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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an applications filed
in Italy, IT 10-2022-000003359 on February 23, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 08/18/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. This objection pertains to the foreign reference CN 110676333 A.
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 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gou et al. (CN 110676333 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Guo et al. teaches an execution method of a diode radiation sensor having at least one charge multiplication diode, said method comprising the following steps:
arranging a substrate made of a semiconductor material, said substrate having a front surface and a rear surface opposite said front surface (see annotated Fig. 1, page 3, line 24 in English Translation of Guo et al.);
making, at least adjacently to said front surface of said substrate, a first layer of the semiconductor material having a first type of doping (i.e., n-type doping annotated Fig. 1, page 4, lines 1-2 in English Translation of Guo et al.);
and making, in an interior of said substrate, a second layer of the semiconductor material having a second type of doping that is electrically opposite to said first type of doping (i.e., p-type doping, see annotated Fig. 1, page 4, lines 13-20 in English Translation of Guo et al.),
wherein said second layer is obtained by inserting, in a zone of said substrate where said second layer is to be located, a first predetermined amount of a first dopant of said first type and a second predetermined amount of a second dopant of said second type (see annotated Fig. 1, page 4, lines 13-20 in English Translation of Guo et al.),
and wherein said second type of doping is obtained by differential between effects of said inserting said first predetermined amount of said first dopant and said second predetermined amount of said second dopant so as to be able to increase at will said second predetermined amount of said second dopant, thereby mitigating effects, at least on said second type of doping, of radiation striking said second layer (see annotated Fig. 1, page 4, lines 13-20 in English Translation of Guo et al. in English Translation of Guo et al.).
Note that the radiation sensor of Guo et al. is substantially similar in structure and composition to the claimed invention and therefore would result in the claimed property of mitigating effects of radiation striking second layer.
According to MPEP § 2112.01 (I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise.
Regarding Claim 4, Guo et al. teaches the execution method according to claim 1, said first type of dopant is a p-type dopant, said second type of dopant being an n-type dopant (page 6, lines 31-33 in English Translation of Guo et al.).
Regarding Claim 5, Gou et al. teaches the execution method according to claim 4, wherein said first dopant is boron and said second dopant is phosphorus (page 6, lines 8-9 in English Translation of Guo et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Guo et al. teaches the execution method according to claim 1, wherein said semiconductor material is silicon (page 6, line 10 in English Translation of Guo et al.).
Regarding Claim 7, Guo et al. teaches the execution method according to claim 1, wherein said inserting said first predetermined amount of said first dopant and said second predetermined amount of said second dopant occurs with an implantation technique (see annotated Fig. 1, page 4, lines 13-20 in English Translation of Guo et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Inoue et al. teaches the execution method according to claim 1, wherein said inserting said first predetermined amount of said first dopant and of said second predetermined amount of said second dopant occurs with a diffusion technique from the front surface (see annotated Fig. 1, page 4, lines 13-20 in English Translation of Guo et al.).
PNG
media_image1.png
759
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Guo et al. (CN 110676333)
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 110676333 A), in view of Inoue et al. (US 20210028202 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Guo et al. fails to teach the execution method according to claim 1, wherein said first dopant is an n-type dopant, said second dopant being a p-type dopant.
However, Inoue et al. teaches an execution method of a diode radiation sensor, wherein said first dopant is an n-type dopant (i.e., Arsenic and/or Phosphorous), said second dopant being a p-type dopant (i.e., Boron) (see paragraphs 0393 and 0394). Further, Inoue et al. teaches the conductivity type of the first and the second layers can be reversed yielding the same results (see paragraph 0184).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of both Guo et al. and Inoue et al. In order to reverse the conductivity type of the first layer and the second layer such that said first dopant is an n-type dopant, said second dopant being a p-type dopant. Doing so would be a matter of design choice yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Guo et al. fails to teach the execution method according to claim 2, wherein said first dopant is phosphorus and said second dopant is boron.
However, Inoue et al. teaches an execution method of a diode radiation sensor, wherein said first dopant is phosphorous and said second dopant is boron (see paragraphs 0393 and 0394). Further, Inoue et al. teaches the conductivity type of the first and the second layers can be reversed yielding the same results (see paragraph 0184).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined the teachings of both Guo et al. and Inoue et al. In order to reverse the conductivity type of the first layer and the second layer such that said first dopant is phosphorous and said second dopant is boron. Doing so would be a matter of design choice yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 08/06/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights