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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
2. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 11/3/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4-10 & 19-25 are pending in this application. Claims 3 & 11-18 are canceled. Claim 25 is new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
3. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfirsch (US 2006/0065923).
Re claim 1, Pfirsch teaches, under BRI, Figs. 1, 3, 5 & 6, abstract & [0046-0047, 0052, 0054], an electrode structure, comprising:
a) a semiconductor substrate (18, 25);
b) a trench (5) extending from an upper surface of the semiconductor substrate into the semiconductor substrate (18, 25);
c) two contact regions (21 with p & n+ regions, indicated) extending from the upper surface of the semiconductor substrate (18, 25) into the semiconductor substrate, and being located on two sides (left & right sides) of the trench (middle trench 5);
d) a doped layer (17 and/or include 21 adjacent to trench 5) located on and fully covering outer sidewalls (e.g., all exposed sidewalls) of the trench (5) and a bottom of the trench (5); and
e) filling material (9) in the trench (5), wherein the two contact regions (21, indicated) are in contact with the doped layer (17 and/or include 21) such that portions of the doped layer (17 and/or include 21) on the outer sidewalls of the trench (5) and are between the trench (5) and the contact regions (21, indicated), wherein a doping type of the contact regions (e.g., n+) matches a doping type (n-type) of the doped layer (17 and/or include 21).
Note: in contact # direct/physical contact.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 10, Pfirsch teaches the filling material is metal or doped polycrystalline material [0022, 0024].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
4. Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfirsch in view of Davari et al. (US 6,333,532).
The teachings of Pfirsch have been discussed above.
Re claim 2, Pfirsch does not explicitly teach the trench is a trapezoidal trench with a top width greater than a bottom width.
Davari teaches, Fig. 8, the trench (94) is trapezoid with a top width greater than a bottom width.
As taught by Davari, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the trench is a trapezoidal trench with a top width greater than a bottom width as claimed, because a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Davari in combination with Pfirsch due to above reason.
Re claim 9, Pfirsch teaches the filling material is oxide or undoped polycrystalline material or borate glass [0022] (see also Davari, col. 6, 2nd par.).
5. Claims 4-8 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfirsch in view of You (US 2013/0015523).
The teachings of Pfirsch have been discussed above.
Re claim 4, Pfirsch teaches, Fig. 1, well regions (21) located on both sides of the trench (5).
Pfirsch does not teach wherein the two contacts regions are located in the well regions, and the well regions and the two contact regions are of the same doping type.
You teaches, Fig. 4H, [0026], the two contacts regions (110) are located in the well regions (118), and the well regions (118) and the two contact regions (110) are of the same doping type.
As taught by You, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the two contacts regions are located in the well regions, and the well regions and the two contact regions are of the same doping type as claimed, because it aids in improving control of device channel length and improving device performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by You in combination with Pfirsch due to above reason.
Re claim 5, in combination cited above, You teaches, Figs. 4H & 9, [0055, 0056], the contact regions (110) are connected to a predetermined potential (voltage sources 902, 930) through a connection terminal (gate 102 or a node).
Re claim 6, in combination cited above, You teaches, under BRI, Fig. 4H, a connection potential of two contact regions differs based on the doping type of the contact region (N-type vs P-type).
Re claim 7, in combination cited above, You teaches, Fig. 4H, the connection potential of two contact regions (110) is higher when the doping type of the two contact regions is N-type (see also Pfirsch’s Fig. 1).
Re claim 8, You teaches, consider right side of Fig. 4H, when the doping type of the contact region is P-type (106 or 218), the contact region is connected to the GND potential (Fig. 9).
Re claim 19, in combination cited above, You teaches, Fig. 4H, a semiconductor structure, comprising the electrode structure according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), and further comprising:
a) a first MOS transistor (left transistor) located in a first region of the semiconductor substrate; and
b) a second MOS transistor (right transistor) located in a second region of the semiconductor substrate,
c) wherein the electrode structure (discussed in claim 1 above under Pfirsch) is located between the first MOS transistor and the second MOS transistor, and is used to absorb (as intended use) the carriers flowing between the first MOS transistor and the second MOS transistor to avoid a parasitic (as intended use) structure between the first MOS transistor and the second MOS transistor turning on.
Re claim 20, in combination cited above, You teaches, claim 1, the first MOS transistor and the second MOS transistor are both N-type MOS transistors (e.g., NMOS and N-LDMOS).
Re claim 21, in combination cited above, You teaches, under BRI, Fig. 4H, a) a parasitic PNP transistor is formed a P-type body region (114) located in a source region of the first MOS transistor (left transistor), a first N-type well region (118) of the first MOS transistor and a semiconductor substrate (124), a parasitic NPN transistor is formed by a first well region (118), the semiconductor substrate (124) and a N-type region (122, 126) of the second MOS transistor, and the N-type region (122, 126) is adjacent to the semiconductor substrate; and b) when the parasitic PNP transistor is turned on (e.g., operational purpose or based on similar teaching structure), the first carriers flow to the second region through the parasitic PNP transistor, and when the parasitic NPN transistor is turned on (e.g., operational purpose or based on similar teaching structure), the second carriers flow to the first region through the NPN transistor.
(*) The limitation “when the PNP transistor is turned on…flow to the first region of through the NPN transistor” is merely a functional/intended use limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior arts. While features of a device may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to a device must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (In re Schreiber, 128F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed.Cir.1997). Further, the prior art structure is capable of performing the functional/intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA); In re Minks, 169 USPQ 120 (Bd Appeals); In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP §2114.
Re claim 22, in combination cited above, You teaches, under BRI, Fig. 4H, an extension depth of the electrode structure (110) in the semiconductor substrate is not greater than the depth of the first MOS transistor (e.g., 114 or 118) in the semiconductor substrate.
Re claim 23, in combination cited above, You teaches, under BRI, Fig. 4H, an extension depth of the electrode structure (110) in the semiconductor substrate is not greater than the depth of the second MOS transistor (e.g., 118) in the semiconductor substrate.
Re claim 24, in combination cited above, You teaches, under BRI & best understanding, Fig. 4H, the electrode structure (see claim 1 above under Pfirsch) absorbs (as intended use or based on similar teaching structure) first carriers flowing in the direction from the parasitic PNP transistor to the second region, and absorbs (as intended use or based on similar teaching structure) the second carriers flowing in the direction of the parasitic NPN transistor to the first direction.
6. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfirsch in view of Assaderghi et al. (US 6,121,661).
The teachings of Pfirsch have been discussed above.
Re claim 25, Pfirsch does not teach the doped layer is thinner than a smallest width of the trench.
Assaderghi teaches, Fig. 4A, col. 4, the doped layer (49) is thinner than a smallest width of the trench (48).
As taught by Assaderghi, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above the doped layer is thinner than a smallest width of the trench as claimed, because a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Assaderghi in combination with Pfirsch due to above reason.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Claim 1 is amended with newly added limitations, interpretation and rejection under Pfirsch also changed to meet the claimed invention. Details included in the above rejection.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 3/23/26