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 in the reply filed on 06/18/26 is acknowledged.
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, 6-10, 12-13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hioka et al., US 2016/0209480.
Hioka et al. shows the invention as claimed including a structure comprising:
A semiconductor material 110;
A buried isolation layer 170 below the semiconductor material;
A deep trench structure comprising conductive material 130 and within the semiconductor material and contacting the buried isolation layer;
A plurality of shallower trench structures 160 comprising the conductive material and partially within the semiconductor material and remote from the buried isolation layer; and a doped region 141 within the semiconductor material and adjacent to the plurality of shallower trench structures (see figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 0032-0062).
Concerning dependent claim 6, note that Hioka et al. discloses further comprising shallow trench structures (for example, 160) which isolate the deep trench structure (for example, 130) from the plurality of shallow trench structures (see, for example, figs. 1 and 4).
With respect to dependent claim 7, note that Hioka et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of shallower trench structures (for example, 150, are on sides of the doped region 140 (see fig. 3).
As to dependent claim 8, note that Hioka et al. discloses wherein each of the plurality of shallower trench structures (for example, 150) are adjacent corners of the doped region 160 (see fig. 4).
Regarding dependent claim 9, note that wherein the plurality of shallower trench structures 150 are isolated within a shallow trench structure which surrounds the doped region 140 (see fig. 3).
As to dependent claim 10, note that Hioka et al. discloses wherein the plurality of shallower trench structures are isolated within a second doped region of opposite dopant type than the doped region.
As to dependent claim 11, note that Hioka et al. further discloses a second doped region which surrounds the doped region, wherein the second doped region comprises opposite dopant type than the doped region.
With respect to independent claim 12, Hioka et al. discloses a structure that comprises:
A first contact 130 having a first depth in a semiconductor substrate;
A plurality of second contacts (161 or 140) having a second depth in the semiconductor substrate and being adjacent to the first contact;
A third contact 160 having a third depth in the semiconductor substrate and being shallower than the first depth and the second depth; and
A buried isolation structure 170 within the semiconductor substrate which contacts the first contact (see figs. 1-4 and paragraphs 0032-0062).
With respect to dependent claim 13, note that Hioka et al. discloses wherein the second depth (for example, region 140) is shallower than the first depth and the second depth is remotely positioned from the buried isolation structure.
Concerning dependent claim 17, the plurality of second contacts 161 are horizontally and vertically positioned with respect to each one at opposing sides of the third contact 160 (see fig. 4).
Regarding dependent claim 18, note that Hioka et al. discloses wherein the plurality of second contacts are horizontally and vertically positioned with respect to each one at corners of the third contact (again, see fig. 4).
As to dependent claim 19, note that the plurality of second contacts (161 and 140) and the first contact 130 are isolated from one another by a shallow trench isolation structure.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hioka et al., US 2016/0209480 in view of Vecchi et al., US 2021/0003641.
Hioka et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose wherein a second doped region surrounds the doped region, wherein the second dopant region contains an opposite conductivity type. Vecchi et al. discloses p-doped regions POL1 disposed outside the n-type contact regions of a Hall sensor structure (see fig. 6 and paragraphs 0057-0071). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Hioka et al. so as to form the claimed second dopant region as suggested by Vecchi et al. because in such a way adjacent sensor devices can be effectively isolated.
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hioka et al., US 2016/0209480 in view of Stoica et al., “A Dual Vertical Latch with Direction Detection”.
Hioka et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose where the trench structures comprise an insulator liner which isolates the conductive material from the semiconductor substrate. Stoica et al. discloses where the trench structures comprise an insulator liner which isolates the conductive material from the semiconductor substrate (see, for example, fig. 1 and its description). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Hioka et al. so as to comprise the insulator liner in the trench structures as disclosed by Stoica et al. because this shows these particular trenches are capable of detecting and sensing magnetic fields.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hioka et al., US 2016/0209480 in view of Stoica et al., “A Dual Vertical Latch with Direction Detection” as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Vecchi et al., US 2021/0003641.
Hioka et al. and Stoica et al. are applied as above but do not expressly disclose wherein the conductive material comprises doped polysilicon material. Vecchi et al. discloses a Hall sensor whereby the trenches are filled with polysilicon material POL 1 (see paragraph 0066). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the device of Hioka et al. modified by Stoica et al. so as to comprise a Hall sensor with trench regions formed of polysilicon because Vecchi et al. shows this particular configuration to be appropriate for Hall sensors.
Concerning dependent claim 4, note that in Hioka et al. modified by Stoica et al. and Vecchi et al. the doped polysilicon material can be the same dopant type as the buried isolation material and semiconductor material.
Regarding dependent claim 5 and the relative concentration of the polysilicon and the buried layer, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
As to dependent claim 16, note that Hioka et al. modified by Stoica et al. and Vecchi et al. discloses wherein the first depth to the buried isolation structure comprises a same dopant type as the doped polysilicon material and the semiconductor substrate (see, for example, paragraphs 0034-0036 of Hioka et al.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sun et al., US 2020/0292631 discloses a Hall effect sensor formed with trenched contact regions, and Liu et al., US 2019/0036011 discloses forming a Hall effect sensor in a well region in a substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
September 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights