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 .
Remarks
The amendment filed on April 09th, 2026 has been acknowledged. By this amendment, claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-17 are pending in the present application in which claims 1 and 10 are in independent form. Applicant’s amendment to the title has been accepted.
New Grounds of Rejection
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) 1-9 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 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, wherein a width of the shielding structure is equal to a horizontal portion of the gate structure (see paragraph [0036] and marked-up version of fig. 14 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Singh is silent to wherein a width of the shielding structure is less than a width of the source/drain region.
However, Shi discloses in a same field of endeavor, a radio-frequency (RF) device, including, inter-alia, a gate structure 124 extending along a first direction on a substrate; a source/drain region (120,122) adjacent to two sides of the gate structure 124; and a shielding structure extending from the gate structure 124, wherein a width of the shielding structure is less than a width of the source/drain region (120,122) (see paragraph [0080] and fig. 11, note that a width of the shielding structure that is extending from the gate structure 124 is narrower than a width of the source/drain region (120,122)).
PNG
media_image2.png
537
582
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 (RF) device of Singh in order to enable wherein a width of the shielding structure is less than a width of the source/drain region in Singh to be formed in order to obtain transistors having reduced parasitic and enhanced performance (see Abstract 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 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein the gate structure 611A comprises a T-shape (see paragraph [0036] and fig. 14 of Singh, 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 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 paragraph [0036] and fig. 14 of Singh).
In re claim 4, as applied to claim 3 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein the RF device further comprising a body region 54 adjacent to the horizontal portion (see paragraph [0036] and fig. 14 of Singh).
In re claim 5, as applied to claim 4 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 6, as applied to claim 3 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein the shielding structure is extending along the second direction (see paragraph [0034] and fig. 14 of Singh).
In re claim 7, as applied to claim 3 above, Singh in combination with Shi discloses wherein a width of the shielding structure is equal to a width of the horizontal portion (see paragraph [0036] and fig. 14 of Singh).
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 are allowed over prior art of record.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
It is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the independent claim 10 as a whole taken alone or in combination, in particular, the closest prior art of record to Singh et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0246756) discloses a radio-frequency (RF) device, including, inter-alia, 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) and Shi et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0357886) discloses 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).
However, Singh and Shi, as a whole taken alone or in combination does not discloses “a doped region extending across the gate structure and overlapping an edge of the STI and the source/drain region”, as recited in independent claim 10.
Claims 11-17 also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claim.
Response to Applicant’s Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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 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
Prosecution Insights