DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species 3, Sub-species A, claims 1-15 and 21-25 in the reply filed on March 11, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 have been cancelled by the Applicant. Action on the merits is as follows:
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 and 23-25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/273,960. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
In regards to claim 1, 19/273,960 (claims 1, 2) discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: a first well region laterally separated from a second well region in a substrate; a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure laterally between the first well region and the second well region in the substrate; a first implant region of a third dopant type opposite to a first dopant type of the first well region in the substrate, and disposed vertically lower than the STI structure; and a second implant region of a fourth dopant type opposite to a second dopant type of the second well region in the substrate, and disposed vertically lower than the STI structure.
In regards to claim 2, 19/273,960 (claim 3) discloses further comprising: a third implant region of the third dopant type in the substrate, disposed over the first implant region and laterally between the first well region and the STI structure; and a fourth implant region of the fourth dopant type in the substrate, disposed over the second implant region and laterally between the second well region and the STI structure.
In regards to claim 3, 19/273,960 (claim 4) discloses wherein a first dopant concentration in the first implant region is higher than a third dopant concentration in the third implant region, and wherein a second dopant concentration in the second implant region is higher than a fourth dopant concentration in the fourth implant region.
In regards to claim 4, 19/273,960 (claim 8) discloses wherein the first dopant type and the second dopant type are identical.
In regards to claim 5, 19/273,960 (claim 9) discloses wherein the first dopant type and the second dopant type are opposite.
In regards to claim 6, 19/273,960 (claims 5, 15, 20) discloses wherein the STI structure surrounds each of the first well region and the second well region, wherein the first implant region is disposed laterally between the first well region and a lateral center of the STI structure, and wherein the second implant region is disposed laterally between the second well region and the lateral center of the STI structure.
In regards to claim 8, 19/273,960 (claim 6) discloses wherein a ratio of a width of the first implant region to a width of the STI structure is in a range from 5/100 to 95/100, and wherein a ratio of a width of the second implant region to the width of the STI structure is in a range from 5/100 to 95/100.
In regards to claim 9, 19/273,960 (claims 7, 16) discloses further comprising a first complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) device formed in the first well region and a second CMOS device formed in the second well region, wherein the first CMOS device comprises a first planar MOSFET transistor, and wherein the second CMOS device comprises a second planar MOSFET transistor.
In regards to claim 10, 19/273,960 (claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19) discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a first well region laterally separated from a second well region in a substrate; a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure laterally between the first well region and the second well region in the substrate; a first deep implant region of a first dopant type opposite to a dopant type of the first well region, and vertically lower than the STI structure; a second deep implant region of a second dopant type opposite to a dopant type of the second well region, and vertically lower than the STI structure; a first shallow implant region of the first dopant type, vertically over the first deep implant region, and laterally between the first well region and the STI structure; and a second shallow implant region of the second dopant type, vertically over the second deep implant region, and laterally between the second well region and the STI structure.
In regards to claim 11, 19/273,960 (claims 4, 12) discloses wherein a dopant concentration in the first deep implant region is higher than a dopant concentration in the first shallow implant region, and wherein a dopant concentration in the second deep implant region is higher than a dopant concentration in the second shallow implant region.
In regards to claim 12, 19/273,960 (claim 16) discloses further comprising a first planar CMOS device in the first well region and a second planar CMOS device in the second well region.
In regards to claim 13, 19/273,960 (claim 13) discloses wherein the first dopant type of the first deep implant region and the second dopant type of the second deep implant region are opposite to each other.
In regards to claim 14, 19/273,960 (claim 14) discloses wherein the first dopant type of the first deep implant region and the second dopant type of the second deep implant region are identical.
In regards to claim 15, 19/273,960 (claims 5, 15, 20) discloses wherein the STI structure surrounds each of the first well region and the second well region.
In regards to claim 23, 19/273,960 (claims 3, 19) discloses further comprising: a third implant region of the third dopant type in the substrate, disposed over the first implant region and laterally between the first well region and the STI structure; and a fourth implant region of the fourth dopant type in the substrate, disposed over the second implant region and laterally between the second well region and the STI structure.
In regards to claim 24, 19/273,960 (claims 4, 12) discloses wherein a first dopant concentration in the first implant region is higher than a third dopant concentration in the third implant region, and wherein a second dopant concentration in the second implant region is higher than a fourth dopant concentration in the fourth implant region.
In regards to claim 25, 19/273,960 (claims 5, 15, 20) discloses wherein the STI structure surrounds each of the first well region and the second well region.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 21, 22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karalkar et al. (Karalkar) (US 2023/0141491 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Karalkar (Figs. 3A, 3D and associated text and items) discloses a semiconductor device (items 300A, 300D), comprising: a first well region (item 315 on the left or right) laterally separated from a second well region (item 315 on the left or right) in a substrate (item 301); a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure (item 399) laterally between the first well region (item 315 on the left or right) and the second well region (item 315 on the left or right) in the substrate (item 301); a first implant region (items 331 or 332) of a third dopant type (n-type, paragraph 24) opposite to a first dopant type (p-type, paragraph 21) of the first well region (item 315 on the left or right) in the substrate (item 301), and disposed vertically lower than the STI structure (item 399); and a second implant region (items 331 or 332) of a fourth dopant type opposite to a second dopant type (n-type, paragraph 24) of the second well region in the substrate (item 301), and disposed vertically lower than the STI structure (item 399).
In regards to claim 4, Karalkar (Figs. 3A, 3D and associated text and items) discloses wherein the first dopant type (p-type, paragraph 21) and the second dopant type (p-type, paragraph 21) are identical.
In regards to claim 6, Karalkar (Figs. 3A, 3D and associated text and items) discloses wherein the STI structure (item 399) surrounds each of the first well region (item 315 on the left or right) and the second well region (item 315 on the left or right), wherein the first implant region (items 331 or 332) is disposed laterally between the first well region (item 315 on the left or right) and a lateral center of the STI structure (item 399), and wherein the second implant region (items 331 or 332) is disposed laterally between the second well region (item 315 on the left or right)and the lateral center of the STI structure (item 399).
In regards to claim 7, Karalkar (Figs. 3A, 3D and associated text and items) discloses wherein the STI structure (item 399) is in a shape of inverted trapezoid.
In regards to claim 21, Karalkar (Figs. 3A, 3D and associated text and items) discloses a semiconductor device (items 300A, 300D) comprising: a first well region (item 315 on the left or right) laterally separated from a second well region (item 315 on the left or right) in a substrate (item 301); a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure (item 399) laterally between the first well region (item 315 on the left or right) and the second well region (item 315 on the left or right) in the substrate (item 301); a first implant region (items 331 or 332) of a third dopant type opposite (n-type) to a first dopant type (p-type) of the first well region (item 315 on the left or right) in the substrate (item 301), and disposed vertically lower than the STI structure (item 399); a second implant region (items 331 or 332) of a fourth dopant type (n-type) opposite to a second dopant type (p-type) of the second well region (item 315 on the left or right) in the substrate (item 301), and disposed vertically lower than the STI structure (item 399); and a first source/drain region (items 316, 317) having a bottom surface and a side surface covered by the first well region (item 315 on the left or right) or the second well region (item 315 on the left or right).
In regards to claim 22, Karalkar (Figs. 3A, 3D and associated text and items) discloses further comprising a second source/drain region (items 316, 317) having a bottom surface and a side surface covered by the first well region (item 315 on the left or right) or the second well region (item 315 on the left or right).
In regards to claim 25, Karalkar (Figs. 3A, 3D and associated text and items) discloses wherein the STI structure (item 399) surrounds each of the first well region (item 315 on the left or right) and the second well region (item 315 on the left or right).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karalkar et al. (Karalkar) (US 2023/0141491 A1).
In regards to claim 8, Karalkar does not specifically disclose wherein a ratio of a width of the first implant region to a width of the STI structure is in a range from 5/100 to 95/100, and wherein a ratio of a width of the second implant region to the width of the STI structure is in a range from 5/100 to 95/100.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention to include a ratio of a width of the first implant region to a width of the STI structure being in a range from 5/100 to 95/100, and wherein a ratio of a width of the second implant region to the width of the STI structure being in a range from 5/100 to 95/100, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Examiner notes that the Applicant has not given any criticality as to where any value within the ranges claimed yields an unexpected advantage and/or result.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karalkar et al. (Karalkar) (US 2023/0141491 A1) in view of Disney et al. (Disney) (US 8,089,129 B2) or Mahalingan et al. (Mahalingam) (US 2023/0134131 A1).
In regards to claim 5, Karalkar does not specifically disclose wherein the first dopant type and the second dopant type are opposite.
Disney (Figs. 1-5, and associated text and items) discloses wherein the first dopant type (items 104/n-type or 105/p-type) and the second dopant type (items 104/n-type or 105/p-type) are opposite.
Mahalingan (Fig. 2, and associated text and items) discloses wherein the first dopant type (items 223/n-type or 220/p-type) and the second dopant type (items 223/n-type or 220/p-type) are opposite.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Disney or Mahalingam for the purpose of having a device that includes NMOS and PMOS transistors (col. 3,lines 40-60, Disney, paragraph 10, Mahalingam).
In regards to claim 9, Karalkar as modified by Disney (Figs. 1-5, and associated text and items) or Mahalingan (Fig. 2, and associated text and items) discloses further comprising a first complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) device (items 100A, 100B, Disney, item 207, Mahalingam) formed in the first well region (items 104, Disney, item 223, Mahalingam) and a second CMOS device (item 100C, Disney, item 206, Mahalingam) formed in the second well region (item 105, Disney, item 220, Mahalingam), wherein the first CMOS device (items 100A, 100B, Disney, item 207, Mahalingam) comprises a first planar MOSFET transistor, and wherein the second CMOS device (item 100C, Disney, item 206, Mahalingam) comprises a second planar MOSFET transistor.
EXAMINER’S COMMENTS
Examiner notes that claims 15-20 would probably be allowable if a terminal disclaimer was filed and approved. None of the current prior art of record discloses “a first shallow implant region of the first dopant type, vertically over the first deep implant region, and laterally between the first well region and the STI structure; and a second shallow implant region of the second dopant type, vertically over the second deep implant region, and laterally between the second well region and the STI structure”. The Examiner also suggests writing dependent claims 2 and 23 in independent form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TELLY D GREEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3204. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
TELLY D. GREEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/TELLY D GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898 May 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights