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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 5/13/2026 in which claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 19, and 20 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1-12, 19, and 20 presented for examination and claims 13-18 remaining withdrawn.
Examiner notes that a telephone call was made to applicant’s representative, Brian McGuire (Reg. No. 55445), on June 26, 2026 to discuss amending the claims through an Examiner’s Amendment. No reply was received to the voicemail left.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12, 19, and 20 are allowable over the prior art of record. The restriction requirement between Inventions I and II and among Species I-IV, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 8/27/2025, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 8/27/2025 is withdrawn. Claims 13-18, directed to non-elected material are no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a 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Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable.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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, "a silicon substrate" should be amended to read -the silicon substrate- as claim 13 depends from claim 1, which already introduced "a silicon substrate". Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line . Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line . Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line and the semiconductor epitaxial layer appears to be the same layer as the silicon body. Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line . Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line to be consistent with the change in paragraph 9 above. Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line to be consistent with the change in paragraph 9 above. Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line as claim 13 depends from claim 1, which already introduced “a gate trench”. Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line . Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line. Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line . Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line . Claims 14-18 inherit the deficiencies of claim 13. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is 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 17 recites “the contacts” in line 1. However, neither claim 13 nor claim 1 recite “contacts” to allow for the use of “the” in claim 17. Claim 15 does recites “contacts” in line 1. It is unclear if claim 17 should change its dependency from claim 13 to claim 15 or if “the contacts” should be amended to read -contacts- to remove the antecedent basis issue. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 20 are allowed over the prior art of record. Examiner notes that claim 19 would be allowable if the claim objections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art, Ong et al (US 2022/0173243 and Ong hereinafter), discloses a chip package structure (Fig. 4; 300; [0053]), the chip package structure comprising: a substrate (302; [0054]) having a first substrate surface side (top of 302) and a second substrate surface side (bottom of 302) opposite to the first substrate surface side; a body (comprising 304 and 306; [0055]-[0056]) having a first body surface side (top of 306) and a second body surface side (bottom of 304) opposite to the first body surface side, and provided with its second body surface side (bottom of 304) adjacent to the first substrate surface side (top of 302) of the substrate (302), the body (comprising 304 and 306) comprising an epitaxial layer (epitaxial is interpreted to be a product-by-process limitation, the layer is a semiconductor layer and 304 meets the structural requirement of the product-by-process limitation) at its second body surface side (304) configured as a channel ([0055]) and a body well layer (306) at its first body surface side configured as a drift region ([0056]); at least one drain (318; [0060]), at least one source (316; [0060]) and at least one gate (comprising 308 and 310; [0059]), wherein the source (316) and the drain (318) are provided at the first body surface side (top of 306) of the body (comprising 304 and 306) and the gate (comprising 308 and 310) is formed as a trench (trench in 306 and 304) positioned between the source (316) and the drain (318) and extending from the first body surface side (top of 306) of the body through the body well layer (306) into the epitaxial layer (304), the gate trench being insulated from the body well layer (306) with a oxide layer (314; [0059]) and the epitaxial layer (304) with a gate oxidation layer (gate oxidation layer is a product-by-process limitation, 312 is an oxide and thus meets the structural requirement of the product-by-process limitation; [0059]), wherein the gate trench is formed of two stacked gate trench segments (308 and 310) isolated from each other by means of the LOCOS layer (LOCOS is a product-by-process limitation, 308 and 310 are isolated by an oxide and thus meets the structural requirement of the product-by-process limitation; [0059]). Ong fails to expressly disclose where the chip package structure comprises silicon, where the substrate and body comprise silicon. However, the use of silicon as a substrate material is well known in the semiconductor art. As to the oxide layer being a local oxidation of silicon (LOCOS) layer, LOCOS is a product-by-process limitation and is given little patentable weight. As the structure of Ong discloses an oxide layer, although provided by a different method, it meets the structural requirements of the claimed product, see MPEP 2113. Ong fails to expressly disclose each stacked gate trench segment being electronically connected to a respective gate terminal. Ong discloses that one gate trench segment (308) is connected to a gate terminal and the other gate trench segment (310) is connected to the same gate terminal or to a source terminal or is floating ([0061]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments filed 5/13/2026 overcome or obviate the claim objections and 35 USC 112(b) rejections made in the Office action mailed 2/13/2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4 pm, 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. 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.
JOSEPH C. NICELY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights