Attorney’s Docket Number: YKTOAO.0202C1
Filing Date: 3/6/2023
Claimed Priority Dates: 8/31/2020 (US 17/007,241)
3/19/2020 (JP 2020-050005)
Inventors: Kishimoto et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 11/4/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for a 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 11/4/2025 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 8, mailed on 8/6/2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-15.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the seventh insulating film provided on the first electrode, as recited in claim 12, must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites a seventh insulating film provided on the first electrode. The specification, as originally filed, fails to support these limitations recited in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz (US 2019/0273157) in view of Ohashi (US 2018/0012956).
Regarding claim 1, Yilmaz (see, e.g., fig. 1H) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device comprising:
A first semiconductor layer 101 of a first conductivity type
A second semiconductor layer 113A of a second conductivity type provided on the first layer
A third semiconductor layer 120 of the first conductivity type provided on the second layer
A second electrode 114B facing the second layer via a first insulating film 116A in a second direction
A third electrode 124/122 provided on the second layer and the third layer
A fifth semiconductor layer 112D of the second conductivity type provided between the first layer and the third electrode
wherein:
The second direction is perpendicular to a first direction
The first direction is a direction from the first layer 101 to the third electrode 122/124
The third electrode includes a first electrode portion
The first electrode portion is aligned with a portion of the second layer 113A and the third layer 120 in the second direction
The fifth layer 112D includes a higher concentration of impurities of the second conductivity type than the second layer 113A
Yilmaz, however, fails to show a first electrode and a fourth semiconductor layer of the second conductivity type provided between the first electrode portion and the second layer, wherein the fourth layer includes a higher concentration of impurities of the second conductivity type than the second layer. Ohashi (see, e.g., fig. 7) in a similar device to Yilmaz shows a first electrode 73 and a fourth semiconductor layer 30. Ohashi teaches that the first electrode 73 functions as a drain electrode of the device (see, e.g., par. 0042), and that that the fourth semiconductor layer suppresses leakage current and obtains a low ON resistance in the device (see, e.g., par. 0115).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the drain electrode and the fourth layer of Ohashi in the device of Yilmaz to suppress leakage current and obtain a low ON resistance.
Regarding claim 2, Ohashi (see, e.g., fig. 7) shows that the fourth layer 30 has first and second portions, wherein the first portion is above a first lower surface of the third layer 20, and the second portion is below the first lower surface.
Regarding claim 4, Ohashi (see, e.g., fig. 7) shows that the third layer 20 extends over the fourth layer 30.
Regarding claim 6, Yilmaz (see, e.g., fig. 1H) shows the device further comprising a fourth electrode 114A below the second electrode 114B and facing the first layer via a third insulating film 116A.
Regarding claim 7, Yilmaz (see, e.g., fig. 1H) shows that the first insulating film 116A has a smaller thickness than the third insulating film 116A in the second direction.
Regarding claim 9, Ohashi (see, e.g., fig. 7) shows the device further comprising a sixth semiconductor layer 10S between the first electrode 73 and the first layer 10.
Regarding claim 10, Yilmaz shows the device further comprising a barrier metal including first and second barrier metal portions, wherein the first barrier portion 124 is between the fifth layer 112D and the third electrode. Yilmaz also suggests that the second barrier portion 124 be between the third electrode and the fourth layer 30 of Ohashi. See, e.g., Yilmaz: fig. 1H and Ohashi: fig. 7.
Regarding claim 11, Yilmaz shows that the fifth layer 112D and the first barrier portion 124 are in contact with each other, and suggests that the second barrier portion 124 contacts the fourth layer 30 of Ohashi. See, e.g., Yilmaz: fig. 1H and Ohashi: fig. 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yilmaz/Ohashi in view of Hamza (US 2020/0044078).
Regarding claim 8, Yilmaz (see, e.g., figs. 1H and 3F) shows the device further including a fifth insulating film IPD between the second 114B and fourth 114A electrodes. Yilmaz teaches that that IPD is an inter-poly dielectric (IPD) filled in a trench; the IPD may comprise SiO₂ (see, e.g., par.0052/ll14-16). Yilmaz also teaches BPSG and SiO₂ as trench-filling insulating materials in another embodiment (see, e.g., par. 0057 and 0059). Thus, Yilmaz teaches the use of silicate glass materials for gap filling in semiconductor devices. Hamza teaches, in a similar semiconductor device, that BPSG, PSG, and silicon oxide are equivalent materials for use as gap fillers (see, e.g., Hamza: par. 0093). Hamza explicitly teaches that these materials may be interchangeably selected to fill gaps or trenches in semiconductor structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify Yilmaz’s trench-filling IPD material by selecting PSG in place of SiO₂ or BPSG. As taught by Hamza, PSG, BPSG, and silicon oxide are known equivalent gap-filling materials. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this substitution as a matter of routine design choice to obtain predictable results, such as effective gap fill and planarization, without changing the structure or operation of the device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
February 2, 2026