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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 37-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/3/25.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 15/437,191, filed on 3/27/17.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 8/5/22. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been 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.
Claim 32 is 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.
Claim 32 recites the insulator material is “at least one of silicon oxide and a spin-on-glass.” There is a grammatical incongruity between the phrase “at least one of” and the conjunction “and”. As written, it is unclear if insulator material comprises at least one silicon oxide AND at least one spin-on-glass. Alternatively, the claim could be interpreted as the insulator material comprises one or more of the group of silicon oxide AND a spin-on-glass (i.e., the insulator material comprises silicon oxide OR a spin-on-glass). Because both interpretations have differing metes and bounds, the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the latter interpretation (i.e., the insulator material comprises “one or more of the group of...”). However, correction is requested.
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.
Claims 21-31, 36, and 39-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-9 and 11-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,462,620 B2 in view of Blank et al. (U.S. 2016/0064477 A1; “Blank”).
Claim 21 generally corresponds with claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent. Yet, claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent do not disclose the one or more trenches of the second termination region are stripe-shaped. However, Blank discloses a [second] outer termination region comprising at least a trench which is stripe-shaped ([0101]). This has the advantage of increasing the breakdown voltage of the overall semiconductor device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent with the one or more trenches of the second termination region being stripe-shaped, as taught by Blank, so as to increase breakdown voltage of the semiconductor device.
Claim 22 corresponds with claims 5, 9, and 16 of the ‘620 patent.
Claim 23 corresponds with claims 5, 7, and 16 of the ‘620 patent.
Claim 24 corresponds with claims 5-6 and 16 of the ‘620 patent.
Claim 25 corresponds with claims 5, 8, and 16 of the ‘620 patent.
Claim 26 corresponds with claims 5, 13, and 16 of the ‘620 patent.
Claim 27 corresponds with claims 5, 14, and 16 of the ‘620 patent.
Claim 28 corresponds with claims 5, 9, 15, and 16 of the ‘620 patent.
Claim 29 corresponds with claims 5, 11, and 16 of the ‘620 patent.
Claim 30 corresponds with claims 5, 12, and 16 of the ‘620 patent.
Claim 31 generally corresponds with claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent. Blank discloses the one or more-stripe shape trenches are filled with an insulator material ([0059]).
Claim 36 generally corresponds with claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent. Blank discloses the one or more-stripe shape trenches have a vertical extension that is smaller than a vertical extension of a plurality of needle-shaped first field plate structures ([0053]).
Claim 39 generally corresponds with claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent. Blank discloses the one or more-stripe shape trenches form a frame-like structure around a first termination region ([0028]-[0029], [0101]).
Claim 40 generally corresponds with claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent. Yet, claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent do not disclose the one or more trenches of the second termination region are stripe-shaped. However, Blank discloses a [second] outer termination region comprising at least a trench which is stripe-shaped ([0101]). This has the advantage of increasing the breakdown voltage of the overall semiconductor device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent with the one or more trenches of the second termination region being stripe-shaped, as taught by Blank, so as to increase breakdown voltage of the semiconductor device.
Claims 32, 34, and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,462,620 B2 as modified by Blank et al. (U.S. 2016/0064477 A1; “Blank”) as applied to claims 31, 21, and 40 in further view of Gogoi et al. (U.S. 2009/0146249 A1; “Gogoi”).
Claim 32 generally corresponds to claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank. Yet, claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank do not disclose the insulator material filled in the one or more stripe-shaped trenches comprises silicon oxide or a spin-on-glass. However, Gogoi discloses a termination structure (26, Fig. 1) comprising a trench (57, Fig. 1) filled with at least insulator material (55, Fig. 1) comprising silicon oxide ([0031]). Because both claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank and Gogoi teach methods of forming termination structures, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of filling the one or more stripe-shaped trenches with an insulator material of silicon oxide. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 34 generally corresponds to claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank. Yet, claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank do not disclose the one or more stripe-shaped trenches comprises at least one insulator layer along sidewalls of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches and a void in a center of the one or more stripe-shaped termination trenches. However, Gogoi discloses a termination structure (26, Fig. 1) comprising a trench (57, Fig. 1) comprising at least one insulator layer (55, Fig. 1) along sidewalls of the trench and a void (54, Fig. 1) in a center of the trench ([0031]). Because both claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank and Gogoi teach methods of forming termination structures, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches comprises at least one insulator layer along sidewalls of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches and a void in a center of the one or more stripe-shaped termination trenches. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 41 generally corresponds to claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank. Yet, claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank do not disclose the one or more stripe-shaped trenches comprises at least one insulator layer along sidewalls of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches and a void in a center of the one or more stripe-shaped termination trenches. However, Gogoi discloses a termination structure (26, Fig. 1) comprising a trench (57, Fig. 1) comprising at least one insulator layer (55, Fig. 1) along sidewalls of the trench and a void (54, Fig. 1) in a center of the trench ([0031]). Because both claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank and Gogoi teach methods of forming termination structures, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches comprises at least one insulator layer along sidewalls of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches and a void in a center of the one or more stripe-shaped termination trenches. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,462,620 B2 as modified by Blank et al. (U.S. 2016/0064477 A1; “Blank”) as applied to claim 21 in further view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2016/0013267 A1; “Lee”).
Claim 33 generally corresponds to claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank. Yet, claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank do not disclose the one or more stripe-shaped trenches comprises an insulating layer along sidewalls of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches and a conductive fill. However, Lee discloses a termination trench comprising an insulating layer along sidewalls of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches and a conductive fill ([0020]). Because both claims 5 and 16 of the ‘620 patent as modified by Blank and Lee teach methods of forming termination trenches, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute one method for the other to achieve the predictable result of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches comprises an insulating layer along sidewalls of the one or more stripe-shaped trenches and a conductive fill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 21, 35, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,510,846 B2 in view of Blank et al. (U.S. 2016/0064477 A1; “Blank”).
Claim 21 generally corresponds with claims 1, 13, and 19 of the ‘846 patent. Yet, claims 1, 13, and 19 of the ‘846 patent do not disclose the one or more trenches of the second termination region are stripe-shaped. However, Blank discloses a [second] outer termination region comprising at least a trench which is stripe-shaped ([0101]). This has the advantage of increasing the breakdown voltage of the overall semiconductor device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 1, 13, and 19 of the ‘846 patent with the one or more trenches of the second termination region being stripe-shaped, as taught by Blank, so as to increase breakdown voltage of the semiconductor device.
Claim 35 corresponds with claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 of the ‘846 patent
Claim 40 generally corresponds with claims 1, 13, and 19 of the ‘846 patent. Yet, claims 1, 13, and 19 of the ‘846 patent do not disclose the one or more trenches of the second termination region are stripe-shaped. However, Blank discloses a [second] outer termination region comprising at least a trench which is stripe-shaped ([0101]). This has the advantage of increasing the breakdown voltage of the overall semiconductor device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify claims 1, 13, and 19 of the ‘846 patent with the one or more trenches of the second termination region being stripe-shaped, as taught by Blank, so as to increase breakdown voltage of the semiconductor device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 2/25/2026
Prosecution Insights