DETAILED ACTION
Priority Claim
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
IDS
All references provided in the IDS have been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species restrictions based on various shapes in the reply filed on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that not enough evidence is provided as to how the various shapes claimed are an examination burden. Examiner finds the arguments persuasive and withdraws the restriction filed on 03/05/2026. Claims 1-20 are evaluated in this office action. Examiner further notes that the applicant states that the shapes are obvious geometric variants of one another on page 11 of the applicant remarks/arguments filed on 04/09/2026.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are (for example but not limited to): missing reference numerals, double use of reference numerals,
inconsistent application of reference numerals throughout the specification (with changing
names of structures), terms appear to be used interchangeably without clearly defining
the relationship. Some examples, but not limited to, are shown below:
Multiple claimed elements referring to the same reference numeral/double use of reference numerals/inconsistent application of reference numerals (with changing names of structures):
In ¶ [0137] of the specification, the terms “a second conduction type drift region” and “drift region” are assigned the same reference numeral (‘704’). It is unclear if all drift regions present must be a second conduction type. Furthermore, the same reference numeral cannot be applied to two different claimed elements.
For the reasons mentioned above, this also occurs with “a second conduction type buried layer 821” and “the buried layer 821” (specification, ¶ [0138]), “a second conduction type first connection region 819” and “the first connection region 819” (specification, ¶ [0138]), “ a second conduction type resource region 801” and “ the source region 801” (specification, ¶ [0138]), “ a second conduction type drain region 803” and “the drain region 803” (specification, ¶ [0138]). More examples, such as in ¶ [0216] of the specification, are present and may exist beyond the examples provided here. It is the applicant’s responsibility to make corrections to the specification for all instances accordingly (and in accordance to the drawings). Examiner kindly reminds applicant that no new matter can be added.
In ¶ [0138] of the specification, it appears two different reference numerals are used for the same element “the second connection region 816” and “a second connection region 815”. It is unclear which is supposed to be “a second connection region”. It appears reference numeral ‘816’ is also used for “a second conduction type isolating structure potential second connection region 816”. The relationship between the corresponding structures is unclear. Another occurrence of this discrepancy appears in ¶ [0233] of the specification.
More examples of such reference numeral usage may appear in the specification beyond the examples provided here. It is the applicant’s responsibility to make corrections to the specification for all instances accordingly (and in accordance to the drawings). Examiner kindly reminds applicant that no new matter can be added.
Appropriate corrections to the specification are required.
Multiple claimed elements with no reference numeral:
Claimed elements, such as (but not limited to): “a drain electrode central square cell”, “a device”, “a layout”, “a field plate”, “a corresponding device layout”, “a drain electrode central cell”, “a punching area”, “a source electrode central square cell”, “a source electrode central cell”, “cells” , “finger structure”, “Double-RESURF” “SAB structure”, “the drift region of the device” “drift region of a device”, “the source region in the device”, “square cells” and “terminal structure”, do not have a corresponding reference numeral and their corresponding structure in the drawings cannot be determined.
More examples may exist beyond the examples provided here. It is the applicant’s responsibility to make corrections to the specification for all instances of issues mentioned or similar issues accordingly (and in accordance to the drawings). Examiner kindly reminds applicant that no new matter can be added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a field plate”, “a drain electrode central cell”, “drain electrode central cell”, “finger structure” “a punching area”, “a source electrode central square cell”, “a source electrode central cell”, “Double-RESURF” “SAB structure”, “the drift region of the device”, and “terminal structure” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "815" and “816" have both been used to designate “the second connection region”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “816” has been used to designate both “a second conduction type isolating structure potential second connection region” and “the second connection region”. This also occurs with (but not limited to) “a second conduction type source region 701” and “the source region 701”, “a second conduction type drift region 704” and “drift region 704”, “a first buffer layer 711” and “a second conduction type first buffer layer 711“. The aforementioned are some examples and more examples may occur. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The examples mentioned above may not represent all of the issues found within the specification and drawings. The examiner reminds applicant that it is the applicant’s responsibility to correct all similar issues to ensure consistency between the claims, specification, and drawings. No new matter should be added.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Re: Independent Claim 1, Claim 1, line 2 recites “a drain electrode central square cell” and claim 1, line 14 recites “a drain electrode central cell”. The “a drain electrode central square cell” indicates a structure having a square geometry. However, the claim further recites “a drain electrode central cell” which can have a polygonal structure or a circle. The specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements, and the differences between the “a drain electrode central square cell” and “a drain electrode central cell” cannot be determined, which therefore encompasses multiple, mutually inconsistent geometries if the “drain electrode central cell” is a circle. The scope of the claim is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean that the “drain electrode central square cell” and “drain electrode central cell” are the same components having a square geometry. Claims 2-5 and 11-20 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Re: Independent Claim 1, Claim 1, line 2 recites “a drain electrode central square cell layout” , “a layout” in claim 1, line 6, and “a corresponding device layout” in claim 1, line 12. The specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements, and the differences between the “a drain electrode central square cell layout” and “a layout” and “a corresponding device layout” cannot be determined. It has been broadly interpreted to mean any layouts. Claims 2-5 and 11-20 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Re: Independent Claim 1, Claim 1, line 4 recite(s) the limitation: “jointly integrated in cells to reduce an area of a device and increase an integrity”. “Cells” and “device” are not well-defined structures and are not specifically referenced in the drawings or specification. As a result, it is unclear what structure corresponds to a cell or how the body region and source region are jointly integrated within such cells. Furthermore, the device is not structurally defined or clearly supported by the specification or the drawings. Without defined cells or defined device, the “area” does not have a clear and defined scope. For the purpose of examination, it has been interpreted to mean that if a body region and a source region are within a structure, which can be considered a cell, it reduces and increases an integrity. A device is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claims 2-5 and 11-20 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Re: Independent Claim 1, Claim 1, lines 9-10 recite the limitation: “a length of the drift region is consistent with a length of the drift region of the device”. The limitation of the claim is defined by reference to a device and the relationship between the limitation and the device is not sufficiently defined, as the device can be constructed many ways and is variable, rendering the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Claims 2-5 and 11-20 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Re: Independent Claim 1, Claim 1, line 10 recites the limitation: “the drift region of the device” there is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a drift region of the device” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean any region of a device. Claims 2-5 and 11-20 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Re: Dependent Claim 2, Claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation: “a drain electrode central cell”. It is unclear if this the same recitation of “a drain electrode central cell” in claim 1 or a different recitation of “a drain electrode central cell”. It has been interpreted to mean the same drain electrode central cell.
Re: Dependent Claim 2, Claim 2, line 2 recites the limitation: “a drain electrode central cell layout”. It is unclear what the corresponding structure associated with “a drain electrode central cell layout” is and if it different from “a drain electrode central cell”. Accordingly, it is unclear which structure is to be triangular, quadrilateral, pentagonal, hexagonal, circular, or octagonal, as the structure is not distinctly pointed out in the specification and/or drawings. It has been interpreted that the “a drain electrode central cell” and “a drain electrode central cell layout” correspond to the same structure.
Re: Dependent Claim 3, Claim 3, lines 2-3 recites the limitation: “a length of the source region is half of a length of d1 of the source region in the device”. The limitation of the claim is defined by reference to a device and the relationship between the limitation and the device is not sufficiently defined, as the device can be constructed many ways and is variable, the claim is rendered indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Re: Dependent Claim 3, Claim 3, lines 2-3 recites the limitation recites the limitation: “the source region in the device” there is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a source region in the device” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean any region of a device.
Re: Dependent Claim 4, Claim 4, line 2 recites the limitation: “wherein the drain electrode central cell” is octagonal. Claim 1, the claim from which this claim depends, recites: “a drain electrode central square cell“. The differences between the “a drain electrode central square cell” and “a drain electrode central cell” cannot be determined, and the specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements. It is unclear which structure is to be octagonal and how that can exist with “a drain electrode central square cell”. It has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Re: Dependent Claim 5, Claim 5, line 2 recites the limitation: “wherein the drain electrode central cell” is circular. Claim 1, the claim from which this claim depends, recites: “a drain electrode central square cell “. The differences between the “a drain electrode central square cell” and “a drain electrode central cell” cannot be determined, and the specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements. It is unclear which structure is to be circular and how that can exist with “a drain electrode central square cell”.
Re: Independent Claim 6, Claim 6, line 2 recites “a source electrode central square cell” and claim 1, line 12 recites “a source electrode central cell”. The “a source electrode central square cell” indicates a structure having a square geometry. However, the claim further recites “a source electrode central cell” which can have a polygonal structure or a circle. The specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements, and the differences between the “a source electrode central square cell” and “a source electrode central cell” cannot be determined, which therefore encompasses multiple, mutually inconsistent geometries if the “source electrode central cell” is a circle (which is incompatible with “source electrode central square cell”. The scope of the claim is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean that the “source electrode central square cell” and “source electrode central cell” are the same components having a square geometry. Claims 2-5 and 7-10 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Re: Independent Claim 6, Claim 6, line 2 recites “a drain electrode central square cell layout” , “a layout” in claim 1, line 4, and “a corresponding device layout” in claim 1, line 14. The specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements, and the differences between the “a source electrode central square cell layout” and “a layout” and “a corresponding device layout” cannot be determined. It has been broadly interpreted to mean any layouts. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Re: Independent Claim 6, Claim 6, lines 7-8 recite the limitation: “a length of the drift region is consistent with a length of the drift region of a device”. The limitation of the claim is defined by reference to a device and the relationship between the limitation and a device is not sufficiently defined, as a device can be constructed many ways and is variable, rendering the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Re: Independent Claim 6, Claim 6, line 8 recites the limitation: “a device” there is insufficient structure to define “a device”. A device is not structurally defined or clearly supported by the specification or the drawings. Without a defined device, the scope of the is unclear as to whether device includes the aforementioned elements or is unrelated to the recited structure. “A device” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Re: Independent Claim 6, Claim 6, line 8 recites the limitation: “the drift region of a device” there is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a drift region of the device” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean any region of a device. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Re: Independent Claim 6, Claim 6, line 10 recites the limitation: “cells” there is insufficient structure to define “cells”. Cells are not structurally defined or clearly supported by the specification or the drawings. It is unclear what structure is “a cell” and how a multiplicity of cells are defined. “Cells” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Re: Independent Claim 6, Claim 6, line 10 recites the limitation: “cells of the device” there is insufficient structure to define “cells of the device”. Cells are not structurally defined or clearly supported by the specification or the drawings. It is unclear what structure is “a cell” and how a multiplicity of cells are defined and what cells are included in the device. “Cells of the device” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Re: Independent Claim 6, Claim 6, line 14 recites the limitation: “the square cells”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “plurality of square cells” is claimed. It is unclear how square cells are related to the structure and how they form a corresponding device layout. It has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Re: Independent Claim 6, Claim 6, line 14 recites the limitation: “a corresponding device layout”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as Claim 6, line 10 recites “a corresponding device layout”. It is unclear if this is a different corresponding device layout or the same as the one mentioned in line 10. It has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation. Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 6.
Re: Dependent Claim 7, Claim 7, line 2 recites the limitation: “a source electrode central cell”. It is unclear if this the same recitation of “a source electrode central cell” in claim 6 or a different recitation of “a source electrode central cell”. It has been interpreted to mean the same source electrode central cell.
Re: Dependent Claim 7, Claim 7, line 2 recites the limitation: “a source electrode central cell layout”. It is unclear what the corresponding structure associated with “a source electrode central cell layout” is and if it different from “a source electrode central cell”. Accordingly, it is unclear which structure is to be triangular, quadrilateral, pentagonal, hexagonal, circular, or octagonal, as the structure is not distinctly pointed out in the specification and/or drawings. It has been interpreted that the “a source electrode central cell” and “a source electrode central cell layout” correspond to the same structure.
Re: Dependent Claim 8, Claim 8, lines 2-3 recites the limitation: “a length of the source region is half of a length of d1 of the source region in the device”. The limitation of the claim is defined by reference to a device and the relationship between the limitation and the device is not sufficiently defined, as the device can be constructed many ways and is variable, the claim is rendered indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Re: Dependent Claim 8, Claim 8, lines 2-3 recites the limitation recites the limitation: “the source region in the device” there is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a source region of the device” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean any region of a device.
Re: Dependent Claim 9, Claim 9, line 2 recites the limitation: “wherein the source electrode central cell” is octagonal. Claim 6, the claim from which this claim depends, recites: “a source electrode central square cell“. The differences between the “a source electrode central square cell” and “a source electrode central cell” cannot be determined, and the specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements. It is unclear which structure is to be octagonal and how that can exist with “a source electrode central square cell”.
Re: Dependent Claim 10, Claim 9, line 2 recites the limitation: “wherein the source electrode central cell” is circular. Claim 6, the claim from which this claim depends, recites: “a source electrode central square cell“. The differences between the “a source electrode central square cell” and “a source electrode central cell” cannot be determined, and the specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements. It is unclear which structure is to be circular and how that can exist with “a source electrode central square cell”.
Re: Dependent Claim 11, Claim 11, lines 1-2 recites: “A lateral power semiconductor device structure using a buffer layer, using the high- current lateral power semiconductor device layout structure according to claim 1.“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “using a high- current lateral power semiconductor device layout”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1. Claims 12-13 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 11.
Re: Dependent Claim 11, Claim 11, line 4 recites “the substrate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a substate” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a substrate”.
Re: Dependent Claim 11, Claim 11, line 3 recites “a first conduction type substrate” and claim 11, line 5 uses “the substrate”. With regards to the specification, these structures are given the same reference numeral, but it is unclear if they are the same structure as “the substrate” is broad and does not require any particular conduction type while “a first conduction type substrate” is narrower. It is suggested that the applicant either clarify the relationship between “the substrate” and “a first conduction type substate” or replace “the substrate” in line 5, with “the first conduction type substrate”. It has been interpreted to mean any substrate. Claims 12-13 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 11.
Re: Dependent Claim 11, Claim 11, line 5 recites “the first body region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a first body region” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a first body region”. Claims 12-13 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 11.
Re: Dependent Claim 11, Claim 11, lines 4-5 recites “a first conduction type second body region” and claim 11, line 5 uses “the first body region”. With regards to the specification, these structures are given the same reference numeral, but it is unclear if they are the same structure as “the first body region” is broad and does not require any particular conduction type while “a first conduction type second body region” is narrower. It is suggested that the applicant either clarify the relationship between “the first body” and “a first conduction type second body region” or replace “the first body region” in line 5, with “the first conduction type second body region”. It has been interpreted to mean any first body region. Claims 12-13 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 11.
Re: Dependent Claim 11, Claim 11, lines 5 recites “a second conduction type source region” and claim 11, line 9 uses “the source region”. With regards to the specification, these structures are given the same reference numeral, but it is unclear if they are the same structure as “the source region” is broad and does not require any particular conduction type while “a second conduction type source region” is narrower. Claims 12-13 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 11.
Furthermore, “the source region” is also recited in Claim 1. It is unclear if these structures are the same. It is suggested that the applicant clarify the relationship between “source region” and “a second conduction type source region” from claim 11, and further clarify/distinguish the relationship between “the source region” of Claim 1 and “source region/ a second conduction type source region” of claim 11. This limitation has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation of any source region. Claims 12-13 and 17-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 11.
Re: Dependent Claim 12, Claim 12, lines 1-2 recites: “The lateral power semiconductor device structure using the buffer layer according to claim 11.“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “using a buffer layer”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1. Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 12.
Re: Dependent Claim 12, Claim 12, line 3 recites “the first buffer layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a first buffer layer” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a first buffer layer”. Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 12.
Re: Dependent Claim 12, Claim 12, line 6 recites “a Double-RESURF structure”. It is unclear what corresponding elements or structure is needed to comprise “a Double-RESURF structure”. It has been broadly interpreted to mean any structure. Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 12.
Re: Dependent Claim 13, Claim 13, lines 1-2 recites: “The lateral power semiconductor device structure using the buffer layer according to claim 12.“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “using a buffer layer”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, lines 1-3 recites: “A lateral power semiconductor device structure using a buffer layer, using the high- current lateral power semiconductor device layout structure according to claim 1.“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “using a high- current lateral power semiconductor device layout”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, lines 4-5 recites “the substrate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a substate” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a substrate”. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 4 recites “a first conduction type substrate” and claim 14, lines 4-5 uses “the substrate”. With regards to the specification, these structures are given the same reference numeral, but it is unclear if they are the same structure as “the substrate” is broad and does not require any particular conduction type while “a first conduction type substrate” is narrower. It is suggested that the applicant either clarify the relationship between “the substrate” and “a first conduction type substate” or replace “the substrate” in lines 4- 5, with “the first conduction type substrate”. It has been interpreted to mean any substrate. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 5 and line 10 “the buried layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a buried layer” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a buried layer”. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 4 recites “a second conduction type buried layer” and claim 14, line 5 and claim 14, line 10 uses “the buried layer”. With regards to the specification, these structures are given the same reference numeral, but it is unclear if they are the same structure as “the buried layer” is broad and does not require any particular conduction type while “a second conduction type buried layer” is narrower. It is suggested that the applicant either clarify the relationship between “the buried layer” and “a second conduction type buried layer” or replace “the buried layer” in lines 5 and 10, with “the second conduction type buried layer”. It has been interpreted to mean any buried layer. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, lines 7 recites “the first connection region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a first connection region” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a first connection region”. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, lines 7 recites “the second connection region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a second connection region” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a second connection region”. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 6-7 recites “a second conduction type isolating structure potential second connection region” and claim 14, line 7 uses “the second connection region”. With regards to the specification, these structures are given the same reference numeral, but it is unclear if they are the same structure as “second connection region” is broad and does not require any particular conduction type while “a second conduction type isolating structure potential second connection region” is narrower. It has been interpreted to mean any second connection region. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 8 recites “a first conduction type substrate potential” and claim 14, line 9 uses “a substrate potential”. With regards to the specification, these structures are given the same reference numeral, but it is unclear if they are the same structure as “a substrate potential” is broad and does not require any particular conduction type while “a first conduction type substrate potential” is narrower. It is suggested that the applicant either clarify the relationship between “a substrate potential” and “a first conduction type substrate potential” or replace “a substrate potential” in line 9, with “the first conduction type substrate potential”. It has been interpreted to mean any substrate potential. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 11 and line 13 recites “the well”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a well” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a well”. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 9 recites “a first conduction type well” and claim 14, line 11 and claim 14, line 13 uses “the well”. With regards to the specification, these structures are given the same reference numeral, but it is unclear if they are the same structure as “the well” is broad and does not require any particular conduction type while “a first conduction type well” is narrower. It is suggested that the applicant either clarify the relationship between “well” and “a first conduction type well” or replace “the well” in lines 11 and 13, with “the second conduction type buried layer”. It has been interpreted to mean any well. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 12 recites: “a drift region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “a drift region”. Claim 1, the claim from which this claim depends, also recites “a drift region” in claim 1, line 3. It is unclear if this a different recitation of “a drift region” or not. It has been interpreted to mean a different drift region. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, lines 13-14 recites: “a second conduction type source region”. Line 15 later recites “the source region”. With regards to the specification, the second conduction type source region and the source region are provided with the same reference numerals. Claim 1 also recites “the source region”. It is unclear which structure is to be used as “a second conduction type source region” is narrow, while “source region” is used broader. It has been interpreted to mean any source region. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 14 recites “the first body region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a first body region” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean “a first body region”. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 17 recites “the whole device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a whole device” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean any portion of any device. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 18 recites “an SAB structure”. It is unclear which components define a SAB structure. It has interpreted to mean any structure. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, line 19 recites “the electrodes” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this as no “plurality of electrodes” is claimed. Furthermore, the corresponding structure cannot be determined. It has been interpreted to mean any contact points. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Claim 14, lines 11-12 recites “a first isolating structure electrode” and later Claim 14, line 19 recites “a first conduction type first isolating structure electrode”. It is unclear how these correspond to different structures, as they are provided with the same reference numerals. It has been interpreted to mean any isolating structure electrode. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Re: Dependent Claim 15, Claim 15, lines 1-2 recites: “The lateral power semiconductor device structure with the terminal structure according to claim 14.“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “with the terminal structure”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1.
Re: Dependent Claim 16, Claim 16, lines 1-2 recites: “The lateral power semiconductor device structure with the terminal structure according to claim 14.“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “with the terminal structure”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1.
Re: Dependent Claim 17, Claim 17, lines 1-2 recites: “The lateral power semiconductor device structure using the buffer layer according to claim 11,“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “with the buffer layer”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1.
Re: Dependent Claim 17, Claim 17, lines 2-3 recite: “a drain electrode central cell”. There is insufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear if this the same recitation of “a drain electrode central cell” in claim 1 or a different recitation of “a source electrode central cell”. It has been interpreted to mean the same source electrode central cell.
Re: Dependent Claim 17, Claim 17, lines 2-3 recites the limitation: “a drain electrode central cell layout”. It is unclear what the corresponding structure associated with “a drain electrode central cell layout” is and if it different from “a drain electrode central cell”. Accordingly, it is unclear which structure is to be triangular, quadrilateral, pentagonal, hexagonal, circular, or octagonal, as the structure is not distinctly pointed out in the specification and/or drawings. It has been interpreted that the “a drain electrode central cell” and “a drain electrode central cell layout” correspond to the same structure.
Re: Dependent Claim 18, Claim 18, lines 1-2 recites: “The lateral power semiconductor device structure using the buffer layer according to claim 11,“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “with the buffer layer”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1.
Re: Dependent Claim 18, Claim 18, lines 2-3 recites the limitation: “a length of the source region is half of a length of d1 of the source region in the device”. The limitation of the claim is defined by reference to a device and the relationship between the limitation and the device is not sufficiently defined, as the device can be constructed many ways and is variable, the claim is rendered indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Re: Dependent Claim 18, Claim 18, lines 2-3 recites the limitation recites the limitation: “the source region in the device” there is insufficient antecedent basis as no “a source region in the device” has been claimed. It has been interpreted to mean any region of a device.
Re: Dependent Claim 19, Claim 19, lines 1-2 recites: “The lateral power semiconductor device structure using the buffer layer according to claim 11,“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “with the buffer layer”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1.
Re: Dependent Claim 19, Claim 19, line 3 recites the limitation: “wherein the drain electrode central cell” is octagonal. Claim 1, the claim from which this claim depends, recites: “a drain electrode central square cell“. The differences between the “a drain electrode central square cell” and “a drain electrode central cell” cannot be determined, and the specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements. It is unclear which structure is to be octagonal and how that can exist with “a drain electrode central square cell”. It has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Re: Dependent Claim 20, Claim 20, lines 1-2 recites: “The lateral power semiconductor device structure using the buffer layer according to claim 11,“ There is insufficient antecedent basis as there is no recitation of “with the buffer layer”. The claim scope is unclear. It has been interpreted to mean using a lateral power semiconductor device of Claim 1.
Re: Dependent Claim 20, Claim 20, line 3 recites the limitation: “wherein the drain electrode central cell” is circular. Claim 1, the claim from which this claim depends, recites: “a drain electrode central square cell “. The differences between the “a drain electrode central square cell” and “a drain electrode central cell” cannot be determined, and the specification and drawings do not clearly identify corresponding structure or distinguish whether these are different elements. It is unclear which structure is to be circular and how that can exist with “a drain electrode central square cell”.
In view of the specification and drawing objections and the 112b rejections, all claims will be given their broadest reasonable interpretation to further prosecution.
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)(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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiao (CN 101771084 B).
Re: Independent Claim 1, Qiao discloses:
A lateral power semiconductor device layout structure (Qiao, lateral power device layout structure, ¶ [0012]), comprising:
a drain electrode central square cell layout (Qiao, Fig. 3, shows the cell array layout structure to be square, and can therefore be considered a drain electrode central square cell layout, ¶ [0011 -0012]) comprising a source region (Qiao, source electrode; Fig. 3, element 1), a gate electrode (Qiao, gate electrode; Fig. 3, element 2), a drain region (Qiao, drain electrode; Fig. 3, element 4), a drift region (Qiao, lightly doped drift region; Fig. 3, element 3) and a body region (Qiao, not labeled, Fig. 4, a portion of the source region on each side of the cell not including the inner and outer edge corresponds to a body region, see attached annotated image);
wherein the body region and the source region are jointly integrated in cells (Qiao, multiple instances of Fig. 3 can be considered cells) to reduce an area of a device (Qiao, a cell, according to Fig. 3, can be multiplied and combined to make a device, as shown in Fig. 4, see above attached image) and increase an integrity;
PNG
media_image1.png
230
234
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the drain region is located at a center of a layout (Qiao, Fig. 4, the orientation and location of the individual cells from Fig. 3 can be considered a layout, and the drain region is shown at the center), centers of the source region, the gate electrode and the drift region coincide with a center of the drain region (Qiao, Fig. 4),
the drift region surrounds the drain region (Qiao, Fig. 4 shows element 3 surrounding element 4), the source region is tangent to an outer edge of the gate electrode (Qiao, Fig. 4 shows element 1 tangent to element 2), the body region is tangent to an inner edge and an outer edge of the source region (Qiao, see attached annotated, the body region is contained an inner and outer edge of element 1), a length of the drift region is consistent with a length of the drift region of the device (Qiao, Fig. 4, shows each drift region (element 3) to be the same length within each cell of the device),
a part of the gate electrode beyond an edge of the drift region serves as a field plate (Qiao, not numbered; Fig. 4, see attached annotated image showing the corresponding structure that can be considered a field plate)
PNG
media_image2.png
254
243
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the cells are closely arranged to form a corresponding device layout (Qiao, Fig. 4 shows four cells arranged closely, which can be considered a corresponding device layout), and the cells of the device share the source region (Qiao, Fig. 4, shows overlapping element 1 between all the cells and therefore share the source region); and
a drain electrode central cell (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square) is of a polygonal structure with the number of sides greater than or equal to 3 or a circle, or the cells are integrated into a finger structure to increase a width-to-length ratio and improve a current capability of the device (Qiao, Fig. 3 a drain electrode central cell is shown to be a square, the alternative is not found as there is an 'or' statement).
Re: Dependent Claim 2, Qiao disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Qiao further discloses:
wherein a drain electrode central cell layout (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square) is triangular, quadrilateral, pentagonal, hexagonal, circular or octagonal (Qiao, Figs. 7, 8, 10, show various shapes, including triangular, and furthermore, as per applicant response dated 04/09/2026, these are obvious variants).
Re: Dependent Claim 3, Qiao disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Qiao further discloses:
wherein a length of the source region (Qiao, source electrode; Fig. 3, element 1, the length of the source region can be defined by the length from each cell), is half of a length dl of the source region in the device (Qiao, a cell, according to Fig. 3, can be multiplied and combined to make a device, as shown in Fig. 4, and Fig. 4 further shows the length of the source region of each individual cell is half the total horizontal length across, which can be considered a length of the source region in the device), to increase the integrity, or is a length dl of the source region in the device to improve an overcurrent capability.
Re: Dependent Claim 4, Qiao disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Qiao further discloses:
wherein the drain electrode central cell is octagonal (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square, furthermore, as per applicant response dated 04/09/2026, these are obvious variants), and a punching area at a shared source region of four adjacent cell centers is increased (Qiao, Fig. 4, the central region where the source region from each cell meets can be considered a punching area, see attached annotated figure), thereby meeting high-current application, reducing the area of the device and increasing the integrity.
PNG
media_image3.png
488
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re: Dependent Claim 5, Qiao disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Qiao further discloses:
wherein the drain electrode central cell is circular (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square, furthermore, as per applicant response dated 04/09/2026, these are obvious variants), and adjacent columns of cells are staggered longitudinally and/or are staggered laterally, thereby increasing the integrity of the device and defining repeated units of the cells closely arranged longitudinally as a column (Qiao, Fig. 4 shows adjacent columns of cells staggered longitudinally and laterally).
Re: Independent Claim 6, Qiao discloses:
A lateral power semiconductor device layout structure (Qiao, lateral structure, ¶ [0012]), comprising:
a source electrode central square cell layout (Qiao, Fig. 3, shows the cell array layout structure to be square, and can therefore be considered a source electrode central square cell layout, ¶ [0011 -0012]) comprising a source region (Qiao, lightly doped drift region; Fig. 3, element 3), a gate electrode (Qiao, gate electrode; Fig. 3, element 2), a drain region (Qiao, drain electrode; Fig. 3, element 4), a drift region (Qiao, source electrode; Fig. 3, element 1), and a body region (Qiao, buffer layer; Fig. 5, element 5);
PNG
media_image4.png
300
298
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the body region is located at a center of a layout (Qiao, the center of Fig. 5 can be considered a center of a layout), centers of the source region, the drain region, the gate electrode and the drift region coincide with a center of the body region (Qiao, Fig. 5, the center of the buffer layer is the center of the layout and all regions have a center aligned with the center of the body region), the source region is tangent to an outer edge of the body region, the gate electrode is tangent to an outer edge of the source region, the drift region is tangent to an inner edge of the drain region, a length of the drift region is consistent with a length of the drift region of the device (Qiao, Fig. 5, shows each drift region (element 1) to be the same length within each cell, the collection of cells can be considered a device), a part of the gate electrode beyond an edge of the drift region serves as a field plate, and a static characteristic of the device is optimized (Qiao, not numbered; Fig. 5, see attached annotated image showing the corresponding structure that can be considered a field plate);
cells are closely arranged to form a corresponding device layout (Qiao, Fig. 5 shows four cells arranged closely, which can be considered a corresponding device layout, and the cells of the device share the drain region (Qiao, Fig. 5);
a source electrode central cell (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square) is of a polygonal structure with the number of sides greater than or equal to 3 or a circle, or the cells are integrated into a finger structure (Qiao, Fig. 5 a source electrode central cell is shown to be a square, the alternative is not found as there is an 'or' statement); and
the square cells are closely arranged to form a corresponding device layout (Qiao, Fig. 5, shows a plurality of cells which are square and can therefore be considered square cells and their arrangement can be considered a corresponding device layout).
Re: Dependent Claim 7, Qiao disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends. Qiao further discloses:
wherein a drain electrode central cell layout (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square) is triangular, quadrilateral, pentagonal, hexagonal, circular or octagonal (Qiao, Figs. 7, 8, 10, show various shapes, and furthermore, as per applicant response dated 04/09/2026, these are obvious variants).
Re: Dependent Claim 8, Qiao disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends. Qiao further discloses:
wherein a length of the source region (Qiao, source electrode; Fig. 3, element 3, the length of the source region can be defined by the length from each cell), is half of a length dl of the source region in the device (Qiao, a cell, according to Fig. 5, can be multiplied and combined to make a device, as shown in Fig. 5, and Fig. 5 further shows the length of the source region of each individual cell is half the total horizontal length across, which can be considered a length of the source region of the device), to increase the integrity, or is a length dl of the source region in the device to improve an overcurrent capability.
Re: Dependent Claim 9, Qiao disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends. Qiao further discloses:
PNG
media_image5.png
312
308
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the source electrode central cell is octagonal (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square, furthermore, as per applicant response dated 04/09/2026, these are obvious variants), and a punching area at a shared source region of four adjacent cell centers is increased (Qiao, Fig. 5, the central region where the drain region from each cell meets can be considered a punching area, see attached annotated figure), thereby meeting high-current application, reducing the area of the device and increasing the integrity.
Re: Dependent Claim 10, Qiao disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends. Qiao further discloses:
wherein the source central cell is circular (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square, furthermore, as per applicant response dated 04/09/2026, these are obvious variants), and adjacent columns of cells are staggered longitudinally and/or are staggered laterally, thereby increasing the integrity of the device and defining repeated units of the cells closely arranged longitudinally as a column (Qiao, Fig. 5 shows adjacent columns of cells staggered longitudinally and laterally).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 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(s) 11-13, 17-20 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao (CN 101771084 B) in view of Ma (CN 101699631 B).
Re: Dependent Claim 11, Qiao disclose(s) all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
Qiao does not further disclose:
further comprising: a first conduction type substrate, where a second conduction type drift region and a first conduction type first body region are arranged on the substrate, a first conduction type second body region and a second conduction type source region are arranged in the first body region, a source electrode is arranged above the second conduction type source region, a second conduction type drain region and a second conduction type first buffer layer are arranged in the drift region, a drain electrode is arranged on the second conduction type drain region, and a left edge of a gate electrode is tangent to a right edge of the source region.
Ma discloses:
a first conduction type substrate (Ma, first conductive type heavy doping substrate; Fig. 2, element 1, ¶ [0026]), where a second conduction type drift region (Ma, first conductive type epitaxial layer, first conductivity type epitaxial layer, second conductive type drift region, second conductive type heavily doped region, second conduction type buried layer; Fig. 2, elements 22, 21 15, 13, and 3, respectively, can be considered the second conduction type drift region/drift region) and a first conduction type first body region (Ma, first conductivity type channel region; Fig. 2, element 9, ¶ [0026 - 0027]) are arranged on the substrate, a first conduction type second body region (Ma, first conductive type heavy doping source region; Fig. 2, element 10, ¶ [0028) and a second conduction type source region (Ma, second conductive type heavily doped source region; Fig. 2, element 11) are arranged in the first body region, a source electrode (Ma, conductive layer; Fig. 2, element 6) is arranged above the second conduction type source region, a second conduction type drain region (Ma, second conductive type heavily doped drain region; Fig. 2, element 13) and a second conduction type first buffer layer (Ma, second conduction type buried layer; Fig. 2, element 3) are arranged in the drift region, a drain electrode (Ma, drain ohmic contact region; Fig. 2, element 14) is arranged on the second conduction type drain region, and a left edge of a gate electrode (Ma, gate; Fig. 2, element 17) is tangent to a right edge of the source region.
Qiao discloses a lateral power device layout structure but does not explicitly disclose this layout in a semiconductor device structure. Ma discloses a power device structure; Both Qiao and Ma disclose LDMOS power devices with source, drains, gate electrodes, and drift regions are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) before the effective filing date to a include the lateral power device layout cell structure disclosed by Qiao to the invention of Ma for the benefit of having low parasitic capacitance compared to more conventional power device layout structures (Qiao, ¶ [0034]).
Re: Dependent Claim 12, Qiao and Ma disclose all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
Ma further discloses:
wherein a second buffer layer (Ma, first conductive type epitaxial layer; Fig. 2, element 22) is arranged in the drift region (Ma, first conductivity type epitaxial layer, second conductive type drift region, second conductive type heavily doped region, second conduction type buried layer; Fig. 2, elements 21, 15, 13, and 3, respectively, can be considered the second conduction type drift region/drift region); in a case that a doping type of the second buffer layer is the same as a doping type of the first buffer layer (Ma, first conductivity type epitaxial layer; Fig. 2, element 21), a thickness of the second buffer layer is greater than or less than a thickness of the first buffer layer (Ma, Fig. 2, elements 22 and 21 have the same conductivity type ¶ [0033] and 22 is thicker than 21); and a Double-RESURF structure is formed (Ma, Fig. 2, can be considered a Double-RESURF structure), so that a breakdown voltage of the device is improved.
Ma does not explicitly disclose:
and in a case that the doping type of the second buffer layer is different from the doping type of the first buffer layer, the thickness of the second buffer layer is less than the thickness of the first buffer layer,
Ma discloses:
doping types (Ma, ¶ [0004]), thickness of the first and second buffer layer (Ma, ¶ [0033])
Ma discloses doping type variability and independently that the epitaxial layers can be different thicknesses but does not explicitly disclose that in a case that the doping type of the second buffer layer is different from the doping type of the first buffer layer, the thickness of the second buffer layer is less than the thickness of the first buffer layer. It would have been obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to optimize the thickness of the different epitaxial layers (buffer layers) based on the doping type of that layer, therefore arriving at the invention as claimed, for the known benefit of accounting for breakdown voltage (Ma, ¶ [0046]) and other known conductivity type properties (Ma, ¶ [0010 - 0014]).
Re: Dependent Claim 13, Qiao and Ma disclose all the limitations of claim 12 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
Ma further discloses:
wherein at least three buffer layers (Ma, first conductive type epitaxial layer, first conductivity type epitaxial layer, second conductive type buried layer; Fig. 2, elements 22, 21, and 3, respectively) are arranged in the drift region (Ma, first conductive type epitaxial layer, first conductivity type epitaxial layer, second conductive type drift region, second conductive type heavily doped region, second conduction type buried layer; Fig. 2, elements 22, 21 15, 13, and 3, respectively, can be considered the second conduction type drift region/drift region) to further optimize a static characteristic of the device (Ma, Fig. 2); or the static characteristic of the device is further optimized by combining the Double-RESURF structure and the buffer layer, thereby increasing a static optimal value of the device (the alternative is not found as there is an 'or' statement).
Re: Dependent Claim 17, Qiao and Ma disclose all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
Qiao further discloses:
wherein a drain electrode central cell layout (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square) is triangular, quadrilateral, pentagonal, hexagonal, circular or octagonal (Qiao, Figs. 7, 8, 10, show various shapes, and furthermore, as per applicant response dated 04/09/2026, these are obvious variants).
Re: Dependent Claim 18, Qiao and Ma disclose all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
Qiao further discloses:
wherein a length of the source region (Qiao, source electrode; Fig. 3, element 1, the length of the source region can be defined by the length from each cell), is half of a length dl of the source region in the device (Qiao, a cell, according to Fig. 3, can be multiplied and combined to make a device, as shown in Fig. 4, and Fig. 4 further shows the length of the source region of each individual cell is half the total horizontal length across, which can be considered a length of the source region of the device), to increase the integrity, or is a length dl of the source region in the device to improve an overcurrent capability.
Re: Dependent Claim 19, Qiao and Ma disclose all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
Qiao further discloses:
wherein the drain electrode central cell is octagonal (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square, furthermore, as per applicant response dated 04/09/2026, these are obvious variants), and a punching area at a shared source region of four adjacent cell centers is increased (Qiao, Fig. 4, the central region where the source region from each cell meets can be considered a punching area, see attached annotated figure), thereby meeting high-current application, reducing the area of the device and increasing the integrity.
Re: Dependent Claim 20, Qiao and Ma disclose all the limitations of claim 11 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
Qiao further discloses:
wherein the drain electrode central cell is circular (Qiao, cell array layout structure; ¶ [0032], not numbered, is square, furthermore, as per applicant response dated 04/09/2026, these are obvious variants), and adjacent columns of cells are staggered longitudinally and/or are staggered laterally, thereby increasing the integrity of the device and defining repeated units of the cells closely arranged longitudinally as a column (Qiao, Fig. 4 shows adjacent columns of cells staggered longitudinally and laterally).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiao (CN 101771084 B) in view of Nakamura (US 20040159891 A1) and in further view of Ellis-Monaghan (US 20160018677 A1).
Re: Dependent Claim 14, Qiao discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
Qiao does not disclose:
further comprising:
a first conduction type substrate, wherein a second conduction type buried layer is arranged on the substrate, the buried layer is connected to a second conduction type first connection region, a second conduction type isolating structure potential second connection region is arranged in the first connection region, a second isolating structure electrode is arranged on the second connection region, a first conduction type substrate potential connection region is arranged in the substrate, a substrate electrode is arranged on a substrate potential, a first conduction type well is arranged on the buried layer, a first conduction type isolating structure potential first connection region and a second connection region in the first connection region are arranged in the well, a first isolating structure electrode is arranged on the second connection region in the well, a drift region and a first conduction type first body region are arranged in the well, a first conduction type second body region and a second conduction type source region are arranged in the first body region, a source electrode is arranged on the source region, a second conduction type drain region is arranged in the drift region, a drain electrode is arranged on the second conduction type drain region, a left edge of a gate electrode is tangent to a right edge of the source region, a field oxidation layer covers a surface of the whole device, a right edge of an SAB structure is tangent to a left edge of the drain region, a silicon local oxidation structure is located between the electrodes, and a first conduction type first isolating structure electrode is connected between the drain region and the second isolating structure electrode.
Nakamura discloses:
further comprising:
a first conduction type substrate (Nakamura, P-type silicon substrate, N.sup.--type semiconductor layer; Fig. 3, elements 110 and 120, respectively, make up the substrate), wherein a second conduction type buried layer (Nakamura, N-type buried layer; Fig. 3, element 150) is arranged on the substrate (Nakamura, Fig. 3, shows element 150 on a portion of the substrate), the buried layer is connected to a second conduction type first connection region (Nakamura, an N-type connection region; Fig. 3, element 170, the portion to the left of the second drift region can be considered the first connection region), a second conduction type isolating structure potential second connection region (Nakamura, an N.sup.--type semiconductor layer; Fig. 3, element 120) is arranged in the first connection region, a first conduction type substrate potential connection region (Nakamura, a P-type connection region; Fig. 3, element 160) is arranged in the substrate, a substrate electrode (Nakamura, short-circuit plug; Fig. 3, not numbered, the right portion directly on top of element 160 can be considered a substrate electrode) is arranged on a substrate potential, a first conduction type well (Nakamura, a P-type buried layer, a P-type semiconductor layer; Fig. 3, elements 140 and 130, respectively make up a first conduction type well) is arranged on the buried layer, a first conduction type isolating structure potential first connection region (Nakamura, P-type base layer; Fig.3, element 180) and a second connection region (Nakamura, N.sup.+-type source layer; Fig. 3, element 182) in the first connection region are arranged in the well (Nakamura, Fig. 3, element 182 is within element 180 which is within element 130), a first isolating structure electrode (Nakamura, source electrode; Fig. 3, not numbered, the topmost rectangular portion of the source electrode can be considered a first isolating structure electrode) is arranged on the second connection region in the well, a drift region (Nakamura; first drift region; Fig. 3, not numbered) and a first conduction type first body region (Nakamura, a P-type semiconductor layer; Fig. 3, element 130) are arranged in the well, a first conduction type second body region (Nakamura, not labeled; Fig. 3, element 162) and a second conduction type source region (Nakamura, N.sup.+-type drain layer; Fig. 3, element 186) are arranged in the first body region, a source electrode (Nakamura, source electrode; Fig. 3, not numbered) is arranged on the source region, a second conduction type drain region (Nakamura, N.sup.+-type drain layer; Fig. 3, element 186 contained within the first drift region portion) is arranged in the drift region, a drain electrode (Nakamura, drain electrode; Fig. 3, not numbered), is arranged on the second conduction type drain region, a left edge of a gate electrode (Nakamura, gate electrode; Fig. 3, not numbered) is tangent to a right edge of the source region (Nakamura, Fig. 3), a field oxidation layer (Nakamura, topmost portion of semiconductor layer; Fig. 3, element 130) covers a surface of the whole device (Nakamura, Fig. 3 can be considered a whole device), a right edge of an SAB structure (Nakamura, gate electrode number two and three from the right side within the first drift region can be collectively considered an SAB structure) is tangent to a left edge of the drain region, and a first conduction type first isolating structure electrode is connected between the drain region and the second isolating structure electrode.
Nakamura further discloses:
a structure (Nakamura, field relaxation layer; Fig. 3, element 184) is located between the electrodes (Nakamura, gate electrode; source electrode; drain electrode; Fig. 3, not numbered, collectively can be considered the electrode),
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose:
a silicon local oxidation structure
Ellis-Monaghan discloses:
a silicon local oxidation structure (Ellis-Monaghan, legs; Fig. 2, elements 20a, 20b)
Nakamura discloses a structure between the electrodes, but does not explicitly disclose this structure to be silicon. Ellis-Monaghan discloses legs between contacts for the purpose of selectively biasing within a LMDOS device integrated with silicon photonic devices. Qiao, Nakamura, and Ellis-Monaghan all disclose components related to LDMOS devices and are therefore analogous art. It would be obvious to a POSITA before the effective filing date to make the structures of Nakamura, with silicon, as disclosed by Ellis-Monaghan for the benefit of selectively controlling light (Ellis-Monaghan, ¶ [0019]).
Re: Dependent Claim 15, Qiao, Nakamura, and Ellis-Monaghan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
Nakamura further discloses:
wherein different voltage biases are applied to the drain region (Nakamura, N.sup.+-type drain layer; Fig. 3, element 186 contained within the first drift region portion) and the second isolating structure electrode (Nakamura, short-circuit plug; Fig. 3, not numbered, the left portion directly on top of element 170 can be considered an isolating structure electrode), and a drain terminal bias is less than a substrate bias (Nakamura, ¶ [0018]), thereby meeting requirements of the device under different working states.
Re: Dependent Claim 16, Qiao, Nakamura, and Ellis-Monaghan discloses all the limitations of claim 14 on which this claim depends. Furthermore, there is functional language in the preamble and it is taken not to affect the device structure.
wherein a traditional right-angled terminal structure (Nakamura, Fig. 3, the outer layout of the device can be considered a terminal structure and it is shown to have traditional right-angles) or a terminal structure with an optimized curvature effect is used, and the terminal structure with the optimized curvature effect comprises a terminal structure subjected to hexagonal, octagonal or circular processing at a corner (Nakamura, uses a traditional right-angled-terminal structure, therefore the alternative is not found).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY whose telephone number is (571)272-7679. The examiner can normally be reached usually Monday - Thursday, 6:45 AM - 4:45 PM (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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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.
/NIMARTA KAUR CHOWDHARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights