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 Acknowledged
Applicant’s election without traverse of Inventions I and II related as a combination and a subcombination, and Claims 1-12 in the response to Restriction Requirements filed 09/27/25 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to nonelected inventions.
Claims 1- 12 are examined on merits herein.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“adjacent ones of the plurality of filed oxides overlap each other at edges thereof”, as Claim 3 recites (e.g., the overlap must be shown);
“the bird’s beaks of adjacent ones of the plurality of field oxides overlap each other”, as Claim 11 recites (e.g., bird’s beaks must be shown and ccorresponding overlapping).
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 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1: Claim 1 recites (lines 3-4): “a drift region on or in the substrate; a body region on or in the substrate”. The recitations are unclear with respect to “on or in”, since conflict with the specification of the application, explicitly teaches (paragraph 0082 of the published application US 2024/0258426) that the drift and body regions are formed in the substrate.
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022], inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitations were interpreted as: “a drift region in the substrate; a body region in the substrate”.
In re Claim 1: Claim 1 recites (line 7): “a gate electrode on the substrate, between the source and the drain”. The recitation is unclear, since the source and drain (regions) are disposed within the substrate, while the gate electrode is disposed on the substrate.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation was interpreted as: “a gate electrode on the substrate, and, in a plan view, between the source and the drain”.
In re Claims 2-8: Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 1.
In re Claim 9: Claim 9 has the same issues as Claim 1 has, and for this Office Action, its corresponding limitations were interpreted in same ways as the above-cited limitations of Claim 1.
In re Claims 10-12: Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 9.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20190371896).
In re Claim 1, Wang teaches a semiconductor device, comprising (Fig. 1):
a substrate 101, 102 (paragraph 0019);
a drift region 103 on or in the substrate 101, 102 (paragraph 0019);
a body region 105 on or in the substrate 101, 102 (paragraph 0019);
a drain 106 (paragraph 0016) in the drift region 103;
a source 107 (paragraph 0016) in the body region 105;
a gate electrode 109 (paragraph 0018) on the substrate 101, 102, between the source 107 and the drain 106; and
a plurality of field oxides 104, 1202, 1201 (paragraph between the gate electrode and the drain.
In re Claim 2, Wang teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above and wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of field oxides are physically connected to each other (as shown in Fig. 1 and in the method of Figs. 4C-4E, paragraph 0025).
In re Claim 4, Wang teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above and wherein (Fig. 1) the plurality of field oxides 104, 1201, 1202 comprise three or more consecutive field oxides.
In re Claim 5, Wang teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above and wherein (Fig. 1) the gate electrode 109 overlaps an adjacent one 1202 of the plurality of field oxides (as well as another one – 1201).
In re Claim 8, Wang teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 5 as cited above and wherein (Fig. 1) each of the plurality of field oxides comprise a LOCOS field oxide (paragraph 0017).
Claim Rejections - 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, 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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang.
In re Claim 3, Wang teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 1 as cited above and also a method of its manufacturing, including steps of creating the plurality of field oxides (Figs. 4C-4E, paragraphs 0024-0025).
The method steps show that a first created oxide 2041 has two bird’s beaks (Fig. 4C); when a second oxide 2042 is created (Fig. 4D) – a beak exists only at a “free end” of the second oxide, while the beak of oxide 2041 disappeared (and, obviously, being overlapped with the adjacent beak of 2042); when the third oxide 2043 (Fig. 4E) is created – it has only one beak – at the free end, while a beak at the end adjacent to 2042 is, obviously, overlapped with the beak of 2042.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Song (US 2022/0285247).
In re Claim 6, Wang teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 5 as cited above and further comprising (Fig. 1): a body contact 108 (paragraph 0016); Wang does not teach that the body contact contacting the source.
Song teaches (Fig. 5) a body contact 144 contacting a source 142 (paragraph 0067).
Wang and Song teach analogous arts directed to LDMOSFETs, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Wang device in view of the Song device, since devices are from the same field of endeavor, and Song created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Wang device of Claim 5 by creating the body contact in direct contact with the source when it is desirable to connect body and source to a source electrode (as in the Song structure).
In re Claim 7, Wang/Song teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 6 as cited above.
Wang does not teach a silicide layer on the source, the body contact, the gate electrode, and the drain.
Song teaches (Fig. 5) a silicide layer 190 (paragraph 0091) on a source 142, a body 144, a gate electrode 132, and a drain 152.
It would have bee obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Wang/Song device of Claim 6 and to disposed a silicide layer on the source, the body, the gate electrode, and the drain of the Wang/Song device of Claim 6 when it is desirable to improve contact resistances of the above elements and to improve a thermal stability in the device (song, paragraph 0091).
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 11/984,362) in view of Mun et al. (US 2023/0059226).
In re Claim 9, Ali teaches a semiconductor device, comprising (Fig. 1H; see also Figs. 1A through 1G for elements numbers that are not shown in Fig. 1H):
a low voltage region 110 (column 6 lines 39-42); and
a high voltage region 112 (column 6 lines 39-42) electrically separated – by isolation 114 (column 3 line 65) from the low voltage region 110, wherein
the low voltage region 110 comprises:
a substrate 102 (column 3 line 52);
a first drift region 152 left (column 7 lines 53-54) on or in the substrate 102;
a first body region 144 left (column 7 line 25) on or in the substrate 102;
a first drain 148 left (column 7 line 33) in the first drift region 152 left;
a first source 146 left (column 7 line 32) in the first body region 144;
a first gate electrode 136 (column 7 line 36) on the substrate 102, between the first source 146 and the first drain 148; and
a first structure 122 (column 4 lines 48-49) having a field oxide between the first gate electrode 136 and the first drain 148, and
the high voltage region 112 (column 6 lines 39-42) comprises:
the substrate 102;
a second drift region 152 right on or in the substrate 102;
a second body region 144 right on or in the substrate 102;
a second drain 148 right in the second drift region;
a second source 146 right in the second body region;
a second gate electrode 138 (column line) on the substrate 102, between the second source and the second drain; and
a second structure 124 (column 5 lines 50-51) having a single field oxide (where a combination of oxides 119 and 134, in a final structure, is created as a single oxide, column 6 lines 10-15) between the second gate electrode 138 and the second drain.
Ali does not teach that the first structure comprises a plurality of field oxides.
Mun teaches (Figs. 7A-7B) a first structure comprised a plurality of field oxides 62, 60 (paragraph 0035).
Ali and Mun teach analogous arts directed to LDMOSFETs comprised a field oxide between a gate and a drain, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Ali device in view of the Mun device, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Mun created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Ali structure by substituting a single first oxide structure of Ali with a plurality of field oxide structures (per Mun), if such modification is beneficial for improved performance of a device due to reduced current crowding near the field oxide region (Mun, paragraphs 0002-0003).
In re Claim 10, Ali/Mun teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 9 as cited above.
Ali further teaches that (Fig. 1G) the second structure 124 has a greater thickness than the first structure 122/119 (column 6 lines 10-15).
In re Claim 11, Ali/Mun teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 9 as cited above, with the first structure created per Mun and comprised a plurality of field oxides.
Mun further teaches that (Fig. 5A) in the first structure, each of the plurality of field oxides 60 and 62 may comprise a bird’s beak. Although Mun does not explicitly state that the bird’s beaks of adjacent ones of the plurality of field oxides overlap each other – the limitation is inherent for the Mun’ field oxides: Mun creates his first structure similar to the first structure of the current application that claims creation of overlapping bird’s beaks of the adjacent field oxides. Please, note, in addition, that in accordance with MPEP 2112.01 Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims, I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT: “
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In re Claim 12, Ali/Mun teaches the semiconductor device of Claim 9 as cited above with the first structure created per Mun.
However, Mun does not teach a thickness of his first structure, while Ali teaches that the first structure 119 has a thickness in a range from 200 A to 1000 A (column 4 lines 51-52).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application creating the first structure of Ali/Mun with a thickness in the range from 200 A to 1000 A, in order to enable a thickness dimension of the structure. The range overlaps with the claimed first structure thickness of 400 A or more and 2000 A or less. In accordance with 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 10/06/25