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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on November 09th, 2023 has been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Radio frequency device comprising a shielding structure extending from a gate structure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0246756).
In re claim 1, Singh discloses a radio-frequency (RF) device, comprising: a gate structure 611A extending along a first direction on a substrate 41 (see paragraphs [0034], [0036] and figs. 13-14); a source/drain region (52/53) adjacent to two sides of the gate structure 611A (see paragraphs [0017], [0034] and figs. 13-14); a shallow trench isolation (STI) 66 around the source/drain region (52/53) (see paragraph [0034] and figs. 13-14); and a shielding structure extending from the gate structure 611A and overlapping an edge of the STI 66 (see paragraph [0036] and marked-up version of fig. 14 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Singh discloses wherein the gate structure 611A comprises a T-shape (see paragraph [0036] and fig. 14, note that, the gate structure 611A excluding the shielding structure is a T-shape).
In re claim 3, as applied to claim 2 above, Singh discloses wherein the T-shape comprises: a vertical portion extending along the first direction; and a horizontal portion extending along a second direction (see paragraph [0036] and fig. 14).
In re claim 4, as applied to claim 3 above, Singh discloses wherein the RF device further comprising a body region 54 adjacent to the horizontal portion (see paragraph [0036] and fig. 14).
In re claim 5, as applied to claim 4 above, Singh discloses wherein the body region 54 and the source/drain region (52/53) comprise different conductive type (see paragraph [0034] and fig. 14, note that, the source/drain region (52/53) is a first type conductivity whereas the body region 54 is of a second type conductivity).
In re claim 6, as applied to claim 3 above, Singh discloses wherein the shielding structure is extending along the second direction (see paragraph [0034] and fig. 14).
In re claim 7, as applied to claim 3 above, Singh discloses wherein a width of the shielding structure is equal to a width of the horizontal portion (see paragraph [0036] and fig. 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0246756) in view of Shi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0357886).
In re claim 10, Singh discloses a radio-frequency (RF) device, comprising: a gate structure 611A extending along a first direction on a substrate 41 (see paragraphs [0034], [0036] and figs. 13-14); a source/drain region (52/53) adjacent to two sides of the gate structure 611A (see paragraphs [0034], [0036] and figs. 13-14); and a shallow trench isolation (STI) 66 around the source/drain region (52/53) (see paragraph [0034] and figs. 13-14).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Singh is silent to wherein a doped region extending across the gate structure and overlapping an edge of the STI.
However, Shi discloses in a same field of endeavor, a radio-frequency (RF) device including, inter-alia, a gate electrode 124 extending along a first direction on a substrate and a doped region 111b extending across the gate structure and overlapping an edge of the STI 114 (see paragraphs [0073], [0075], [0080] and fig. 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
802
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the technique as taught by Shi into the radio-frequency device of Singh in order to enable a doped region extending across the gate structure and overlapping an edge of the STI in Singh to be formed because in doing so a radio frequency device having reduced parasitic and enhanced performance can be obtain (see Abstract and paragraphs [0018], [0024], [0093] of Shi). Furthermore, it would have been obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398 (2007). “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill.” Id.
In re claim 11, as applied to claim 10 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein the gate structure comprises a T-shape (see paragraphs [0034], [0036] and figs. 11 and 14 of Singh and paragraph [0080] and fig. 9 of Shi).
In re claim 12, as applied to claim 11 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein the T-shape comprises: a vertical portion extending along the first direction; and a horizontal portion extending along a second direction (see paragraphs [0034], [0036] and figs. 11 and 14 of Singh and paragraph [0080] and fig. 9 of Shi).
In re claim 13, as applied to claim 12 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein the RF device further comprising a body region 54 adjacent to the horizontal portion (see paragraphs [0034], [0036] and fig. 14 of Singh).
In re claim 14, as applied to claim 13 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein the body region 54 and the source/drain region (52/53) comprise different conductive type (see paragraph [0034] and fig. 14 of Singh, note that, the source/drain region (52/53) is a first type conductivity whereas the body region 54 is of a second type conductivity).
In re claim 15, as applied to claim 12 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein the doped region 111b is extending along the second direction (see paragraph [0080] and fig. 22 of Shi).
In re claim 16, as applied to claim 12 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein a width of the doped region 111b is greater than a width of the horizontal portion (see paragraph [0080] and fig. 11 of Shi). Furthermore, it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shape of the doped region was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Additionally, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and MPEP 2144.04.
In re claim 17, as applied to claim 10 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein the doped region 111b and the source/drain region (120/122) comprise different conductive type (see paragraph [0080] and fig. 11 of Shi, note that, the doped region 111b is p-type and the source/drain region (120/122) is n-type).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0246756).
In re claims 8 and 9, as applied to claim 1 above, Singh is silent to wherein a width of the shielding structure is less than a width of the horizontal portion and wherein the shielding structure comprises a funnel shape.
However, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art base on the technique of Singh to be motivated to optimize the width of the shielding structure to be less than the width of the horizontal portion and to optimize the shape of the shielding structure to be a funnel shape since it is respectfully submitted that, the configuration regarding about the shape of the shielding structure was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Additionally, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harrington, III et al. U.S. Pub. 2022/0130997 April 28, 2022.
Wu et al. U.S. Patent 10,211,217 February 19, 2019.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892