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 .
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 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.
Status of the application
This office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filled on 02/19/2026. Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 21-26 are pending for this examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ reply filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered and considered. Applicants’ amendments necessitated the shift in grounds of rejection detailed below. The shift in grounds of rejection renders Applicant’s arguments moot. Thus, this rejection is properly made FINAL.
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 limitation “wherein the active region extends through the isolation structure region and at least part of the second well region and the at least one isolation structure includes a plurality of gate structures disposed over the active region in the isolation structure region”, as recited in claim 7, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 of 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 Rejection- 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al (US 2020/0126978 A1; hereafter WANG) in view of Ohsawa (US 2006/0046408 A1; hereafter Ohsawa).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. WANG discloses (Fig [6]) a device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig [6], substrate 100, Para [0024]);
a first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]) in the substrate (substrate 100, Para [0024]);
a second well region (Fig [6], well region 130, Para [0024]) in the substrate (substrate 100, Para [0024]) and spaced apart from the first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]);
an isolation structure region (Fig [6], region 104a) in the substrate (100) and, situated between the first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]) and the second well region (Fig [6], region130);
an active region (Fig [6], region A, under gate structure 210, surrounding 110, Para [0027]) that extends through at least part of the first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]) and at least part of the isolation structure region (region 104a); and
at least one isolation structure (Fig [6], isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]) situated in the isolation structure region (region 104a) between the first well region (well region 110, Para [0024]) and the second well region (well region 130, Para [0024]), wherein the at least one isolation structure ( isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]) is situated between a first gate structure (Fig [6], gate structure 210) that extends over the active region (region A, under gate structure 210, surrounding 110, Para [0027]) in the isolation structure region (region 104a) on one side of the at least one isolation structure (Fig [6], isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]) and a second gate structure ( gate structure 230) on another side of the at least one isolation structure ( isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]).
But WANG does not disclose explicitly the first well region configured to receive a first voltage; the second well region configured to receive a second voltage that is different than the first voltage.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ohsawa discloses the first well region configured to receive a first voltage (Fig 1, Para [0063-0066]); the second well region configured to receive a second voltage that is different than the first voltage (Fig 1, Para [0063-0066]).
Since WANG and Ohsawa are both from the similar field of endeavor, and Ohsawa discloses NFET and PFET transistors applying predetermine voltages. Therefore, the purpose disclosed by Ohsawa would have been recognized in the pertinent art of WANG. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine WANG in light of Ohsawa teaching “the first well region configured to receive a first voltage (Fig 1, Para [0063-0066]); the second well region configured to receive a second voltage that is different than the first voltage (Fig 1, Para [0063-0066])” for further advantage such as current leakage or unstable current issues possibly occurred at the boundaries of the core regions is sufficiently avoided thereby, so as to improve the element performance of the semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 2. WANG in light of Ohsawa disclose the device of claim 1, WANG further disclose wherein the at least one isolation structure ( isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]) includes a dielectric layer (Fig [6], dielectric layer 355, Para [ 0032]) situated on an edge of the active region Fig [6], region A, under gate structure 210, surrounding 110, Para [0027]) in the isolation structure region (region 104a) to reduce a leakage current between the first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]) and the second well region (well region 130, Para [0024]) through the active region (Para [ 0034,0038]).
Examiner like to note that, “to reduce a leakage current between the first well region and the second well region through the active region”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 3. WANG in light of Ohsawa disclose the device of claim 2, WANG further disclose comprising another active region (Fig [6], region B, under gate structure 230, surrounding 130, Para [0027]) that extends through at least part of the second well region (Fig [6], well region 130, Para [0024]) and into the isolation structure region (region 104a).
Regarding claim 4. WANG in light of Ohsawa disclose the device of claim 3, WANG further disclose wherein the dielectric layer (Fig [6], dielectric layer 355, Para [ 0032]) is situated on an edge of the other active region (Fig [6], region B, under gate structure 230, surrounding 130, Para [0027]) in the isolation structure region (region 104a) to reduce the leakage current between the first well region (well region 110, Para [0024]) and the second well region (Fig [6], well region 130, Para [0024]) through the active region (Para [ 0034,0038]).
Examiner like to note that, “to reduce the leakage current between the first well region and the second well region through the active region”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 5. WANG in light of Ohsawa disclose the device of claim 1, WANG further disclose wherein the at least one isolation structure includes:
a plurality of gate structures (Fig [6], gate structures 210/230, Para [0026]) disposed over the active region (region A, under gate structure 210, surrounding 110, Para [0027]) in the isolation structure region (region 104a); and
a dielectric layer (Fig [6], dielectric layer 355, Para [ 0032]) disposed adjacent at least one of the plurality of gate structures (gate structures 210/230, Para [0026]) and situated on an edge of the active region (region A, under gate structure 210, surrounding 110, Para [0027]) in the isolation structure region (region 104a) to reduce the leakage current (Para [ 0034,0038]) between the first well region (well region 110, Para [0024]) and the second well region (well region 130, Para [0024]) through the active region (Fig [6], region A, under gate structure 210, surrounding 110, Para [0027]).
Examiner like to note that, “to reduce the leakage current between the first well region and the second well region through the active region”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 6. WANG in light of Ohsawa disclose the device of claim 1, WANG further disclose wherein the at least one isolation structure (Fig [6], isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]) includes at least one gate structure (gate structures 210/230, Para [0026]) disposed over the active region (region A, under gate structure 210, surrounding 110, Para [0027]) in the isolation structure region (region 104a) and biased to reduce the leakage current (Para [ 0034,0038]) between the first well region (well region 110, P-type, Para [0024]) and the second well region (well region 130, N-type, Para [0024]) through the active region (Fig [6], region A, under gate structure 210, surrounding 110, Para [0027]).
Examiner like to note that, “biased to reduce the leakage current between the first well region and the second well region through the active region”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al (US 2020/0126978 A1; hereafter WANG) in view of Ohsawa (US 2006/0046408 A1; hereafter Ohsawa) as applied claims above and further in view of ISHIHARA et al (US 2010/0295013 A1; hereafter ISHIHARA).
Regarding claim 9. WANG in light of Ohsawa disclose the device of claim 1, WANG further disclose wherein the substrate has a first conductive type (substrate 100, Para [0024]), the first well region has a second conductive type (well region 110, Para [0024]), the second well region has the second conductive type (well region 130, Para [0024]), and each of the first (well region 110, Para [0024]) and second well regions (well region 130, Para [0024]) includes contacts ( source/ drain region 215, Para [ 0026]) to form first and second straps ( source/ drain 215, Para [ 0026]).
But WANG does not disclose explicitly source/ drain region (contacts) of second conductivity.
In a similar field of endeavor, ISHIHARA discloses source/ drain regions (contacts) of second conductivity (Para [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine WANG and Ohsawa in light of ISHIHARA teaching “source/ drain regions (contacts) of second conductivity (Para [0015])” for further advantage such as enhance carrier mobility so as to improve device performance.
ALTERNATE REJECTION:
Claim Rejection- 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG et al (US 2020/0126978 A1; hereafter WANG) in view of Ohsawa (US 2006/0046408 A1; hereafter Ohsawa).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1. WANG discloses (Fig [6]) a device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig [6], substrate 100, Para [0024]);
a first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]) in the substrate (substrate 100, Para [0024]);
a second well region (Fig [6], well region 130, Para [0024]) in the substrate (substrate 100, Para [0024]) and spaced apart from the first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]);
an isolation structure region (Fig [6], region 104a) in the substrate (100) and, situated between the first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]) and the second well region (Fig [6], region130);
an active region (Fig [6], region A/B, under gate structure 210/230, surrounding 110/130, Para [0027]) that extends through at least part of the first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]) and at least part of the isolation structure region (region 104a); and
at least one isolation structure (Fig [6], isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]) situated in the isolation structure region (region 104a) between the first well region (well region 110, Para [0024]) and the second well region (well region 130, Para [0024]), wherein the at least one isolation structure ( isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]) is situated between a first gate structure (Fig [6], gate structure 210) that extends over the active region (region A/B, under gate structure 210/230, surrounding 110/130, Para [0027]) in the isolation structure region (region 104a) on one side of the at least one isolation structure (Fig [6], isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]) and a second gate structure ( gate structure 230) on another side of the at least one isolation structure (isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]).
