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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1 directed to an allowable product. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), claims 16-26 , directed to the process of making or using an allowable product, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, Claims 16-26 ,hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 09/04/2025 is hereby withdrawn.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 Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable.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.
Response to Amendment
Amendment dated 08/24/2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 7 & 16 are amended. Claims 16-26 were previously withdrawn by applicant. Claims 1-26 are pending in application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument dated 08/24/2026 has been acknowledged and persuasive. Accordingly claims 1-18 are allowed in this office action. Claims 19-26 are subject to 112(b) issue and therefore are rejected under 35 USC § 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 in 8 recites “….an interlayer dielectric layer (ILD)” . It is not clear if it was referring to “an interlayer dielectric layer” In line 15 of claim 1 or different interlayer dielectric layer. Examiner is interpreting the associated limitation as “….forming [[an]] the interlayer dielectric layer [[(ILD)]] on the top surface of the epitaxial layer…..” .
Claim 24 in line 6 recites “…….an interlayer dielectric layer (ILD)…….”. It is not clear if it was referring to “an interlayer dielectric layer” In line 15 of claim 1 or different interlayer dielectric layer. Examiner is interpreting the associated as “….forming [[an]] the interlayer dielectric layer [[(ILD)]] on the top surface of the epitaxial layer…..” .
Claim 24 in lines 9-11 further recites “removing portions of the interlayer dielectric layer, a portion of the first heavily doped portion, a portion of the first well region, a portion of the third heavily doped portion and a portion of the second well region to form a first contact hole and a second contact hole” in which subject matter of the limitation “removing portions of the interlayer dielectric layer, a portion of the first heavily doped portion, a portion of the first well region … to form a first contact hole…” is already claimed in claim 19. It is not clear if it was intended to recite “removing [[portions of the interlayer dielectric layer, a portion of the first heavily doped portion, a portion of the first well region]], a portion of the third heavily doped portion and a portion of the second well region to form [[a first contact hole and]] a second contact hole” or different limitation. Examiner is interpreting as such.
Claim 25 in line 4 recites “….the fourth heavily doped”. The limitation “the fourth heavily doped” has an antecedent base issue. Examiner is interpreting the limitation as “forming [[the]] a fourth heavily doped portion by doping the second well region through the second contact hole……”
Claims 20-26 are also rejected being dependent on claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art made of record does not teach or suggest either alone or in combination “a contact plug disposed in a contact hole and between the gate structure and the trench structure, wherein the contact hole extends through the interlayer dielectric layer, and wherein a top surface of the contact plug is substantially level with a top surface of the interlayer dielectric layer” in further combination with the additionally claimed limitations, as they are claimed by the Applicant.
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/24/2026 regarding Baliga fails to teach above limitation are persuasive.
The other cited arts, either alone or in combination, fails to cure deficiencies of Baliga.
Claims 2-18 are allowed being dependent on claim 1.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. (FP 7.40)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHATIB A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0494. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00 am- 5:00 pm (Arizona).
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 Steven Loke, can be reached on (571) 272-1657. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.A.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/STEVEN H LOKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
