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 .
Examiner notes that a telephone called was made on 11/26/2025 to Brian McGuire (Reg. No. 55,445). Examiner left a voicemail detailing that amendments to the claims must be made to put the case into condition for allowance (through an Examiner’s Amendment). However, as of 12/13/2025, no reply to the voicemail has been received by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 19-20, in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is improper as a search can be made without serious burden, even if groups I and II are distinct or independent inventions. Any search for the device of Group I will certainly encompass references for the methods of Group II. This is not found persuasive because the method steps of the claimed method are not required for the device of Group I as the device could be formed through other methods, such as the one detailed in the restriction for election/restriction requirement mailed 8/27/2025. As such, the search for the claimed device encompasses different search strategies and queries from the method claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner notes that a species restriction was made in the requirement for restriction/election mailed 8/27/2025. However, applicant did not elect a species or sub-species as required by the restriction requirement. Examiner telephoned Brian McGuire (Reg. No. 55,445) who left a voicemail on November 10, 2025 and made a provisional election with traverse to prosecute the invention of Species III (Fig. 2B). Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Examiner notes that the requirement for restriction/election mailed 8/27/2025 contained a sub-species restriction requirement. Examiner includes the sub-species requirement herewith for applicant to make an election as the claims are generic to the following disclosed patentably distinct sub-species:
Sub-species A, directed to Figure 3A;
Sub-Species B, directed to Figure 3B;
Sub-Species C, directed to Figure 3C.
The sub-species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different sub-species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified sub-species. Sub-species A recites the mutually exclusive characteristic of having the gate terminals aligned along a vertical direction in pairs and physically connected to one another. Sub-species B recites the mutually exclusive characteristic of having the gate terminals alternate along the horizontal direction. Sub-species C recites the mutually exclusive characteristic of having the gate terminals aligned along a vertical direction in pairs and separated from each other by a distance. In addition, these sub-species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed sub-species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct sub-species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
the sub-species or groupings of patentably indistinct sub-species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses and/or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a sub-species or a grouping of patentably indistinct species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected sub-species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the species to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
This application is in condition for allowance except for the presence of claims 13-18 directed to an invention non-elected with traverse in the reply filed on10/27/2025 and for the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-12 and 19-20 below.
Examiner notes that as currently written, the method claim does not include all of the limitations indicated as allowable in the allowed product of claim 1. Therefore, the method claims are not subject to rejoinder under MPEP § 821.04(B) at this time.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “silicon body silicon body” should be amended to read –silicon body–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 6-7, “second body surface side to the first substrate surface side” should be amended to read – second body surface side adjacent to the first substrate surface side–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12, "the gate is formed as a trench" should be amended to read –the gate is formed in a trench–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line–gate–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: "gate trench" should be amended to read –gate–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, "trench gate" should be amended to read –gate–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, "the second side of the silicon substrate" should be amended to read –the second substrate surface side of the silicon substrate–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, "furthest to" should be amended to read –furthest from–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, "trench gate" should be amended to read –gate–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1-2, "the second side of the silicon substrate" should be amended to read –the second substrate surface side of the silicon substrate–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, "furthest to" should be amended to read –furthest from–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, "the source terminal, the drain terminal, and the gate terminal" should be amended to read –a source terminal, a drain terminal, and each respective gate terminal–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, "(MOSFET)" should be amended to read –(MOSFET).–. 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.
Claims 1-12 and 19-20 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 1 in line 15 recites “a…LOCOS layer” and again in line 17 “a LOCOS layer”. It is unclear if the two layers are supposed to be the same layer or different. Examiner interprets that they are two different layers and the LOCOS layer of line 17 should be amended to say –another– or some other type of designation. Claims 2-12 and 19-20 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
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 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) 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 a 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]).
Conclusion
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
12/13/2025