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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 08/28/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 – 4 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.
The terms “relatively high” and ‘relatively low” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “relatively high” and “relatively low” 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. Claim 1 states “…a first-conductivity-type doping concentration is relatively high in a center portion… and the first-conductivity-type doping concentration is relatively low in the termination region… a second-conductivity-type doping concentration is relatively high in the center portion of the active region… the second-conductivity-type doping concentration is relatively low in the termination region” but the claim does not state what the concentrations are relatively high or relatively low compared to (such as another region or area) or if the two areas are being related to relative to each other (an example being “relatively high in a center portion compared to the termination region”), and the specification does not provide a concentration number or measurement that the claim is considering relatively high or relatively low and the specification does not give a clear way to determine if something has a relatively high or relatively low concentration. As the terms “relatively high” and “relatively low” creates multiple interpretations and it is unclear what degree is needed to determine if the concentration is relatively high or relatively low, claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite. Claims 2 – 4 depend on claim 1 and inherit all of its deficiencies. Claims 2 – 4 are rejected as being indefinite.
For compact prosecution, examiner is interpreting claim 1 as stating “…a first-conductivity-type doping concentration is relatively high in a center portion of the active region compared to the termination region… the first-conductivity-type doping concentration is relatively low in the termination region compared to the center portion of the active region… a second-conductivity-type doping concentration is relatively high in a center portion of the active region compared to the termination region… the second-conductivity-type doping concentration is relatively low in the termination region compared to the center portion of the active region.” This interpretation appears consistent with the specification and the rest of the claims in which the doping concentration decreases as the distance from the center portion of the active region increases and the interpretation makes clear what regions or areas the term “relatively” is comparing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. For claim 1, the references of record, alone or in combination, do not anticipate or render obvious the limitations noted therein. For example, independent claim 1’s “…wherein the transition region overlaps an outer peripheral portion of the active region, and includes at least one adjacent pair of conductivity-type regions that includes one of the plurality of first-conductivity-type regions and one of the plurality of second-conductivity-type regions, which are adjacent to each other in the active region…”.
Claims 2 – 4 are dependent on claim 1 and would be allowable primarily as depending on an allowable base claim, but are rejected to as being indefinite (see above rejection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240079503 A1 teaches a semiconductor structure with parallel pn layers with a gradient of doping concentrations. It does not appear to teach an overlapping active and transition regions wherein the transition region includes at least one adjacent pair of conductivity-type regions that includes one of the plurality of first-conductivity-type regions and one of the plurality of second-conductivity-type regions, which are adjacent to each other in the active region.
US 20150333118 A1 teaches a semiconductor structure with an active region, transitional region, and a termination region with parallel pn layers. It does not appear to teach the active region and the transitional region overlapping and wherein the transition region includes at least one adjacent pair of conductivity-type regions that includes one of the plurality of first-conductivity-type regions and one of the plurality of second-conductivity-type regions, which are adjacent to each other in the active region.
US 20220367616 A1 teaches a semiconductor structure with parallel pn layers, an active region and termination region. It does not appear to teach an overlapping active region and transition region wherein the transition region includes at least one adjacent pair of conductivity-type regions that includes one of the plurality of first-conductivity-type regions and one of the plurality of second-conductivity-type regions, which are adjacent to each other in the active region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/J.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/MONICA D HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights