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 remarks filed 30 June 2026 regarding the examined claims in the Nonfinal Office Action mailed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered. The Examiner withdrew claims 4 and 14 in response to Applicant’s election (in response to the Restriction/Election requirement mailed 6 January 2026). This was erroneous in light of Applicant’s election of Species 1a and 2a corresponding to claims 1-4, 6-11, 12-13, and 15-20 (see the response filed 4 February 2026, where Applicant lists the elected claims to be 1-4, 6-11, 12-13, and 16-20). Thus, claim 4 should have been examined and claims 5 and 14 withdrawn, where the examined claims should have been 1-4, 6-11, 12-13, and 15-20.
The Examiner also notes that, in the response filed 30 June 2026, Applicant states that claim 15 is withdrawn which is erroneous. Claim 14 was withdrawn and the Examiner examined claim 15 on the merits (see the Nonfinal Office action, pages 3, 9). Further, claim 15 does not claim any non-elected subject matter, therefore is examined. Thus, the examined claims are 1-4, 6-11, 12-13, and 15-20, and claims 4 and 14 are withdrawn from further consideration. In light of the errors made by the Examiner noted above, elected claim 4 was never examined on the merits, thus all previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn and a second Nonfinal Office Action is mailed.
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 requires “a plurality of drain doped regions of the first conductivity type in the drain field region and extending at least along edges of the drain contact region that are parallel to the two gate structures, wherein in a top view, the drain doped regions are completely overlapped by the drain contact region.” The disclosure does not support this configuration. See at least Figure 2 (reproduced below), where there are portions, specifically the sloped side surface portions, of the drain doped regions (42) that are not completely vertically overlapped by the drain contact region. Figure 2 shows a cross-sectional view, however this cross section is evident that when viewed from above, the sloped edges of the drain doped regions would not be completely vertically overlapped by the drain contact region. Thus, new matter has been introduced into the claims. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim, in light of what is fully supported by the disclosure, to require that there is any degree of overlap between the drain doped region and the drain contact region.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
246
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 13, which depends on claim 12, requires “wherein the drain doped regions have a closed ring shape completely surrounding the drain contact region.” Applicant has not disclosed an embodiment where the drain doped regions are completely overlapped by the drain contact region AND the drain doped regions have a closed ring shape completely surrounding the drain contact region. Thus, new matter has been introduced into the claims.
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 13 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 13, which depends on claim 12, requires “wherein the drain doped regions have a closed ring shape completely surrounding the drain contact region.” It is unclear how the drain doped regions are completely overlapped by the drain contact region AND the drain doped regions have a closed ring shape completely surrounding the drain contact region. In fact, these characteristics of the drain doped region and the drain contact region are not compatible, since the drain doped regions cannot be entirely overlapped by the drain contact region in a top view and entirely surround the drain contact region in a closed ring shape. Having a closed ring shape surrounding a region requires non overlap to some degree. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is not objective, and thus the claim is indefinite.
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) and Otake (US 2010/0207197).
Regarding claim 1, Salman teaches 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/lower half portion of 422) and a source field region (417, lower half portion) 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/lower half portion of 422) and the source field region (417, lower portion, see Figure 4), wherein the drain contact region is a [heavily] doped region (doped N type);
a drain contact region (422, upper half portion) and a source contact region (417, portion directly abutting the silicide 423 in the source region) of the second conductivity type (N-type) respectively in the drain field region (418/lower portion of 422) and the source field region (417, lower portion, see Figure 4);
a first isolation region (410) in the drain field region (418/lower half portion of 422) and between the drain contact region (423 in drain field region 418/lower portion of 422, see Figure 4) and the gate structure (420/421, see Figure 4).
Salman does not teach that the drain contact region is heavily doped, or a drain doped region.
Otake teaches a drain contact region (upper half portion of region 10) being heavily doped (N+); and
a drain doped region (14) of the first conductivity type (P-type) in the drain field region (9/lower half portion of region 10, see Figure 1A) and between a portion of a bottom surface of the drain contact region (upper half portion of region 10, see annotated Figure 1A below) and the drain field region 9, see Figure 1A, bottom surface of the drain contact region is the horizontal line splitting the region 10), wherein a bottom surface of the drain doped region (14) is lower than a bottom surface of the drain contact region (upper half portion of 10, see annotated Figure 1A below).
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 heavy doping for the drain contact to protect from overvoltage (Otake, para. [0028]), and to include the drain doped region as claimed for the purpose of improving current capacity (Otake, para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Salman and Otake teaches 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 of Otake is the region directly surrounding the drain contact region, the combination of the teachings into Salman would result in a structure where the drain doped regions are interposed directly between the drain contact region (422, upper portion) and the isolation regions (410) of Salman, thereby arriving at the claimed configuration.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Salman and Otake teaches wherein a depth of the drain doped region (14 of Otake) is smaller than a depth of the first isolation region (410, see Figure 4 of Otake, incorporation of the relatively shallow drain doped regions of Otake would have a smaller depth than the isolation regions). It also would have been obvious to have this claimed relative depth because if the depth of the isolation regions were less than the depth of the drain doped regions, the induced current would be too close to the gate and negatively influence the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 6, Salman teaches wherein the gate structure (420/421) partially overlaps the drain field region (418/lower portion of 422) and the source field region (417 lower portion, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Salman teaches wherein the gate structure (420/421) partially overlaps the first isolation region (410, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 11, Salman teaches 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 teaches 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/lower portion of 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, lower portion of each) 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/lower portion of 422, see Figure 4);
two source contact regions (417 portion directly contacting silicide 423) of the second conductivity type (N-type) respectively in the two source field regions (417 lower portion of each, see Figure 4);
a drain contact region (upper portion of 422) of the second conductivity type (N-type) in the drain field region (418/lower portion of 422, see Figure 4), wherein the drain contact region (upper portion of 422) is a [heavily] doped region (doped N-type),
Salman does not teach a plurality of drain doped regions.
Otake teaches a plurality of drain doped regions (14) of the first conductivity type (P-type) in the drain field region (9) and extending at least along edges of the drain contact region (10, see Figure 1A) that are parallel to the two gate structures (while Otake teaches 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), wherein in a top view, the drain doped regions (14) are completely overlapped by the drain contact region (10, Figure 1A shows a degree of overlap between the drain contact region 10 and the drain doped regions 14, see interpretation of this specific limitation in regards to the 112 rejections above).
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 heavy doping for the drain contact to protect from overvoltage (Otake, para. [0028]), and to include the drain doped region as claimed for the purpose of improving current capacity (Otake, para. [0029]).
Regarding claim 13, Otake teaches wherein the drain doped regions (14) have a closed ring shape completely surrounding the drain contact region (upper portion of 10, see Figure 1A).
Regarding claim 15, Salman teaches wherein each of the two gate structures (420/421) partially overlaps the drain field region (418/lower portion of 422, see Figure 4) and one of the two source field regions (417, lower portion, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Salman and Otake teaches a first isolation region (410) surrounding the drain contact region (upper portion of 422, see Figure 4) and the drain doped regions (14 of Otake).
The combination of Salman and Otake teaches 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 drain contact region (upper portion of 10) of Otake, which is analogous to the drain contact region (422, upper portion) 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 teaches wherein each of the two gate structures (420/421) partially overlaps the first isolation region (410, see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 20, Otake teaches 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]).
PNG
media_image2.png
296
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salman and Otake as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (“Hwang” US 2023/0121127).
Regarding claim 8, Salman does not teach a second isolation region in the source field region and between the source contact region and the gate structure.
Hwang teaches, 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 teaches wherein the gate structure (42) partially overlaps the second isolation region (30/32, see Figure 3).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salman and Otake as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (“Hwang” US 2023/0121127).
Regarding claim 18, Salman does not teach two second isolation regions.
Hwang teaches, however, isolation regions (30/32) surrounding a source contact region (40, see Figure 3). Although Hwang does not explicitly teach 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 teaches 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 teach 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 and Otake 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 teach the circuit configuration of the device.
Wu teaches, 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 12 to address the 112 rejections of the Office action mailed 13 April 2026, have been fully considered and overcome the previous 112 rejections. However, Applicant’s amendments to claim 12 have introduced new 112 issues (see above).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any interpretation of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Also, in light of the issues of the Nonfinal Office action mailed 13 April 2026 (discussed above in Election/Restriction), all previous grounds of rejection are withdrawn and a second Nonfinal Office action is mailed.
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