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 with traverse of species 3 in the reply filed on 11/25/24 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that 1) The Election/Restriction Requirement Fails to Properly Restrict Between Species, 2) The Demarcation Between Species is Without Regard to Common Aspects Between Species, and 3) The Election/Restriction Requirement Fails to Allege the Existence of Species that are Independent and Distinct.
This is not found persuasive because:
Regarding point 1) The Election/Restriction Requirement Fails to Properly Restrict Between Species, the applicant alleges “Applicant, however, respectfully submits that the Office Action does not identify the alleged Species 1-5 with reference to different embodiments of the invention, only with reference to descriptions of features that may be present in multiple embodiments as set forth in the Summary of the present application, where such descriptions correspond to language of the claims”. This argument is not persuasive. The examiner submits the different descriptions of features present in multiple embodiments are different species. Moreover, the examiner did not restrict the application based on the claims but based on the description in the applicant’s specification. Therefore, this argument in unpersuasive.
Regarding point 2) The Demarcation Between Species is Without Regard to Common Aspects Between Species, the applicant alleges “Applicant therefore respectfully submits that each of independent Claims 1, 14, 23, and 29 read on at least one same embodiment, and thus the Office Action identifies purported Species 1-5 without regard to common aspects between the species.” This argument is not persuasive. The examiner submits the applicant only alleges “each of independent Claims 1, 14, 23, and 29 read on at least one same embodiment”, but does not allege that Claims 1, 23, and 29 are directed towards elected species 3. Therefore, this argument in unpersuasive.
Regarding point 3) The Election/Restriction Requirement Fails to Allege the Existence of Species that are Independent and Distinct the applicant alleges the claims are not independent and distinct. MPEP 806.04 [R-08.2012] explicitly discloses “[w]here an application includes claims directed to different embodiments or species that could fall within the scope of a generic claim, restriction between the species may be proper if the species are independent or distinct.” (Emphasis added). The examiner noted in the restriction requirement how the specification points to different aspects/embodiments of the invention. Moreover, the international search report (PCT search report shows the distinctness between the different species, by showing how different prior art would be applied to different claims, which indicates that the species are distinct). Therefore, this argument in unpersuasive.
The examiner will address claims 14-22 with respect to the prior art which read on species 3, and claims 1-13, 23-33 have been withdrawn and treated reading on unelected inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an insulating layer between the gate contact and the drift region “ (claim 19) and “a portion of the insulating layer has a thickness that is greater than thicknesses of other portions of the insulating layer”(claim 20) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “each current sensor in the sensor region is at an equal distance from a gate contact that is electrically connected to the one or more current sensors in the sensor region” (claim 22)(the drawings do not show the equal distance, and the specification is not clear if the drawings are drawn to scale) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 14 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ohoka et al. (US2018/0061980).
Regarding claim 14, Ohoka et al. disclose a drift region (fig. 2A, 6); a device region(fig. 2A, 111, 20) that comprises a first portion of the drift region (6 in region 20); a sensor region (fig. 2A, 112, 21) that comprises a second portion of the drift region (6 in 21); a transition region (fig. 2A, 23) between the device region and the sensor region, the transition region comprising:a gate contact (fig. 2A, 13) over the drift region; and an isolation region (fig. 2A, 40) in the drift region.
Regarding claim 18, Ohoka et al. disclose further comprising: a first isolated well region (7 in region 20) in the first portion of the drift region (6) (fig. 2A,6 in region 20); and a second isolated well region (7) in the second portion of the drift region (6)(fig. 2A, 6 in region 21), wherein: the isolation region (barrier structure 40, fig 2A as noted in [0135] ) is between the first isolated well region and the second isolated well region; the first portion of the drift region is in the device region (20)(fig 2A); the second portion of the drift region (6) is in the sensor region(21) (fig.2a); the isolation region is an n-type isolation region [0135]; the first isolated well region (7 in region 20) is a first p-well region[0131, 0132]; and the second isolated well region (7 in region 21) is a second p-well region [0131, 0132](fig 5B).
Regarding claim 19, Ohoka et al. disclose an insulating layer (12) between the gate contact (13) and the drift region (6)(fig. 2a).
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) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohoka et al. (US2018/0061980) with respect to claim 14 above in view of Miura et al. (US 2012/0205669).
Ohoka et al. disclose the invention supra. Ohoka et al. disclose a gate contact (gate electrode, 13) in the transition region (21)(fig 2a).
Ohoka et al. fails to disclose a conductive segment directly on the gate contact (gate electrode).
Miura disclose forming a conductive segment (12) directly on the gate contact (50) (fig. 4).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a conductive segment to a gate contact), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the conductive segment would provide electrical communication to the gate contact.
Regarding claim 16, since the combination discloses the same structure one would expect the same results (i.e. the conductive segment and the isolation region enable detection of a short circuit event in less than one microsecond of an occurrence of the short circuit event.)
Regarding claim 17, since the combination discloses the same structure one would expect the same results (i.e. the conductive segment and the isolation region enable detection of a short circuit event within one to five microseconds of an occurrence of the short circuit event.)
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohoka et al. (US2018/0061980) with respect to claim 14 above in view of Miura et al. (US 2012/0205669).
Ohoka et al. disclose the invention supra.
Ohoka et al. disclose fails to disclose a portion of the insulating layer has a thickness that is greater than thicknesses of other portions of the insulating layer.
Miura et al. disclose a portion (31) of the insulating layer has a thickness that is greater than thicknesses of other portions (30) of the insulating layer [0057].
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming a insulation film with different thicknesses), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the thickness of the oxide layers can be changed based on the desired properties of the gate voltage [0058]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohoka et al. (US2018/0061980) with respect to claim 14 above in view of Miura et al. (US 2012/0205669).
Ohoka et al. disclose the invention supra. Ohoka et al. disclose the sensor region forms a current sensor [0057]; and the vertical semiconductor device comprises a transistor with polysilicon gate (13)[0142] and a gate oxide (12)[0141](cell 111 operates as a MISFET-metal insulator field effect transistor) layer with the first portion of the drift region (6 in region 20) electrically connected between a drain contact (16, fig. 2 or 60, fig. 5J) and a source contact (9 in region 20)[0092] and the second portion of the drift region electrically connected between the drain contact (16) and a sensor contact (9 in region 21).
Ohoka et al. disclose fails to disclose the metal gate.
Miura et al. disclose a metal layer in the gate electrode(50)[0059].
The combination of Ohoka et al. and Miura et al. would form the MOSFET (metal oxide field effect transistor).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (forming metal gate electrode), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the metal gate electrode in well known and the metal gate would be a good conductor of electricity in the gate electrode).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, as the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest: the device region and the sensor region reside in an active region of the vertical semiconductor device; the sensor region is arranged in a stripe shape and positioned along an edge of the active region; the sensor region includes one or more current sensors; and each current sensor in the sensor region is at an equal distance from a gate contact that is electrically connected to the one or more current sensors in the sensor region (claim 22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights