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 .
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-10, 13-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 12402426 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of current Appliction are broader in scope.
Claim 1-10, 13-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18308202 (reference application) or claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18307790. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of current Application are broader in scope.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 2 and dependents 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.
Limitation “the contact region” has issue with anteceded basis . It is unclear what are meets and bounds of the limitation “contact region”, are they strictly defined by the contact periphery or not .
Claim 14, 15 and dependents 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.
Limitation “the relaxation” has issue with anteceded basis .
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, 19, 20 and claims bellow are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipates by Bose “Parametric Study of p-n Junctions and Structures for CMOS-Integrated Single-Photon Avalanche Diodes”, IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 18, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2018 or D2 Richardson, Scaleable Single-Photon Avalanche Diode Structures in Nanometer CMOS Technology, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTRON DEVICES,VOL.58,NO.7,JULY 2011 .
Regarding claim 1 Bose/ D2 teaches
1 A single photon detector comprising:
a guard ring having a first conductivity type;( nw ring N type/ low dopped p-well page 2029 col 1)
a heavily doped region(large p+/p+) provided in an inner region surrounded by the guard ring and having a second conductivity type different from the first conductivity type;(fig. 1b/ fig. 1 or fig. 3)
a contact (small p+/ n+) provided on an opposite side of the heavily doped region with respect to the guard ring and spaced apart from the guard ring; and(fig. 1b/fig. 1 or fig. 3)
a depletion region formed on a side surface and a bottom surface of the heavily doped region.(page 5292 col 2/ page 2030 col 1 and col 2)
2. The single photon detection device of claim 1, further comprising:
a first well provided on the bottom surface of the heavily doped region and having the first conductivity type,(pwell fig.1B/ p-well fig. 3 )
wherein the first well extends to a region vertically overlapping with the guard ring and the contact region.(fig. 1b pwell extends up to nw which can be considered contact region/fig. 4-7)
3. The single photon detection device of claim 2, wherein the depletion region extends along a boundary between the heavily doped region and the guard ring and a boundary between the heavily doped region and the first well. (fig. 1b implicit /fig. 4-7)
With respect to claim 4, 13-17 only D2 teaches
4. The single photon detection device of claim 2, further comprising:
a second well(Nwell fig. 3C) provided between the heavily doped region(p+) and the first well(Buried N-well) and having the first conductivity type(both wells are N),
wherein the depletion region extends along a boundary between the heavily doped region and the guard ring and a boundary between the heavily doped region and the second well.(fig. 3-7)
9. The single photon detection device of claim 2, further comprising:
a third well(p-) provided between the heavily doped region(p+) and the first well and having the second conductivity type(p),
wherein the depletion region extends along a boundary between the third well and the guard ring and a boundary between the third well and the first well.(D2 page 2030)
10. The single photon detection device of claim 9, wherein the third well extends between the heavily doped region and the guard ring to cover the side surface of the heavily doped region.(fig. 3b,3c)
13. The single photon detection device of claim 1, further comprising:
a relief region(D2 fig. 3a, b nw-well ) provided on a bottom surface of the contact region(n+) and having the first conductivity type,(N conductivity)
wherein a doping concentration of the relief region is lower than a doping concentration of the contact region.(page 2030)
14. The single photon detection device of claim 13, further comprising:
a first well provided on the bottom surface of the heavily doped region and having the first conductivity type,(fig. 3C buried n-well )
wherein the first well extends between the guard ring and the relaxation region.(fig. 3C)
15. The single photon detection device of claim 13, wherein the relaxation region is in contact with the guard ring.(Fig. 3C)
16. The single photon detection device of claim 13,
wherein a side surface of the contact region and a side surface of the relief region form a coplanar surface.(Fig. 3c)
17. The single photon detection device of claim 1, further comprising:
an insulating pattern provided on a side surface of the heavily doped region and in contact with the guard ring.(Fig. 3C STI)
18. The single photon detection device of claim 17, further comprising:
a third well provided between the heavily doped region and the first well, extending between the heavily doped region and the guard ring, and having the second conductivity type,
wherein the insulating pattern is in contact with the third well.(Fig. 3b, C p- region)
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) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boss.
Although Boss does not explicitly teach
5. The single photon detection device of claim 4, wherein the guard ring extends to a depth deeper than the second well.
6. The single photon detection device of claim 5, wherein the guard ring extends to a depth deeper than the second well.
7. The single photon detection device of claim 4, wherein the second well extends to a depth deeper than the guard ring.
8. The single photon detection device of claim 4, wherein a side surface of the heavily doped region and a side surface of the second well are vertically aligned.
It is just a matter of design choice as it does not give any advantages and can contact it with isolation layer for example for easy construction purpose in some cases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11, 12 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7am - 5 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at (571) 270-3603. 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.
/HOVHANNES BAGHDASARYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights