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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, final paragraph of applicant’s arguments, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the corresponding rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, paragraph 1 of applicant’s arguments, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Abou-Khalil et al.(US 20120043583 A1, hereafter Abou-Khalil) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Xie et al.(CN 106876369 A, hereafter Xie) in view of Loiseau(US 20200135715 A1, hereafter Loiseau). The amendments successfully overcome the existing rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, paragraph 1 of applicant’s arguments, filed 11/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Loiseau have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made(see below).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to for the following informalities: on line 4, there should be a word such as “comprising” or “including” between “structures” and “a”. There should also be a term such as “extending into” between “structures” and “the” in line 6.
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) 1-3, 12-13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al.(CN 106876369 A, hereafter Xie) in view of Loiseau.
Regarding Claim 1, Xie discloses:
A structure(Fig. 10) comprising):
A first well(Fig. 10 [9]) in a semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]);
A second well(Fig. 10 [8]) in the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]), adjacent to the first well(Fig. 10 [9]);
A plurality of shallow trench insolation structures(Fig. 10 [7]); comprising a first set of the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 See figure below) extending into the first well and a second set of the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 See figure below) extending into the second well, wherein at least one shallow trench isolation structure(Fig. 10 See figure below) of the first set of the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 See figure below) extends between an interface of the first well(Fig. 10 [9]) and the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]) and at least one shallow trench isolation structure(Fig. 10 See figure below) of the second set of the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 See figure below) extends between an interface of the second well(Fig. 10 [8]) and the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]); and
A trench isolation structure(Fig. 10 See figure below) between the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 [7]) and extending into the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]), wherein the trench isolation structure(Fig. 10 See figure below) is at a vertical interface between the first well(Fig. 10 [9]) and the second well(Fig. 10 [8]).
Xie does not teach or disclose that the isolation structure between the first set and the second set of isolation structures is a deep trench isolation structure extending deeper than the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures.
In the same field of endeavor, Loiseau discloses a deep trench isolation structure(Fig. 2 [16]) between the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 2 [30/31]) and extending into the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 2 [10]) deeper than the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 2 [30/31]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the device disclosed by Xie along the lines of Loiseau. One might have been motivated to include a deeper isolation structure as disclosed by Loiseau in order to better tune the SCR device, as the resistance of the PN junction generated by the two wells is dependent upon the distance a charge must travel to traverse the junction. Performing this modification would have generated a predictable result in the creation of Xie’s device with a deeper central isolation trench structure.
Regarding Claim 2, Xie further discloses:
The first well(Fig. 10 [9]) comprises an N-well and the second well(Fig. 10 [8]) comprises a P-well.
Regarding Claim 3, Xie further discloses:
Diffusion regions(Fig. 10 See figure below) in the first well(Fig. 10 [9]) and the second well(Fig. 10 [8]), wherein the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 [7]) extending into the first well(Fig. 10 [9]) and the second well(Fig. 10 [8]) isolate the diffusion regions(Fig. 10 See figure below).
Regarding Claim 12, Xie discloses:
A structure(Fig. 10) comprising:
A p-well(Fig. 10 [8]) in a semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]);
An n-well(Fig. 10 [9]) in the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]) and abutting the p-well;
First diffusion regions(Fig. 10 See figure below) in the n-well(Fig. 10 [9]) connecting to an anode(Fig. 10 See figure below);
Second diffusion regions(Fig. 10 See figure below) in the p-well(Fig. 10 [8]) and connecting to a cathode(Fig. 10 See figure below),
Shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 [7]) extending into the n-well(Fig. 10 [9]) and the p-well(Fig. 10 [8])
A first shallow trench isolation structure(Fig. 10 [7]) of the shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 See figure below) of the shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 [7]) extending between an interface of the n-well(Fig. 10 [9]) and the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]) and a second shallow trench isolation structure(Fig. 10 See figure below) extending between an interface of the p-well(Fig. 10 [8]) and the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]); and
An isolation structure(Fig. 10 See figure below) between the shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 [7]).
Xie does not teach or disclose that the isolation structure between the shallow trench isolation structures is a deep trench isolation structure which is deeper than the shallow trench isolation structures.
In the same field of endeavor, Loiseau discloses a deep trench isolation structure(Fig. 2 [16]) between the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 2 [30/31]) and extending into the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 2 [10]) deeper than the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 2 [30/31]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the device disclosed by Xie along the lines of Loiseau. One might have been motivated to include a deeper isolation structure as disclosed by Loiseau in order to better tune the SCR device, as the resistance of the PN junction generated by the two wells is dependent upon the distance a charge must travel to traverse the junction. Performing this modification would have generated a predictable result in the creation of Xie’s device with a deeper central isolation trench structure.
Regarding Claim 13, Xie further discloses:
The trench isolation structure(Fig. 10 See figure below) is provided at a junction of the n-well(Fig. 10 [9]) and the p-well(Fig. 10 [8]).
Regarding Claim 20, Xie discloses:
A method(Figs. 1-10) comprising:
Forming a first well(Fig. 6 [8]) in a semiconductor substrate(Fig. 6[2]);
Forming a second well(Fig. 7 [9]) in the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 7 [2]), adjacent to the first well(Fig. 7 [8]);
Forming a plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 5 [7]) extending into the first well(Fig. 6 [8]) and the second well(Fig. 7 [9]); and
Forming a trench isolation structure(Fig. 10 See figure below) between the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 10 [7]) and extending into the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 10 [2]).
Xie does not teach or disclose that the isolation structure between the shallow trench isolation structures is a deep trench isolation structure which is deeper than the shallow trench isolation structures.
In the same field of endeavor, Loiseau discloses a deep trench isolation structure(Fig. 2 [16]) between the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 2 [30/31]) and extending into the semiconductor substrate(Fig. 2 [10]) deeper than the plurality of shallow trench isolation structures(Fig. 2 [30/31]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the device disclosed by Xie along the lines of Loiseau. One might have been motivated to include a deeper isolation structure as disclosed by Loiseau in order to better tune the SCR device, as the resistance of the PN junction generated by the two wells is dependent upon the distance a charge must travel to traverse the junction. Performing this modification would have generated a predictable result in the creation of Xie’s device with a deeper central isolation trench structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
597
993
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Above: Fig. 10 of Xie with first set and second set of shallow isolation structures, anode, cathode, diffusion regions, and trench isolation structure denoted by examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhao et al.(US 20230044360 A1) discloses a device with a cathode, anode, and a plurality of deep trench and shallow trench isolation structures. Karp et al(US 20190280086 A1) discloses a finfet with a P-well, N-well, and shallow/deep isolation structures in accordance with some limitations of the claims at hand.
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 MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD whose telephone number is (703)756-1506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 11:00 AM-9:00PM 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897