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
Claim 1 directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 18-21, 26, 28-29, 34-36, 39-46, directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, claims 18-21, 26, 28-29, 34-36, 39-46 hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 1/2/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. US 2007/0034944 in view of Korec US 2014/0284701.
Re claim 47, Xu teaches a semiconductor structure (fig1), comprising:
Xu does not explicitly show a first insulation layer;
Korec teaches transistor with buried oxide (BOX, fig9A, [149]) added to reduce capacitive coupling to the substrate and improve power efficiency and provides good isolation between low-power and high power circuitry ([149]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Xu and Korec to use an SOI wafer with BOX layer added under 12 of Xu in fig1. The motivation to do so is to reduce capacitive coupling to the substrate and improve power efficiency and provides good isolation between low-power and high power circuitry (Korec, [149]).
Xu in view of Korec teaches a first semiconductor layer (Xu, 14, fig1, [25]) over the first insulation layer (BOX added under Xu 12 in fig1), the first semiconductor layer comprising a first transistor (Xu, transistor with gate 18, fig1, [25]) which comprises:
a first source region (Xu, N+ 30, fig1, [27]), a first drain region (Xu, N+ 28, fig1, [26]), and a first channel region (Xu, P 32, fig1, [27]) between the first source region and the first drain region and under a first gate (Xu, 18, fig1, [25]) disposed over the first semiconductor layer; and
a conducting structure (Xu, P++ 36, fig1, [27]) disposed under the first channel region (Xu, P 32, fig1, [27]), spaced apart from the first drain region (Xu, N+ 28, fig1, [26]), over the first insulation layer (BOX added under Xu 12 in fig1), and within the first semiconductor layer (Xu, 14, fig1, [25]), the conducting structure comprising heavily doped semiconductor (Xu, P++ 36, fig1, [27]);
wherein the first source region includes a first type of dopant (Xu, N+ 30, fig1, [27]), the first channel region includes a second type of dopant (Xu, P 32, fig1, [27]) different from the first type of dopant, and the conducting structure includes the second type of dopant (Xu, P++ 36, fig1, [27]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8-17, 18-21, 26, 28-29, 34-36 and 39-46 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: currently independent claims 1, 18 and 36 is allowable because the closest prior art does not appear to disclose, alone or in combination, the limitations related to the conducting structure formed in the dielectric layer in combination with the other required elements of the claim 1, 18 or 36.
Specifically, the limitations are material to the inventive concept of the application in hand to reduce floating body effect.
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 XIAOMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0384. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-8pm, 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 S 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.
/XIAOMING LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2812