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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 21-29 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, prior art failed to disclose or fairly suggest an LDMOS device comprising, along with other recited claim limitations, wherein a spacing between adjacent ones of the gate segments is between about 2 nanometers (nm) to about 50 nm and is controlled as a function of a thickness of the second insulating layer, and wherein thicknesses of the first and second insulating layers are independently controlled as discussed during the interview of 1/6/2026, as amended on 1/14/2026 and as argued on pages 8-11 of the remarks filed on 1/14/2026. Claims 2-8 and 21-29 depend from claim 1 and hence are allowed for the same reason therein.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu CN111463263 in view of Velliainitis (20210376096) further in view of Min (20100301403)
Regarding Claim 30, in Fig. 17, as discussed above, Wu discloses a laterally-diffused metal-oxide semiconductor (LDMOS) device having enhanced high-frequency performance, comprising: a semiconductor substrate of a first conductivity type; a doped drift region of a second conductivity type formed on at least a portion of the substrate, the second conductivity type being opposite in polarity to the first conductivity type; a body region of the first conductivity type formed in the doped drift region proximate an upper surface of the doped drift region; source and drain regions of the second conductivity type formed proximate an upper surface of the body region and doped drift region, respectively, and spaced apart laterally from one another; a first insulating layer formed on at least a portion of an upper surface of the body region and an upper surface of the doped drift region; and a gate structure comprising a plurality of gate segments formed on an upper surface of the first insulating layer, each of the gate segments being spaced laterally from one another by a second insulating layer disposed between adjacent gate segments. Although in Fig 17 of Wu, elements 1703a, 1703b, 1703c, 1703d, 1703e, appear to be different material than elements 305, 306, and 1701, Wu fails to expressly disclose the claimed different material. However, Vellainitis discloses a semiconductor device where in paragraphs 0018, 0019, 0020 and 0023, the claimed different material is disclosed.
It would have been obvious to one of having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed different material limitation in Wu as taught by Vellainitis in order to isolate the gate segments/multi-gate structures from each other.
Wu and Vellainitis combination fails to disclose the newly added limitation of wherein upper surfaces of a first one of the gate segments, a second one of the gate segments, and a third one of the gate segments are coplanar, and wherein the first one of the gate segments vertically overlaps at least a portion of the body region. However, Min discloses an LDMOS device where in Figs. 1, upper surfaces of a first one of the gate segments 30, a second one of the gate segments 32, and a third one of the gate segments 33 are coplanar, and wherein the first one of the gate segments 30 vertically overlaps at least a portion of the body region 16.
It would have been obvious to one of having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the required coplanar and overlapping limitations in Wu and Vellainitis combination as taught by Min et al. in order to have LDMOS device with low leakage characteristics.
Regarding Claim 31, in Vellainitis, the second insulating layer comprises a nitride material, hence the different material (the newly added limitation).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAZLI ERDEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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.
/FAZLI ERDEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 1/18/2026