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 claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for part of the range recited in the limitation “a difference of a length of the second undoped region and a length of the third undoped region is between 1 picometer and 5 nanometers”, does not reasonably provide enablement for the entire range. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Claims 4 and 13 recitation of the limitation of “a difference of a length of the second undoped region and a length of the third undoped region is between 1 picometer and 5 nanometers” is not a physically possible range. As devices in the art are made of atoms, the most precise measurement by which a particular region could be measured would be discrete on the scale of angstroms, as the width of a silicon atom, for example, is about two angstroms. A picometer is one one-hundredth of an angstrom, which means the claims have a scope wherein the claimed device has two regions with a difference in length of the regions is much less than a single atom, which is not physically possible. For purposes of examination(due to the dependence of claim 14 upon claim 13), that limitation will be omitted from the examination of claim 13).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann et al.(US 20230197731 A1, hereafter Hermann).
Regarding Claim 1, Hermann discloses:
A semiconductor device(Fig. 7) comprising:
A structure(Fig. 7) comprising an undoped region(Fig. 7 See figure below), a first doped region(Fig. 7 [142]), a second doped region(Fig. 7 [174]) and a third doped region(Fig. 7 [154]) positioned between the first doped region(Fig. 7 [142]) and the second doped region(Fig. 7 [174]);
A gate(Fig. 7 [234]) disposed on the undoped region(Fig. 7 See figure below) of the structure(Fig. 7); and
A silicide layer(Fig. 7 [190]) disposed on the third doped region(Fig. 7 [154]) of the structure; and
An interconnect(Fig. 7 [192]) disposed on the silicide layer(Fig. 7 [190]) to form a drain.
Hermann does not teach or disclose that this structure is a fin.
However, as the given definition in the specification of the application at hand provides a fin as “any conductive fin or other channel-type structure used in the semiconductor device 100”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to define a the particular structure given by Hermann as a fin. As containing various doped regions and fulfilling the substantive limitations provided by claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would surmise Hermann’s structure as satisfying the definition of a fin due to any lack of specific dimensional requirements of the provided cross section or related limitations therein. Defining the device in this way would have generated a predictable result in the creation of an embodiment of Hermann’s device.
Regarding Claim 2, Hermann discloses:
The interconnect(Fig. 7 [192]) is not in contact with the first doped region(Fig. 7 [142]) or the second doped region(Fig. 7 [174]).
Regarding Claim 3, Hermann discloses:
A height of the third doped region(Fig. 7 [154]) is greater than a height of the undoped region(Fig. 7 See figure below).
Regarding Claim 5, Hermann further discloses:
The structure(Fig. 7) comprises a fourth doped region(Fig. 7 [152]);
A second silicide layer(Fig. 7 [190]) is disposed on the fourth doped region(Fig. 7 [152]); and
A second interconnect(Fig. 7 [192]) is disposed on the second silicide layer(Fig. 7 [190]) to form a source(Fig. 7 [192]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hermann further discloses:
A trench(Fig. 7 [170]) that is positioned between the first doped region(Fig. 7 [142]) and the fourth doped region(Fig. 7 [152]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hermann further discloses:
An operating voltage of the semiconductor device is between 1 volt and 15 volts(See paragraph 0022).
Regarding Claim 11, Hermann further discloses:
The semiconductor device(Fig. 7) comprises a second gate(Fig. 7 [134]) disposed on a second undoped region(Fig. 1 [104]) of the structure(Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 12, Hermann further discloses:
The structure(Fig. 7) comprises a second trench(Fig. 7 [172]) that is positioned between the third doped region(Fig. 7 [154]) and the second undoped region(Fig. 7 [136]).
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann in view of Liu et al.(US 20190131402 A1, hereafter Liu).
Regarding Claim 13, Hermann further discloses:
The undoped region(Fig. 7 See figure below) comprises a first undoped region(Fig. 7 See figure below);
The structure comprises a second undoped region(Fig. 7 See figure below) disposed between the first doped region(Fig. 7 [142]) and the third doped region(Fig. 7 [154]);
The structure comprises a third undoped region(Fig. 7 See figure below) disposed between the second doped region(Fig. 7 [174]) and the third doped region(Fig. 7 [154]).
Regarding Claim 7,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(See above rejection).
Hermann does not teach or disclose a height of this structure is between 35 nanometers and 60 nanometers.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses a height of a fin(Fig. 2C [202]) which is between 30 and 70 nm(See paragraph 0035), which has an almost complete overlap with the claimed range of 35 nanometers and 60 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to produce Hermann’s device along the lines of Liu. Hermann does not disclose a specific height for their device. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, in an effort to produce Hermann’s device, would have applied Liu’s teaching in order to arrive at the claimed limitation, motivated in an effort to produce Hermann’s device. Producing this device would have generated a predictable result in Hermann’s device with a known height of the provided structure by Hermann.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103(See above rejection).
Hermann does not teach or disclose the first doped region, the second doped region, the third doped region, the first undoped region, and the second undoped region are disposed on an n-type well.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses a first, second, and third doped region(Fig. 2C [218/216/106]) as well as a first and second undoped regions(Fig. 2C [202]) disposed on an N-type well(Fig. 2C [206]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the device disclosed by Hermann further along the lines of Liu. One might have been motivated to include Liu’s well due to the suggestion of a deep n-well potentially offering better control of the device(See paragraph 0036). Performing this modification would have generated a predictable result in the creation of an embodiment of Hermann’s device with a deep N-well encompassing the main structure disclosed by Hermann.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann in view of Kushner et al.(US 20160268800 A1, hereafter Kushner).
Regarding Claim 8, Hermann discloses a gate disposed on an undoped region of a structure(See above rejection).
Hermann does not teach or disclose a length of the gate disposed on the undoped region of the structure is between 200 nanometers and 1 micrometer.
In the same field of endeavor, Kushner discloses a length of a gate over an undoped region as being 400 nm(See paragraph 0051).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to produce the device disclosed by Hermann along the lines of Kushner. Hermann does not disclose a specific length for their gate. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, in an effort to produce Hermann’s device, would have applied Kushner’s teaching in order to arrive at the claimed limitation, motivated in an effort to produce Hermann’s device. Producing this device would have generated a predictable result in Hermann’s device with a known gate length of the provided structure by Hermann.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermann in view of Radosavljevic et al.(US 20190371886 A1, hereafter Radosavljevic).
Regarding Claim 10, Hermann discloses a trench positioned between the first doped region and the fourth doped region(See above rejection).
Hermann does not teach or disclose a length of the trench positioned between the first doped region and the fourth doped region is between 100 nanometers and 1 micrometer.
In the same field of endeavor, Radosavljevic discloses a trench(Fig. 2A [218]) between a first(Fig. 2A [208]) and fourth doped regions(Fig. 2A [208]) as a length of between 300 nm to several microns(See paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to produce the device disclosed by Hermann along the lines of Radosavljevic. Hermann does not disclose a specific length for their trench structure. However, one of ordinary skill in the art, in an effort to produce Hermann’s device, would have applied Radosavljevic’s teaching in order to arrive at the claimed limitation, motivated in an effort to produce Hermann’s device. Producing this device would have generated a predictable result in Hermann’s device with a known trench length of the provided structure by Hermann.
PNG
media_image1.png
465
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Above: Fig. 7 of Hermann with first, second, third undoped regions denoted by examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park(US 20230171417 A1) discloses an LDMOS with a series of doped and undoped regions. Nath et al.(US 11658480 B2) discloses an ESD protection device with a series of isolation regions. Liu(US 20200111780 A1) discloses an LDMOS with doped regions and interconnects. Liu(US 10262994 B2) discloses an LDMOS with a fin structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD whose telephone number is (703)756-1506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 11:00 AM-9:00PM 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897