalls of the first n-type material layer. (See FIG. 8C)
With regards to claim 10, Wahl discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first n-type material layer and the second n-type material layer are epitaxially grown and uniformly n-doped throughout. (see Paragraph [0073] and [0077], describing the epitaxial growth)
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl et al. (US 20130307058 A1, hereinafter Wahl) in view of Irsigler et al. (US 20130320512 A1, hereinafter Irsigler)
With regards to claim 8, Wahl discloses the method of claim 4.
However, Wahl does not explicitly teach wherein the p-type material layer is formed into the sidewalls using a plasma doping (PLAD) process comprising: generating plasma with a p-type dopant to dope the sidewalls of the first n-type material layer; and thermally annealing the superjunction structure to diffuse the p-type dopant further into the sidewalls of the first n-type material layer to form the p-type material layer.
Irsigler teaches wherein the p-type material layer is formed into the sidewalls using a plasma doping (PLAD) process comprising: generating plasma with a p-type dopant to dope the sidewalls of the first n-type material layer; and thermally annealing the superjunction structure to diffuse the p-type dopant further into the sidewalls of the first n-type material layer to form the p-type material layer. (see FIGS. 2B-2C and paragraph [0034], showing the plasma doping process)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Wahl to have the plasma doping of Irsigler, as both references are in the same field of endeavor.
One of ordinary skill would appreciate that the doping process contributes to current flow with low resistance (See Paragraph [0037]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, and 11 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nourbakhsh et al. (US 20240282809 A1) – depositing dopants in a super junction device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M Page whose telephone number is (571)272-3249. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Christine S. Kim can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/STEVEN M PAGE/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights