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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I and Species I in the reply filed on 01/06/2025 is acknowledged. Examiner however notes that while applicant identified claims 1-13 and 20 as reading on Species I, claim 5 specifies the buried layer is a discontinuous buried layer split by regions of an opposite dopant type to the buried layer however Species I does not disclose this limitation and only Species II describes such a feature (applicants specification [0033]). Claim 13 requires “a polysilicon material between the emitter and an n+ well in which is located the third diffusion region connecting to the collector” however Species I does not disclose this limitation and only Species V describes such a feature (applicants specification [0033]). Therefore claims 1-4, 6-12 and 20 are considered to be elected, examiner notes that claims 5 and 13 will be considered for rejoinder in the case that they require all the limitations of an ultimately allowable claim.
Claims 5 and 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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) 1-6, 8-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhan et. Al. (US 20190103396 A1 hereinafter Zhan).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Zhan teaches in Figs. 12 and/or 19, which are related by [0078], with associated text A structure comprising: a semiconductor material (114 and/or 116 and 120) of a first dopant type (embodiment where 114 is N-type the same as 108 [0045], Fig. 12); a first well 150 comprising a second dopant type (P-type [0051]) in the semiconductor material (Fig. 12); a floating well 162 in the first well, the floating well comprising the first dopant type (Fig. 12, [0059]); and a diffusion region (172 or 174) of the second dopant type adjacent to the floating well and in electrical contact to the first well (Fig. 12, [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhan teaches the first dopant type is an n+ dopant and the second dopant type is a p+ dopant (see doping types in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 3, Zhan teaches the first well comprises an internal well resistance ([0051]) electrically connecting to a cathode (190 and 186) and the diffusion region adjacent to the floating well (Fig. 12, [0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Zhan teaches a n+ type buried layer 208 below the first well (Fig. 19, [0078]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhan teaches the buried layer is a discontinuous buried layer (208 Fig. 19) split by regions (portions of 235 between 223, 219 and 221 here 116 and 118 are relied upon for the semiconductor material and the embodiment where 214 is p-type is relied upon Figs. 12 and 19, [0045]) of an opposite dopant type to the buried layer (Figs. 12 and 19, [0045]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhan teaches an n+ diffusion region 160 within the first well, the n+ diffusion region and the first diffusion region connecting to the cathode (Fig. 12, [0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhan teaches a diode in series with the internal well resistance, the diode forming between the n+ diffusion region and the first well (the n+ diffusion region abuts the p-type well so that they inherently form a diode).
Regarding claim 9, Zhan teaches a PNPN device ((device made up of Q3 and Q2 including p-well 150, 154 [0051], n-type regions 114, 118 [0046], pwell 144 [0049] and n-region 166 [0061], Fig. 12) connecting to an anode (190 and 184) and electrically connecting to the first well through the n+ type buried layer (Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 10, Zhan teaches the PNPN device is a vertical silicon controlled rectifier (SCR) PNPN device (Fig. 19, [0071]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhan teaches the first well comprises an internal resistance electrically connecting to the diffusion region adjacent to the floating well and a base ([0051]), with a second diffusion region 169 in the first well connecting to an emitter (Fig. 12, [0059]) and a third diffusion region (164 and 118) connecting to a collector (Fig. 12, [0059]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhan teaches a shallow trench isolation structure 136 ([0048]) between the emitter and an n+ well 118 in which is located the third diffusion region connecting to the collector (Fig. 12, [0059]).
.
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 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 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan as applied to claim 6 and further in view of Salcedo et. Al. (US 20150076557 A1 hereinafter Salcedo).
Regarding claim 7, Zhan teaches the structure of claim 6, wherein the n+ diffusion region, the first well and the semiconductor material form a vertical NPN device Q1 (Fig. 12, [0070]).
Zhan does not specify a shallow trench isolation structure between the n+ diffusion region and the first diffusion region.
Salcedo discloses in Figs. 3C with associated text a device similar to that of Zhan comprising a shallow trench isolation structure 48 ([0080]) between an n+ diffusion region 45a and a first diffusion region 44b (Fig. 3C, [0117])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a shallow trench isolation structure as taught by Salcedo between the n+ diffusion region and the first diffusion region of Zhan because according to Salcedo the oxide regions 48 can be shallow trench regions disposed between certain active regions [0080] furthermore.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teachings of Zhan and Salcedo, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods to form a shallow trench isolation structure between the n+ diffusion region and the first diffusion region with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-4pm.
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, Toledo Fernando can be reached on 5712721867. 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.
/AARON J GRAY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights