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
At this time Examiner is not requiring a restriction as the method claims all read upon the device claims. At such time as this is no longer the case Examiner will require a restriction.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the writing of this office action no information disclosure statement has been made of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
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 7-8, and 17-18 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.
Regarding claim 7,
Applicant removed the term “a pair of the trenches” from claim 1. Therefore, the term “the pair of trenches” is indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 10-12, 14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukuhara (US 2022/0068918 A1) (“Fukuhara”).
Regarding claims 1, and 11, Fukuhara teaches at least in figures 5-7:
a first transistor (2m) including (detailed below):
a plurality of trenches (area occupied by 28/29 in 2m; hereinafter “A”) extending into a semiconductor substrate (21/23);
a plurality of source regions (26s in region 2m; hereinafter “D”),
each source region (26) between a corresponding pair of adjacent trenches (A); and
a first source terminal (310m) connected to the plurality of source regions (26); and
a second transistor (2s) including (detailed below):
a central source region (a 26 in the middle of 2s; hereinafter “B”) between first and second ones of the trenches (the trenches occupied by 28/29 in 2s; hereinafter “C”); and
a second source terminal (310s) connected to the central source region (B) and conductively isolated from the first source terminal (310m; this is shown in figure 5, where 310s and 310m are isolated from each other).
Wherein the first source terminal (310m) and second source terminal (310s) extend over the first and second trenches (this can be seen in figure 6 where there are a plurality of trenches 29 in which 310m and 310s extend over).
Regarding claims 2, and 12, Fukuhara teaches at least in figures 5-7:
wherein the central source region (B) is colinear with one of the plurality of source regions (D).
Regarding claims 4, and 14, Fukuhara teaches at least in figures 5-7:
wherein the first transistor (2m) includes a plurality of gate electrodes (29),
each gate electrode (29) in a corresponding one of the plurality of trenches (A), and
the second transistor (2s) includes a pair of gate electrodes (29),
each of the pair of gate electrodes (29) in a corresponding one of the pair of adjacent trenches (C),
the plurality of gate electrodes (29) and the pair of gate electrodes (29) connected to a same gate terminal (312g/311g).
Regarding claims 5, and 15, Fukuhara teaches at least in figures 5-7:
wherein a drain of the first transistor (22 in region 2m) and a drain of the second transistor (22 in region 2s) are connected in parallel to a same voltage node (figure 7 shows they are connected together).
Regarding claims 6, and 16, Fukuhara teaches at least in figures 5-7:
wherein the second transistor (2s) includes a plurality of the trenches (C).
Regarding claims 10, and 20, Fukuhara teaches at least in figures 5-7:
wherein the first transistor shields the second transistor from spreading resistance (Applicant is claiming a characteristic or feature of the structure of claim 1. Under MPEP 2112, something new does not become patentable upon the discovery a new characteristic of the prior art. Further, this characteristic need not be recognized in the prior art. As stated, since the prior art teaches the claimed structure, it will inherently contain this characteristic. If this is not the case then Applicant appears to be missing an essential element of the device that would create this characteristic.).
Claim(s) 7, 9, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhuhara,
Regarding claims 7, and 17, Fukuhara teaches at least in figures 5-7:
wherein the pair of trenches is a first pair of trenches, and the central source region is a first central source region directly over a drain region laterally between and touching the pair of trenches, and further comprising: a third transistor including: a plurality of second central source regions between a second pair of the trenches; and a third source terminal connected to the plurality of second central source regions and conductively isolated from the first source terminal and the second source terminal. (This claim is directed to creating a plurality of second transistors called third transistors. This is considered a duplication of parts under MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). This duplication of parts is supported by Hoshi where in at least figures 3-4 one can see that there are a plurality of terminals are used to connected a plurality of conductively isolated transistors.).
Regarding claims 9, and 19, Fukuhara teaches at least in figures 5-7:
wherein the central source region (310s) is between a first subset of the trenches and a second subset of the trenches (based upon the plan view in figure 5 there will be a first and second subset of trenches of 2m),
the first and second subset having a same number of trenches (while not explicitly taught by Fukuhara it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art top arrange or rearrange the trenches of the device as the courts have the shifting of parts is an obvious matter of design choice. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Further, there is no unexpected results arising from the claimed arrangement. Thirdly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first and second subset of trenches as it would provide an even current detection to the sense transistor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 8, 13, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3, and 13
Applicant’s arguments concerning claim 3 is persuasive.
Regarding claims 8, and 18
Claim 8 would be allowable for the same reasons as claim 3 above. However, it is currently rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
Claim 21 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 21,
Claim 21 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 3 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1,
Applicant argues the prior art does not teach:
Wherein the first source terminal and second source terminal extend over the first and second trenches.
However, as shown in the analysis of the claim above, and in figure 6, the prior art teaches this limitation.
Regarding claim 3,
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive for the reasons indicated above.
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 VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights