DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This Office Action is in response to Amendments/Remarks filed on November 28, 2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,048,740 to Hsu et al. (“Hsu”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0104466 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”). As to claim 1, although Hsu discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a semiconductor layer (82); a first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102) provided on the semiconductor layer (82); a gate wiring (94, 116) provided on the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102); a source electrode (114) provided on the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102); a second insulating film (112) provided on the gate wiring (94, 116) and the source electrode (114) and including a portion (112 between 114 and 116) sandwiched between the gate wiring (94, 116) and the source electrode (114); and wherein an upper surface of the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102) includes a first region (88, 102 left) having a first concentration of phosphorus and a second region (87) having a second concentration of phosphorus that is higher than the first concentration, the gate wiring (94, 116) includes first contact portions (96 bottom, top) extending through the upper surface of the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102) in a first direction toward the semiconductor layer (82) and the source electrode (114) includes second contact portions (bottom in 102, top in 112) extending through the upper surface of the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102) in the first direction toward the semiconductor layer (82), the first region (88, 102 left) is present between the semiconductor layer (82) and the gate wiring (94, 116) and between the semiconductor layer (82) and the source electrode (114), the second region (87) is present between the semiconductor layer (82) and the portion (112 between 114 and 116) of the second insulating film (112), and the first region (88, 102 left) is between, and in direct contact with, the second region (87) and one (96 bottom) of the first contact portions (96 bottom, top) in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction (See Fig. 6, Fig. 10, Column 4, lines 1-67, Column 5, lines 1-3) (Notes: the limitation “region” is defined as an extensive, continuous part of a surface, space, or body and “portion” is defined as a part of any whole, either separated from or integrated with it by Dictionary.com. Further, the first concentration of phosphorus is defined in Claim 2 of less than 1.0 × 1018 cm-3), Hsu does not further disclose a drain electrode provided below the semiconductor layer. However, Zhu does disclose a drain electrode (720) provided below the semiconductor layer (100, 320) (See Fig. 7, Fig. 8, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0039, ¶ 0047). In view of the teaching of Zhu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hsu to have a drain electrode provided below the semiconductor layer because the contact area between the drain electrode and the semiconductor layer is increased to reduce the contact resistance and improve the performance of the semiconductor device (See ¶ 0039). As to claim 2, Hsu further discloses wherein the first concentration is less than 1.0 × 1018 cm-3 (See Fig. 10, Column 4) (Notes: also described in Page 14 of the Specification). As to claim 8, Hsu further discloses wherein the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102) further includes a third region (85) that is present between the second region (87) and the semiconductor layer (82) (See Fig. 10). As to claim 9, Hsu further discloses wherein a part of the second region (87) is
PNG
media_image1.png
766
1059
media_image1.png
Greyscale
also present between the source electrode (114) and the third region (85) and between the gate wiring (94, 116) and the third region (85) (See Fig. 10). As to claim 21, Hsu further discloses wherein the upper surface of the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102) further includes a third region (bottom 102) having the first concentration of phosphorus, and the third region (bottom 102) is between, and in direct contact with, the second region (87) and one (bottom in 102) of the second contact portions (bottom in 102, top in 112) in the second direction (See Fig. 10).
As to claim 22, Hsu further discloses wherein the second region (87) is between, and in direct contact with, the first region (88, 102 left) and the third region (bottom 102) in the second direction (See Fig. 10).
As to claim 23, Hsu further discloses wherein the upper surface of the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102) further includes a fourth region (right 88) having the first concentration of phosphorus, and said one (96 bottom) of the first contact portions (96 bottom, top) is between, and in direct contact with, the first region (88, 102 left) and the fourth region (right 88) in the second direction (See Fig. 10).
As to claim 24, Hsu further discloses wherein the upper surface of the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102) further includes a fifth region (leftmost 102) having the first concentration of phosphorus, and said one (bottom in 102) of the second contact portions (bottom in 102, top in 112) is between, and in direct contact with, the third region (bottom 102) and the fifth region (leftmost 102) in the second direction (See Fig. 10).
As to claim 25, Hsu further discloses wherein the upper surface of the first insulating film (85, 87, 88, 102) further includes a sixth region (right 87) having the second concentration of phosphorus, and the fourth region (right 88) is between, and in direct contact with, the sixth region (right 87) and said one (96 bottom) of the first contact portions (96 bottom, top) in the second direction (See Fig. 10).
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,048,740 to Hsu et al. (“Hsu”) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0104466 to Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0048186 A1 to Cheng et al. (“Cheng”). The teachings of Hsu and Zhu have been discussed above. As to claim 3, although Hsu and Zhu do not further disclose wherein the second concentration is 1.0 × 1018 cm-3 to 1.0 × 1022 cm-3, Cheng does disclose wherein the second concentration is 1.0 × 1018 cm-3 to 1.0 × 1022 cm-3 (See Fig. 5, ¶ 0046, ¶ 0047). In view of the teaching of Cheng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hsu to have wherein the second concentration is 1.0 × 1018 cm-3 to 1.0 × 1022 cm-3 because the second concentration is selected in view of the required depth and concentration of the doped region (See Hsu Fig. 6, Column 3, lines 7-48 and Cheng ¶ 0046, ¶ 0047). As to claim 4, Hsu further discloses wherein phosphorus is present inside or on a surface of at least one of the gate wiring (94, 116) and the source electrode (114) (See Fig. 6, Column 3, lines 7-48) (Notes: phosphorus is diffused adjacent the gate wiring and the source electrode to be inside or on a surface of at least one of the gate wiring and the source electrode). Further, the applicant also has not established the critical nature of the “wherein the second concentration is 1.0 × 1018 cm-3 to 1.0 × 1022 cm-3”. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims….In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentations to obtain a desired concentration and depth for the solid phase diffusion process in light of design requirements and constrains. It would have been obvious a sufficient concentration is required to obtain the desired doped region. See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7438. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-6.
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, JOSHUA BENITEZ can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/DAVID CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815