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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18362873 filed on 07/31/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 1/2/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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 1, 8, 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, 16 recite the limitation “a first well having a first dopant type, a second well having the first dopant type”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: Fig. 4E of the elected species disclose first well 440 comprising p type and second well 490 comprising n type which contradicts the claim limitation.
For the purpose of examination, the second well will be interpreted as having a second dopant type.
Claim 1, 8 recite the limitation “wherein the second well extends between the first well and the deep well” and “wherein the second well is between the drain and the deep well”. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation can not be determined for the following reasons: Fig. 4E of the elected species does not appear to disclose this limitation. Accordingly, since the scope of this limitation is unclear no patentable weight is given to this limitation.
Claims 2-7, 9-15, 17-20 are also rejected ender 112(b) as they depend on base claims 1, 8, 16.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Korec (US 2014/0284701).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Korec teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 9A, elements P- substrate, 904, 908, P body, paragraph 0063);
a gate structure (Fig. 9A, element 914, paragraph 0067) over the substrate;
a source (Fig. 9A, element 905, paragraph 0063) in the substrate on a first side of the gate structure;
a drain (Fig. 9A, n+ region connected to 910, paragraph 0063-0064) in the substrate on a second side of the gate structure;
a first well (Fig. 9A, p body) having a first dopant type, wherein the first well contacts at least two surfaces of the source;
a second well (Fig. 9A, element 908, paragraph 0063) having the first dopant type (interpreted as second dopant type), wherein the second well contacts at least two surfaces of the drain; and
a deep well (Fig. 9A, element 902, paragraph 0063) below the first well and below the second well,
wherein the second well extends between the first well and the deep well (Fig. 4E of the elected species does not appear to disclose this limitation. Accordingly, since the scope of this limitation is unclear no patentable weight is given to this limitation).
Regarding claim 3, Korec teaches wherein the second well contacts at least two surfaces of the first well (Fig. 4E of the elected species does not appear to disclose this limitation. Accordingly, since the scope of this limitation is unclear no patentable weight is given to this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Korec teaches wherein the gate structure comprises a variable thickness gate dielectric layer (Fig. 4E of the elected species does not appear to disclose this limitation. Accordingly, since the scope of this limitation is unclear no patentable weight is given to this limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Korec teaches wherein an uppermost surface of the second well between the drain and the first well is coplanar with a top surface of the substrate (Fig. 4E of the elected species does not appear to disclose this limitation. Accordingly, since the scope of this limitation is unclear no patentable weight is given to this limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Korec teaches wherein an uppermost surface of a portion of the first well under the gate structure is coplanar with a top surface of the substrate (Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 7, Korec teaches wherein the first well comprises a different dopant species from a dopant species of the second well (p type vs n type dopant).
Regarding Independent claim 8, Ito teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a source (Fig. 9A, element 905, paragraph 0063) in a substrate (Fig. 9A, elements P- substrate, 904, 908, P body, paragraph 0063);
a drain (Fig. 9A, n+ region connected to 910, paragraph 0063-0064) in the substrate,
wherein the drain is separated from the source (Fig. 9A);
a first well (Fig. 9A, p body) in the substrate,
wherein the first well comprises a first dopant (Fig. 9A) having a first dopant type, and the first well contacts at least two surfaces of the source (Fig. 9A);
a second well (Fig. 9A, element 908, paragraph 0063) in the substrate,
wherein the second well comprises a second dopant having the first dopant type (interpreted as second dopant type), and
the second well physically contacts at least two surfaces of the drain (Fig. 9A);
a deep well (Fig. 9A, element 902, paragraph 0063) having a depth greater than the first well and the second well,
wherein the second well is between the drain and the deep well (Fig. 4E of the elected species does not appear to disclose this limitation. Accordingly, since the scope of this limitation is unclear no patentable weight is given to this limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Korec teaches further comprising a lightly doped drain (LDD) region between the source and the drain (Fig. 4E of the elected species does not appear to disclose this limitation. Accordingly, since the scope of this limitation is unclear no patentable weight is given to this limitation).
Regarding claim 13, Korec teaches further comprising a gate structure (Fig. 9A, element 914, paragraph 0067) over the substrate.
Regarding claim 14, Korec teaches wherein the gate structure overlaps a first portion of the first well and a second portion of the second well (Fig. 9A).
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 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.
Claims 9, 11-12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korec (US 2014/0284701) in view of Ito (US 2014/0021543).
Regarding claim 9, Korec teaches all of the limitations as discussed above.
Korec does not explicitly disclose wherein the source comprises a split source.
Ito teaches a semiconductor device comprising a split source (Fig. 1, elements 100 & 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Korec according to the teachings of Ito with the motivation to improve the drive current.
Regarding claim 11, Korec teaches all of the limitations as discussed above.
Korec does not explicitly disclose wherein the first well is separated from the second well.
Ito teaches a semiconductor device comprising wherein the first well (Fig. 1, element 108, paragraph 0022) is separated from the second well (Fig. 1, element 101, paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Korec according to the teachings of Ito with the motivation to provide a low threshold voltage split gate high performance device (paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 12, Korec teaches all of the limitations as discussed above.
Korec does not explicitly disclose wherein the deep well directly contacts both the first well and the second well.
Ito teaches a semiconductor device comprising wherein the deep well (Fig, 6, element 101c, paragraph 0029) directly contacts both the first well (Fig, 6, element 109, paragraph 0020) and the second well (Fig, 6, element 101, paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Korec according to the teachings of Ito with the motivation to provide a low threshold voltage split gate high performance device (paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 15, Korec teaches all of the limitations as discussed above.
Korec does not explicitly disclose wherein a portion of the substrate under the gate structure is free of the first well and the second well.
Ito teaches a semiconductor device comprising wherein a portion of the substrate under the gate structure (Fig. 1, element 103, paragraph 0016) is free of the first well (Fig. 1, element 108, paragraph 0022) and the second well (Fig. 1, element 101, paragraph 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Korec according to the teachings of Ito with the motivation to provide a low threshold voltage split gate high performance device (paragraph 0001).
Regarding Independent claim 16, Korec teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a source (Fig. 9A, element 905, paragraph 0063) in a substrate (Fig. 9A, elements P- substrate, 904, 908, P body, paragraph 0063);
a drain (Fig. 9A, n+ region connected to 910, paragraph 0063-0064) in the substrate,
wherein the drain is separated from the source (Fig. 9A);
a first well (Fig. 9A, p body) in the substrate,
wherein the first well comprises a first dopant having a first dopant type (Fig. 9A), and the first well contacts at least two surfaces of the source; and
a second well (Fig. 9A, element 908, paragraph 0063) in the substrate,
wherein the second well comprises a second dopant having the first dopant type (interpreted as second dopant type),
the second well physically contacts at least two surfaces of the drain (Fig. 9A, and
Korec does not explicitly disclose the second well is physically separated from the first well.
Ito teaches a semiconductor device comprising wherein the second well (Fig. 6, element 101, paragraph 0020) is physically separated from the first well (Fig. 6, element 108, paragraph 0022).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Korec according to the teachings of Ito with the motivation to provide a low threshold voltage split gate high performance device (paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 17, Korec teaches wherein a depth of the second well is equal a depth of the first well (paragraph 0072 discloses a range of depth for a drift region with the motivation to improve drive current. Therefore, the depth is an art recognized variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the depth and arrive at the claimed limitation. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed depth is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention).
Regarding claim 18, Korec teaches further comprising a gate structure (Fig. 9A, element 914, paragraph 0067) over the substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Korec teaches wherein the gate structure overlaps a first portion of the first well and a second portion of the second well (Fig. 9A).
Regarding claim 20, Korec teaches further comprising a deep well (Fig. 9A, element 902, paragraph 0063), wherein at least one of the first well or the second well physically contacts the deep well (Fig. 9A).
Allowable subject matter
Claim 2 is objected to (pending resolution of 112(b) issue) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (independent claim 1), 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Korec (US 2014/0284701).
With respect to dependent claim 2, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “wherein the deep well has a second dopant type, and the second dopant type is opposite the first dopant type”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHED AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-3477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/SHAHED AHMED/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights