DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (semiconductor device), species A/fig. 2, 5A-5E, reflected in claims 4-6 and 8 in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 and phone conversation with Attorney Schaffer on 02/18/2026is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 7 and 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142 (b), as being drawn to the nonelected group.
Drawings
Figure 1 and 4A-4D should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections/Notes
Claim 4 is objected to because of minor error and the examiner suggests the following amendments:
Replace ‘A SGT” in line 1 of claim 4, by “An SGT”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haeberlen; Oliver et al. (US 20100078707 A1, hereinafter Haeberlen‘707).
Regarding independent claim 4, Haeberlen‘707 teaches, “An SGT device (100, fig. 1-74; ¶ [0042] - ¶ [0155]) formed in an epitaxial layer (40, fig. 7) of a first conductivity type (N) on a substrate (41) coated with a back metal (42), further comprising:
a plurality of gate trenches (10) surrounded by source regions (80) of said first conductivity type (N) being encompassed in body regions (50) of a second conductivity type (P),
each of said gate trenches (10) being filled with a gate electrode (11) and a shielded gate electrode (16);
said shielded gate electrode (16) being insulated from said epitaxial layer (40) by a field oxide (12, SiO2, ¶ [0055]),
said gate electrode (11) being insulated from said epitaxial layer (40) by a gate oxide (see annotation, 12),
said shielded gate electrode (16) and said gate electrode (11) being insulated from each other by a planarized thermally grown (PTG) inter-polysilicon oxide (IPO) (see annotation, ¶ [0141]),
said gate oxide surrounding said gate electrode (11) and having a less thickness than said field oxide (12);
said gate oxide and said PTG IPO are thermally grown simultaneously (fig. 52, gate oxide 12a and field PTG IPO 12b are thermally grown simultaneously, ¶ [0141]); and
said gate electrode (11) is disposed above said shielded gate electrode (16)”.
PNG
media_image1.png
726
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitataion, “a planarized thermally grown (PTG) inter-polysilicon oxide (IPO)”, the language, term, or phrase "planarized thermally grown" is directed towards the process of making an IPO. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference. As such, the language "planarized thermally grown" only requires an IPO, which does not distinguish the invention from Haeberlen‘707, who teaches the structure as claimed.
Regarding the limitataion, “said gate oxide and said PTG IPO are thermally grown simultaneously" is directed towards the process of making the gate oxide and PTG IPO. It is well settled that "product by process" limitations in claims drawn to structure are directed to the product, per se, no matter how actually made. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wethheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or otherwise. The above case law further makes clear that applicant has the burden of showing that the method language necessarily produces a structural difference.
Note: Claim 4 can also be rejected by using below prior art:
HSIEH; Fu-Yuan (US 20130256786 A1, fig. 2B).
Regarding claim 5, Haeberlen‘707 further teaches, “The SGT device of claim 4, wherein a top surface of said shielded gate electrode (16) is lower than a top surface of said adjacent field oxide (12)”.
Regarding claim 6, Haeberlen‘707 further teaches, “The SGT device of claim 4, further comprising a current spreading region (29) of said first conductivity type (n) formed along upper portions of said gate trenches (10) surrounding at least said gate electrode (11) below said body regions (50), said current spreading region (29) has a doping concentration higher than a doping concentration of said epitaxial layer (40, ¶ [0093])”.
Regarding claim 8, Haeberlen‘707 further teaches, “The SGT device of claim 4, wherein said substrate (41) has a first conductivity type (N), said gate electrode (11) is not electrically shorted together to said source metal (60), said SGT device is a MOSFET having said gate electrode (11), said source metal as a source electrode (60) and said back metal as a drain electrode (42)”.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817