But WANG does not disclose explicitly the first well region configured to receive a first voltage; the second well region configured to receive a second voltage that is different than the first voltage.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ohsawa discloses the first well region configured to receive a first voltage (Fig 1, Para [0063-0066]); the second well region configured to receive a second voltage that is different than the first voltage (Fig 1, Para [0063-0066]).
Since WANG and Ohsawa are both from the similar field of endeavor, and Ohsawa discloses NFET and PFET transistors applying predetermine voltages. Therefore, the purpose disclosed by Ohsawa would have been recognized in the pertinent art of WANG. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine WANG in light of Ohsawa teaching “the first well region configured to receive a first voltage (Fig 1, Para [0063-0066]); the second well region configured to receive a second voltage that is different than the first voltage (Fig 1, Para [0063-0066])” for further advantage such as current leakage or unstable current issues possibly occurred at the boundaries of the core regions is sufficiently avoided thereby, so as to improve the element performance of the semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 7. WANG in light of Ohsawa disclose the device of claim 1, WANG further disclose wherein the active region (Fig [6], region A/B, under gate structure 210/230, surrounding 110/130, Para [0027]) extends through the isolation structure region (region 104a) and at least part of the second well region (Fig [6], well region 130, Para [0024]) and the at least one isolation structure (Fig [6], isolation structure 104a, Para [ 0032]) includes a plurality of gate structures (gate structures 210, 230, 250) 250) disposed over the active region (Fig [6], region A/B, under gate structure 210/230, surrounding 110/130, Para [0027]) in the isolation structure region (region 104a), at least one of the plurality of gate structures (gate structures 210, 230, 250) biased to reduce the leakage current (Para [ 0034,0038]) between the first well region and the second well region through the active region (Fig [6], region A/B, under gate structure 210/230, surrounding 110/130, Para [0027, 0034, 0038]).
Examiner like to note that, “to reduce a leakage current between the first well region and the second well region through the active region”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Regarding claim 8. WANG in light of Ohsawa disclose the device of claim 7, WANG further disclose wherein each of the plurality of gate structures (gate structures 210, 230, 250) 250) is biased to reduce the leakage current between (Para [ 0034,0038]) the first well region (Fig [6], well region 110, Para [0024]) and the second well region (Fig [6], well region 130, Para [0024]) through the active region (Fig [6], region A/B, under gate structure 210/230, surrounding 110/130, Para [0027]).
Examiner like to note that, “to reduce a leakage current between the first well region and the second well region through the active region”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey,152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In this case the structure is capable of performing this use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12-15 and 21-26 are allowed.
The following are the Examiner's Reasons for Allowance:
The prior art fails to disclose and would not have rendered obvious:
a first metal over diffusion (MD) layer having a first portion disposed over the first active region and a second portion disposed over the second active region, wherein the first portion is electrically isolated from the second portion, the first MD layer disposed over the first active region and the second active region and the first MD layer cut between the first region and the second region to reduce a leakage current between the first region and the second region through the first MD layer, as recited in claim 10.
Claims 12-15 and 21 are allowed based on the dependency of claim 10.
a first metal over diffusion (MD) layer having a first portion disposed over the first active region and a second portion disposed over the second active region, wherein the first portion is electrically isolated from the second portion, the first portion of the first MD layer extends only over the first region and not the second region to reduce a leakage current between the first region and the second region through the first MD layer, as recited in claim 22.
Claims 23-26 are allowed based on the dependency of claim 22.
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 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 MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights