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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 6/17/2026 in which claims 1 and 3-5 were amended and claim 2 was cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending with claims 1 and 3-13 presented for examination and claim 14 remaining withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 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 10 recites in lines 1-3 “an edge termination structure…comprises an n-well in a p-region”. Claim 1 recites in lines 11-12 “an edge termination structure..comprises an n-well in a p-region.” It is unclear if the edge termination structure, n-well, and p-region of claim 10 is the same as or different from that of claim 1. Examiner interprets that they are the same and edge termination structure, n-well, and p-region in claim 10 should each be preceded by –the– and not “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zundel et al (US 2014/0077262 and Zundel hereinafter) in view of Riegler et al (US 2019/0081158 and Riegler hereinafter) in view of Spring (US 2002/0149079 and Spring hereinafter).
As to claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, and 12: Zundel discloses [claim 1] a semiconductor die (Fig. 3; 3; [0041]), comprising: a semiconductor body (13; [0040]) comprising an active region (20; [0022]); an insulation layer (40; [0022]) formed on the semiconductor body (13); a channel device (transistor comprising 11, 36, 46 inherently has a channel) formed in the active region (20); and a sodium stopper (700; [0030], [0040], and [0045]) formed in the insulation layer (40) and arranged laterally between the active region (20) and a lateral edge (left edge) of the semiconductor die (3), wherein the sodium stopper (700) comprises an insulation layer groove (710; [0040]) which intersects the insulation layer (40) vertically and extends around (Fig. 4; continuous circumferential rings; [0043]) the active region (20), wherein the insulation layer groove (710) is filled with a diffusion barrier material (comprising 57 and 74; [0038], [0040], and [0049]) for preventing sodium diffusion in the insulation layer (this part of the limitation is intended use/functional language and is given little patentable weight; as Zundel discloses that the purpose of the diffusion barrier material is to prevent diffusion of mobile ions like sodium, the intended use recitation is met); [claim 4] wherein the insulation layer groove (Fig. 3; 710) is arranged on a lateral position within the substrate body (13); [claim 5] wherein an imide layer (Fig. 3; 54; [0033]) extends above the substrate body (13); [claim 6] wherein the insulation layer groove (710) extends vertically into the semiconductor body (13); [claim 12] wherein an additional conductor line serving as a gate runner (Fig. 3; 32; [0026]) is arranged laterally beside the active region (20).
Zundel fails to expressly disclose [claim 1] where the channel device is a p-channel device.
Zundel discloses that the substrate and FET device will have different dopings in different regions with different conductivities depending on the desired structure ([0022] and [0024]).
Riegler discloses that a p-channel FET would have the same structure as an n-channel FET as shown in Fig. 1, but with the doping relations reversed, see [0040].
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to choose the desired conductivity type for the device to be protected from mobile ions such as sodium (see [0049] of Riegler and [0030] of Zundel) to provide a semiconductor device with improved field-effect-controlled components ([0006] of Zundel).
Zundel in view of Riegler fail to expressly disclose [claim 1] wherein an edge termination structure formed between the active region and the lateral edge of the semiconductor die comprises an n-well in a p-region; [claim 3] wherein the insulation layer groove is arranged on a lateral position between an inner lateral end of the n-well and the lateral edge of the semiconductor die; [claim 4] wherein the insulation layer groove is arranged on a lateral position within the n-well; [claim 5] wherein the imide layer extends above the n-well and covers the whole n-well upwards; [claim 7] wherein the diffusion barrier material is a metal; [claim 9] wherein a conductor line is arranged above the insulation layer groove and is made of an aluminum material; [claim 10] wherein an edge termination structure formed between the active region and the lateral edge of the semiconductor die comprises an n-well in a p-region, and wherein the conductor line extends above an inner lateral end of the n-well and covers the inner lateral end upwards; [claim 12] where the additional conductor line is laterally between the conductor line and the active region.
Zundel in view of Riegler disclose a transistor in an active region with an edge region surrounding the active region. The edge region comprises a mobile ion/sodium stopper in a trench.
Spring discloses a device in Fig. 2 a transistor in an active area with an edge region lateral to the active region with a sodium stopper structure [claim 1] wherein an edge termination structure (Fig. 2; comprising doped region 25; [0011]) formed between the active region (active area; [0011]) and the lateral edge (left edge) of the semiconductor die (10; [0010]) comprises an well (25) in a region (12; [0010]); [claim 3] wherein the insulation layer groove (50; [0015]) is arranged on a lateral position between an inner lateral end (right vertical side of 25) of the well (25) and the lateral edge (left edge) of the semiconductor die (10); [claim 7] wherein the diffusion barrier material is a metal (the material within the sodium stopper groove 50 can be aluminum; [0015]); [claim 9] wherein a conductor line (conductor line can be 42, which is directly above the insulation layer groove 50, or 40, which is above in that it has portions at a higher vertical level than the groove 50 relative to the top of the semiconductor body; claim doesn’t state that the conductor line has to be directly over in direct contact with the insulation layer groove; [0013]) is arranged above the insulation layer groove (50) and is made of an aluminum material (aluminum can be used to form 40 and 42; [0013]); [claim 10] wherein an edge termination structure (in the interpretation of claim 10, the conductor line is 40 and the edge termination structure comprises 25 and 40; [0011] and [0013]) formed between the active region (active area; [0011]) and the lateral edge (left edge) of the semiconductor die (10) comprises an well (25) in a region (12; [0010]), and wherein the conductor line (40) extends above an inner lateral end (right vertical side of 25) of the well (25) and covers the inner lateral end (right vertical side of 25) upwards; [claim 12] where the additional conductor line (41; [0013]) is laterally between the conductor line (as claim 12 doesn’t depend from claim 10, a different interpretation of the conductor line is made; in the interpretation of claim 12, the conductor line is 42; [0013]) and the active region (active area).
Zundel in view of Riegler in view of Spring fail to expressly disclose [claims 1, 3, and 10] where the well is an n-well and the region is a p-region.
Zundel discloses that the substrate and FET device will have different dopings in different regions with different conductivities depending on the desired structure ([0022] and [0024]).
Riegler discloses that a p-channel FET would have the same structure as an n-channel FET as shown in Fig. 1, but with the doping relations reversed, see [0040].
Therefore, in Spring, the well region 25 would be an n-well as the substrate body would be p-type for a p-channel device.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to choose the desired conductivity type for the device to be protected from mobile ions such as sodium (see [0049] of Riegler and [0030] of Zundel) to provide a semiconductor device with improved field-effect-controlled components ([0006] of Zundel).
As to [claim 4] wherein the insulation layer groove is arranged on a lateral position within the n-well, when the well 25 (which is n-doped as discussed previously) is incorporated into Zundel, the insulation groove 710 will extend into the n-well.
As to [claim 5] wherein the imide layer extends above the n-well and covers the whole n-well upwards, when the well 25 (which is n-doped as discussed previously) is incorporated into Zundel, the imide layer 54 will extend directly above and cover the entire n-well.
Given the teachings of Spring, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying Zundel in view of Riegler by employing the well-known or conventional features of semiconductor die fabrication to prevent sodium ions from affecting the active area, such as displayed by Spring, by employing a guard ring/sodium stopper structure that comprises an n-well formed in a p-region of the substrate into which the sodium stopper trench is formed, the sodium stopper trench comprises a metal material (instead of a dielectric as in Zundel), and provide a conductor line that connects to the sodium stopper or is above the n-well in order to stabilize the device the device threshold voltage under high temperature reverse bias (Abstract of Spring).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zundel in view of Riegler in view of Spring as applied to claims 7 and 1, respectively, above, and further in view of Blank et al (US 2021/0242315 and Blank hereinafter).
As to claim 8: Although the structure disclosed by Zundel in view of Riegler in view of Spring shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 10 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the metal arranged in the insulation layer groove comprises at least one of a Ti layer, a TiN layer, and a W layer.
Zundel in view of Riegler in view of Spring discloses that the sodium stopper trench can comprise a metal material such as aluminum.
Blank discloses that tungsten (W) can be used to fill an insulation layer groove to form the sodium stopper material ([0004]).
The claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art because, as stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case choosing the material of the sodium stopper to be tungsten (W) instead of aluminum or a dielectric; if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case a material that blocks sodium ions from entering the active area, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill.
As to claim 13: Although the structure disclosed by Zundel in view of Riegler in view of Spring shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 10 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the insulation layer comprises a BPSG layer.
Zundel combined with Riegler and Spring discloses that the insulation layer through which the insulation layer groove is formed can be an oxide that can comprise multiple oxide layers ([0029]).
Blank discloses that the insulation layer 4 through which the insulation layer groove 5 is formed can comprise BPSG or a lower layer of oxide and an upper layer of BPSG ([0013] and [0043]).
The claimed invention would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art because, as stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp, in the instant case choosing the material of the insulating layer to be BPSG or a lower oxide and a BPSG instead of just an oxide; if this leads to the anticipated success, in the instant case a material that provides electrical isolation between the substrate and overlying conductor features, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zundel in view of Riegler in view of Spring as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lee et al (US 5,757,060 and Lee hereinafter).
Although the structure disclosed by Zundel in view of Riegler in view of Spring shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed in paragraph 10 above), it fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the conductor line has a lateral width of 5 μm at minimum.
Zundel in view of Riegler in view of Spring disclose that the conductor line can be portions of guard rings.
Lee discloses in Figs. 5 and 6 that an opening 29 for the metal portion of a guard ring can have a width of 0.3 to 10 microns, see col. 5, lines 8-17.
Therefore, a width of the portion of the guard ring that is metal and within an insulating layer can have a width between 0.3 to 10 microns and since the conductor line width over the guard ring openings in Zundel in view of Riegler in view of Spring is greater than the width of the guard ring openings, the conductor line will have a thickness of greater than 0.3 microns to 10 microns.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to choose a thickness of the conductor line that is within the claimed range in order to provide a large enough contact area to the guard ring to allow the guard ring to be operable through the contact.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues in substance that the Spring reference teaches the exact opposite of what was recited in the original claim 2. The Spring reference teaches that region 25 is a P+ region formed in N- epitaxially grown layer 12. The evidence of record does not support the 103 rejection of original claim 2. None of the cited references have a clear focus on p-channel device, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been properly motivated to consider the combination of a p-channel device, an edge termination structure having an n-well in a p-region, and a sodium stopper as specified in amended independent claim 1.
Examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s remarks. As Examiner noted in the rejection previously and provided in this Office action as well, Riegler discloses that a p-channel FET would have the same structure as an n-channel FET as shown in Fig. 1, but with the doping relations reversed, see [0040]. As it was expressly taught in the cited references, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been able to modify Zundel and Spring without undue experimentation to form a p-channel device instead of an n-channel device as both conductivity types were well known in the art. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had it within their ordinary capabilities to choose the desired conductivity type for the device to be protected from mobile ions such as sodium (see [0049] of Riegler and [0030] of Zundel) to provide a semiconductor device with improved field-effect-controlled components ([0006] of Zundel). Thus, the combination of references teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 and would have been motivated to form a device with the claimed structure given the teachings of Riegler and Spring as indicated in paragraph 10 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C NICELY whose telephone number is (571)270-3834. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 4 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, Steven Gauthier can be reached at (571) 270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JOSEPH C. NICELY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/JOSEPH C. NICELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights