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 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 1-7, 11, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuribayashi et al. (US publication 2016/0307993 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kuribayashi993.
Regarding claim 1, Kuribayashi993 teaches a semiconductor device (fig. 5 and related text) comprising: a substrate (20, [0089]); a drift layer (6a, [0089]) on the substrate and having a first doping type (n-type); one or more implanted (15/19, [0089]) regions in the drift layer and comprising a body well (15) having a second doping type (p-type) opposite the first doping type, the one or more implanted regions configured to: provide a vertical transistor device configured to conduct current in a first direction (current that flows from up to down, fig. 5); and provide a body diode (200a, [0088]) configured to conduct current in a second direction (current that flow from down to up, fig. 5) opposite the first direction; and a recombination region (9/35, [0073-0074]) in the drift layer, wherein at least a portion of the recombination region is between a lower portion of the body well and the substrate (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 2, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein the recombination region overlaps at least a portion of a thickness of the body well in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein a width of the recombination region is less than a width of the body well in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the substrate (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein a width of the recombination region is equal to or greater than a width of the body well in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the substrate (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein the width of the recombination region is greater than the width of the body well in the direction (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein the recombination region extends along an entire thickness of at least a portion of the drift layer in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein the recombination region comprises argon ([0025-0036]).
Regarding claim 11, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein the recombination region comprises a higher density of minority carrier recombination centers than the drift layer (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Kuribayashi993 teaches a semiconductor device (fig. 5 and related text) comprising: a substrate (20, [0089]); a drift layer (6a, [0089]) on the substrate; one or more implanted regions (15/19, [0089]) in the drift layer, the one or more implanted regions configured to: provide a vertical transistor device configured to conduct current in a first direction (current that flows from up to down, fig. 5); and provide a body diode (200a, [0088]) configured to conduct current in a second direction (current that flow from down to up, fig. 5) opposite the first direction; and a recombination region (9/35, [0073-0074]) adjacent the one or more implanted regions in the drift layer and comprising a higher density of minority carrier recombination centers than the drift layer (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 18, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein the recombination region is below at least a portion of the one or more implanted regions in the drift layer (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 19, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein the recombination region overlaps at least a portion of a thickness of the one or more implanted regions in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein a width of the recombination region is less than a width of a widest portion of the one or more implanted regions in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the substrate (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 21, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein a width of the recombination region is equal to or greater than a width of a widest portion of the one or more implanted regions in a direction parallel to an upper surface of the substrate (fig. 5).
Regarding claim 22, Kuribayashi993 teaches wherein the recombination region extends along an entire thickness of at least a portion of the drift layer in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate (fig. 5).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuribayashi993, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Kuribayashi993 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Kuribayashi993 does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the body well in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate is between 0.1 μm and 2 μm, and wherein a width of the body well in a direction parallel to the upper surface of the substrate is between 1 μm and 10 μm. However, it is well-known in the art that a thickness of a layer depends on process technology, desired electrical properties, etc. and thus it is something that will be optimized based on design need.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuribayashi993 so that wherein a thickness of the body well in a direction perpendicular to an upper surface of the substrate is between 0.1 μm and 2 μm, and wherein a width of the body well in a direction parallel to the upper surface of the substrate is between 1 μm and 10 μm for a desired device performance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuribayashi993, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Enomoto (US publication 2022/0278207 A1), hereinafter referred to as Enomoto207.
Regarding claim 10, Kuribayashi993 discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above on which this claim depends.
Kuribayashi993 does not explicitly teach wherein a doping concentration of the body well is between 1×10.sup.16 cm.sup.−3 and 3×10.sup.19 cm.sup.−3.
Enomoto207 teaches wherein a doping concentration of the body well is between 1×10.sup.16 cm.sup.−3 and 3×10.sup.19 cm.sup.−3 ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kuribayashi993 with that of Enomoto207 so that wherein a doping concentration of the body well is between 1×10.sup.16 cm.sup.−3 and 3×10.sup.19 cm.sup.−3 for a desired device performance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11,990,543 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claim 1-22 of the instant application is encompassed by the subject matter of the Claim 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11,990,543 and is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammed R Alam whose telephone number is 469-295-9205 and can normally be reached between 8:00am-6:00pm (M-F) or by e-mail via Mohammed.Alam1@uspto.gov.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMED R ALAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights