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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibiger US 2008/0164506 in view of Hu et al., (Hu) US 2021/0028316 and Nakamura US 2016/0260703.
Regarding claim 1, Leibiger discloses and shows in FIG. 9, an integrated circuit, comprising: a N-type well (48)[0034] extending into a semiconductor substrate having a top surface; a P-type well (120)[0046] extending into the semiconductor substrate (12); a plurality of trenches (28,112)[0037] extending into the semiconductor substrate (12), the trenches filled with a conductive trench-fill material, a first subset of the trenches (28) located in the N-type well (48) and a second subset (112) of the trenches located in the P-type well (120).
Leibiger differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device a first capacitor terminal that connects to the conductive trench-fill material in the first subset of trenches and the conductive trench-fill material in the second subset of trenches; and a second capacitor terminal that connects to the N-type well and to the P-type well; an epitaxial layer between the N-type well and the P-well.
Hu shows in FIG. 1-2, and discloses a first capacitor terminal (178) that connects to the conductive trench-fill material in the first subset of trenches (126) and the conductive trench-fill material in the second subset of trenches (126); and a second capacitor terminal (178 other) that connects to the N-type well and to the P-type well.
Hu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger because it will improve the capacitance density and resistance of the device [0003].
Moreover, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to duplicate the structure of (102) to have a different polarity structure and incorporate the teaching of Hu to modify Leibiger (a device comprising a first and second set of trenches with wells of different polarities), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. 2144.04
Nakamura shows in FIG. 2, an epitaxial layer (1) [0109] between the N-type well (34) and the P-well (9a)[0117].
Nakamura is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger and Hu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger and Hu because it will improve the breaking capability of during the turn-off operation of the device [0179].
Regarding claim 2, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses an integrated circuit, wherein the N-type well (114) connects to an N-type buried layer (112).
Hu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger because it will improve the capacitance density and resistance of the device [0003].
Regarding claim 3, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses an integrated circuit wherein the P-type well (120) connects to a P-type buried layer (112).
Regarding claim 4, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses an integrated circuit, wherein the second subset of trenches (112) extend through the P-type buried layer (other 120) to a lightly doped epitaxial layer (p- layer 112).
Regarding claim 5, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses an integrated circuit wherein the second subset of trenches extends through a P-type buried layer (other 120) into a lightly doped epitaxial layer (112).
Regarding claim 6, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses an integrated circuit, further comprising a plurality of contacts (166)[Hu, 0045] each connecting to the conductive trench-fill material (136) in a corresponding one of the trenches, and an isolation structure (152) [0045] surrounding each of the contacts.
Hu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger because it will improve the capacitance density and resistance of the device [0003].
Regarding claim 7, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses an integrated circuit, wherein the N-type well (48)(N+ doping) and the P-type well (120)(P+ doping) both have an average dopant density greater (n+,p+ are higher doping)than twice an average dopant concentration of the semiconductor substrate (12).
Regarding claim 8, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses an integrated circuit, wherein the first capacitor terminal (28 or 112)) or the second capacitor terminal is connected to a transistor terminal [0046].
Regarding claim 10, Leibiger discloses and shows in FIG. 9, a method of forming an integrated circuit, comprising: forming an N-type well (48) extending into a semiconductor substrate (12) having a top surface; forming a P-type well (120) extending into the semiconductor substrate; forming a plurality of trenches (28,112) extending into the semiconductor substrate, the trenches, a first subset of the trenches (28) located in the N-type well (48) and a second subset of the trenches (112) located in the P-type well (120); filling the trenches with a conductive trench-fill material.
Leibiger differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a method of forming a device having a first capacitor terminal that connects to the conductive trench-fill material in the first subset of trenches and the conductive trench-fill material in the second subset of trenches; and a second capacitor terminal that connects to the N-type well and to the P-type well; a semiconductor substrate, the epitaxial layer having a top surface over a base wafer; an N-well extending into the epitaxial layer; a portion of the epitaxial layer between the N-type well and the P-well.
Hu shows in FIG. 1-2, and discloses a method of forming a device having a first capacitor terminal (178) that connects to the conductive trench-fill material in the first subset of trenches (126) and the conductive trench-fill material in the second subset of trenches (126); and a second capacitor terminal (178 other) that connects to the N-type well and to the P-type well.
Hu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger because it will improve the capacitance density and resistance of the device [0003].
Moreover, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to duplicate the structure of (102) to have a different polarity structure and incorporate the teaching of Hu to modify Leibiger (a device comprising a first and second set of trenches with wells of different polarities), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. 2144.04
Nakamura shows in FIG. 2, forming an epitaxial layer (1) [0109] in a semiconductor substrate, the epitaxial layer (1) having a top surface over a base wafer [0117]; an N-well extending into the epitaxial layer (1); a portion of the epitaxial layer (1) [0109] between the N-type well (34) and the P-well (9a)[0117].
Nakamura is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger and Hu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger and Hu because it will improve the breaking capability of during the turn-off operation of the device [0179].
Nakamura is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger and Hu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger and Hu because it will improve the breaking capability of during the turn-off operation of the device [0179].
Regarding claim 11, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses a method comprising an integrated circuit, wherein the N-type well (114) connects to an N-type buried layer (112).
Hu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger because it will improve the capacitance density and resistance of the device [0003].
Regarding claim 12, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses a method comprising an integrated circuit wherein the P-type well (120) connects to a P-type buried layer (112).
Regarding claim 13, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses a method comprising an integrated circuit, wherein the second subset of trenches (112) extend through the P-type buried layer (other 120) to a lightly doped epitaxial layer (p- layer 112).
Regarding claim 14, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses a method comprising an integrated circuit wherein the second subset of trenches extends through a P-type buried layer (other 120) into a lightly doped epitaxial layer (112).
Regarding claim 15, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses a method comprising an integrated circuit, further comprising a plurality of contacts (166)[Hu, 0045] each connecting to the conductive trench-fill material (136) in a corresponding one of the trenches, and an isolation structure (152) [0045] surrounding each of the contacts.
Hu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger because it will improve the capacitance density and resistance of the device [0003].
Regarding claim 16, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses a method comprising an integrated circuit, wherein the N-type well (48)(N+ doping) and the P-type well (120)(P+ doping) both have an average dopant density greater (n+,p+ are higher doping)than twice an average dopant concentration of the semiconductor substrate (12).
Regarding claim 17, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses a method comprising an integrated circuit, wherein the first capacitor terminal (28 or 112)) or the second capacitor terminal is connected to a transistor terminal [0046].
Regarding claim 19, Leibiger discloses and shows in FIG. 9, an electronic device, comprising; a first well (48)[0034] extending into the substrate, the first well (48) having the first conductivity type and a second majority carrier concentration; a second well (120)[0046] extending into the substrate (12), the second well (120) having an opposite second conductivity type; and a first plurality of trenches (28)[0037] filled with a first conductive trench-fill material, the first plurality into the first well (48); a second plurality (112)of trenches filled with a second conductive trench-fill material, the second plurality into the second well (120)
Leibiger differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device having a first conductive node connected to the first conductive trench-fill material; and second conductive node connected to the second conductive trench-fill material; an epitaxial layer over a substrate having a top surface, the epitaxial layer having a first conductivity type and a first majority carrier concentration.
Hu shows in FIG. 1-2, a first conductive node (178) connected to the first conductive trench-fill material (126); and second conductive node (178 other) connected to the second conductive trench-fill material.
Hu is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger because it will improve the capacitance density and resistance of the device [0003].
Moreover, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to duplicate the structure of (102) to have a different polarity structure and incorporate the teaching of Hu to modify Leibiger (a device comprising a first and second set of trenches with wells of different polarities), since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. 2144.04
Nakamura shows in FIG. 2, forming an epitaxial layer (1) [0109] in a semiconductor substrate having an epitaxial layer (1) over a substrate having a top surface, the epitaxial layer (1) having a first conductivity type and a first majority carrier concentration [0117].
Nakamura is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger and Hu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger and Hu because it will improve the breaking capability of during the turn-off operation of the device [0179].
Nakamura is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger and Hu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Hu in the device of Leibiger and Hu because it will improve the breaking capability of during the turn-off operation of the device [0179].
Regarding claim 20, Leibiger in view of Hu discloses an electronic device wherein the first conductivity type is P-type [0046] and the second conductivity type is N-type [0034].
Claim(s) 9,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leibiger in view of Hu as applied to claims 1-8, 10-17, and further in view of Yamaguchi et al., (Yamaguchi) US 2023/0017133.
Regarding claims 9,18, Leibiger in view of Hu differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device and a method wherein a capacitance between the first and second capacitor terminals varies by less than 500 ppm with a voltage across the first and second capacitor terminals in a range from -5 V to +5 V.
Yamaguchi discloses [0024] a device and a method wherein a capacitance between the first and second capacitor terminals varies by less than 500 ppm with a voltage across the first and second capacitor terminals in a range from -5 V to +5 V.
Yamaguchi is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Leibiger and Hu. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Yamaguchi in the device of Leibiger and Hu because it will provide a device with the ability to withstand high currents [0024].
As for the value of the capacitance and voltage, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular optimum values. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant appears to fail to argue. That is, Applicant on Page 6 stated that he/she traverses the rejections for the following reasons, but fails to disclose the reasons.
Applicant’s potential arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven B 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights