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 of Species 1a and 2a in the reply filed on February 4 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant has withdrawn claims 4 and 14 as being drawn to the non-elected species, thus claims 1-3, 6-13, and 15-20 are examined.
The Restriction/Election Requirement is made final.
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.
Claim 12 is 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 the drain contact region and the drain field region being of the same conductivity type, does not reasonably provide enablement for the drain field region being a second conductivity type and the drain contact region being a different, first conductivity type. 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 and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Claim 12 requires that the drain field region is of a second conductivity type and the drain contact region is of a different, first conductivity type. In the art, this refers to either P-type or N-type doping. Further, is clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the drain contact and the drain region have the same conductivity type, or the same type doping, ether both P-type, or both N-type. This is the configuration for which the specification is enabling, also. Paragraph [0021] reads: “The drain contact region 34 is formed at the surface of the active region 12a by doping dopants of the conductivity type same as the drain field region 24, such as the second conductivity type or N-type.” Thus, Applicant has only enabled the drain field region and the drain contact region being the same conductivity type, and thus the specification is not commensurate in scope with the claim(s).
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a drain field region of a second conductivity type…a drain contact region of the first conductivity type in the drain field region”. However, it would be clear to one having ordinary skill in the art, and as disclosed in the instant specification, that a drain contact and the drain field region comprise the same conductivity type. It is unclear how the drain field region can have a second conductivity type, different from the first, while the drain contact has the first conductivity type, and these regions still be considered drain field regions and drain contact regions. Drain contact regions are intended to connect the drain region to an external electrical contact. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the same conductivity type for both the drain field and drain contact regions.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salman et al. (“Salman” US 2020/0388606), Otake (US 2010/0207197), and Valk (WO 2021/086189).
Regarding claim 1, Salman discloses an electrostatic discharge protection device (405, Figure 4), comprising:
a substrate (401);
a well region (402) of a first conductivity type (P-type, see Figure 4) in the substrate (401);
a drain field region (418/422) and a source field region (417) of a second conductivity type (N-type) in the well region (402, see Figure 4);
a gate structure (420/421) on the well region (402) and between the drain field region (418/422) and the source field region (417, see Figure 4);
a drain contact region (423 in drain field region 418/422) and a source contact region (423 in source field region 417) [of the second conductivity type] respectively in the drain field region (418/422) and the source field region (417, see Figure 4);
a first isolation region (410) in the drain field region (418/422) and between the drain contact region (423 in drain field region 418/422, see Figure 4) and the gate structure (420/421, see Figure 4); and
Salman does not disclose a drain doped region.
Otake discloses, however, a drain doped region (14) of the first conductivity type (P-type) in the drain field region (9/10, see Figure 1A) and between a portion of a bottom surface of the drain contact region (see drain contact region above the drain field region 9/10 in Figure 1A, which contacts the drain doped region 14) and the drain field region 9/10, see Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Otake into the teachings of Salman to include the drain doped region as claimed for the purpose of improving current capacity (Otake, para. [0029]).
Salman does not disclose that the drain contact region and the source contact region are of the second conductivity type.
Valk discloses, however, drain contact region (11) and source contact region (7) formed of the second conductivity type (N-type, see Figure 1A and page 1, lines 6-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a second conductivity type material for the source and drain contact regions because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Salman and Otake discloses wherein the drain doped region (14 of Otake) is in direct contact with a sidewall of the first isolation region (410 of Salman).
Since the drain doped region is incorporated into the region directly surrounding the N+ portion of Otake, which is analogous to the N portion 422 of the drain field region 418/422 of Salman, the combination of the teachings would result in a structure where the drain doped regions are interposed directly between the 422 N region and the isolation regions 410 of Salman, thereby arriving at the claimed configuration.
Regarding claim 3, Otake discloses wherein a depth of the drain doped region (depth of 14, see Figure 1A) is larger than a depth of the drain contact region (drain contact directly above the drain field region 9/10 of Otake).
Regarding claim 5, Salman discloses wherein a depth of the first isolation region (410) is smaller than a depth of the drain field region (418/422, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Salman discloses wherein the gate structure (420/421) partially overlaps the drain field region (418/422) and the source field region (417, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Salman discloses wherein the gate structure (420/421) partially overlaps the first isolation region (410, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Salman discloses wherein the first conductivity type is P type (see Figure 4) and the second conductivity type is N type (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, Salman discloses an electrostatic discharge protection device (405, Figure 4), comprising:
a well region (402) of a first conductivity type (P-type);
two gate structures (420/421) arranged in parallel on the well region (402, see Figure 4);
a drain field region (418/422) of a second conductivity type (N-type) in the well region (402) and between the two gate structures (420/421, see Figure 4);
two source field regions (417) of the second conductivity type (N-type) in the well region (402) and at two sides of the two gate structures (420/421) opposite to the drain field region (418/422, see Figure 4);
two source contact regions (423 in the source field region 417) [of the second conductivity type] respectively in the two source field regions (417, see Figure 4);
a drain contact region (423 in drain field region 418/422) [of the first conductivity type] in the drain field region (418/422, see Figure 4); and
Salman does not disclose a plurality of drain doped regions.
Otake discloses, however, a plurality of drain doped regions (14) of the first conductivity type (P-type) in the drain field region (9/10) and extending at least along edges of the drain contact region (see Figure 1A which shows the drain contact region D directly above the drain field region 9/10 and the drain doped regions 14) that are parallel to the two gate structures (while Otake discloses one gate, the incorporation of the drain doped regions of Otake into the drain field regions of Salman arrives at the claimed configuration of the drain doped regions parallel to the two gate structures).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Otake into the teachings of Salman to include the drain doped regions as claimed for the purpose of improving current capacity (Otake, para. [0029]).
Salman does not disclose that the drain contact region and the source contact region are of the second conductivity type.
Valk discloses, however, drain contact region (11) and source contact region (7) formed of the second conductivity type (N-type, see Figure 1A and page 1, lines 6-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a second conductivity type material for the source and drain contact regions because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Otake discloses wherein the drain doped regions (14) have a closed ring shape completely surrounding the drain contact region (D above the drain field region 9/10, see Figure 1A, see also Figures 5 and 6, which shows that the drain field region starts as a bulk portion 14, then is further doped to create the 10 portion of the drain field region, thus has a ring shape that surrounds the drain contact D in Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 15, Salman discloses wherein each of the two gate structures (420/421) partially overlaps the drain field region (418/422, see Figure 4) and one of the two source field regions (417, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, Salman discloses a first isolation region (410) surrounding the drain contact region (423 in drain field region 418/422, see Figure 4) [and the drain doped regions].
The combination of Salman and Otake discloses that the first isolation region (410 of Salman) surrounds the drain doped regions (14 of Otake) because the drain doped regions 14 are incorporated into the region directly surrounding the N+ portion of Otake, which is analogous to the N portion 422 of the drain field region 418/422 of Salman, which results in a structure where the drain doped regions are surrounded by the isolation regions 410 of Salman.
Regarding claim 17, Salman discloses wherein each of the two gate structures (420/421) partially overlaps the first isolation region (410, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, Otake discloses a well contact region (4A/4B) of the first conductivity type (P-type) surrounding the well region (P- region at the lower portion of the device, see Figure 1A).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Otake above into the teachings of Salman for the purpose of providing further electrical isolation, thus electric field control, in the device (Otake, para. [0020]).
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salman, Otake, and Valk as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (“Hwang” US 2023/0121127).
Regarding claim 8, Salman does not disclose a second isolation region in the source field region and between the source contact region and the gate structure.
Hwang discloses, however, a second isolation region (30/32) in the source field region (36) and between the source contact region (40) and the gate structure (42, see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Hwang into the teachings of Salman to include the second isolation regions as claimed for the purpose of providing a high breakdown voltage (Hwang, para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Hwang discloses wherein the gate structure (42) partially overlaps the second isolation region (30/32, see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Salman does not disclose two second isolation regions.
Hwang discloses, however, isolation regions (30/32) surrounding a source contact region (40, see Figure 3). Although Hwang does not explicitly disclose multiples of the source contact regions, incorporation of the isolation regions (30/32) of Huang into the multiple source regions of Salam arrives at the claimed configuration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Hwang into the teachings of Salman to include the second isolation regions as claimed for the purpose of providing a high breakdown voltage (Hwang, para. [0025]).
Regarding claim 19, Hwang discloses wherein the two gate structures (42) respectively partially overlap one of the two second isolation regions (30, see Figure 3). Similar to claim 18, Hwang does not explicitly disclose multiple gate structures, but incorporation of the isolation regions (30/32) of Hwang around the multiple source regions of Salman arrives at the claimed configuration, where the gate partially overlaps one of the second isolation structures.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salman, Otake, and Valk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (“Wu” US Patent No. 5,777,368).
Regarding claim 10, Salman does not explicitly disclose the circuit configuration of the device.
Wu discloses, however, wherein the drain contact region and the drain doped region (together forming the drain of the transistor, col. 1, lines 41-56) are electrically coupled to an input/output pad (see col. 1, lines 47-51), and the well region (bulk), the gate structure and the source contact region (gate and source, col. 1, lines 41-56) are electrically coupled to a ground terminal (col. 1, line 46-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Wu into the teachings of Salman to include the circuit configuration above for the purpose of electrostatic discharge protection (Wu, col. 1, lines 41-43).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Genevieve G Bullard-Connor whose telephone number is (571)270-0609. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/Genevieve G Bullard-Connor/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights