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 § 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.
Claims 9, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21-22, 24, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Birner (US Pub. No. 2014/0042537).
Regarding claim 9, in FIGs. 1-10, Birner discloses a method of forming a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a drain drift region (20, paragraph [0022]) in a semiconductor material layer (11, paragraph [0016]), the drain drift region having a first conductivity type (N) and the semiconductor material layer having a second, opposite conductivity type (P); forming a body region (12) in the semiconductor material layer, the body region having the second conductivity type (P, paragraph [0016]); forming a source region (14) in the body region, the source region having the first conductivity type (N); forming a gate electrode (22) over the semiconductor material layer between the drain drift region and the source region, the gate electrode extending partway over the body region; and implanting at least one of carbon, nitrogen, and fluorine (26, paragraphs [0026] and [0039]-[0040]) into the body region on a source side of the gate electrode (see FIG. 8, paragraphs [0039]-[0040]).
Regarding claim 12, in FIGs. 1-10, Birner discloses that carbon is implanted with a dose of 2x1013 cm-2 to 1x1015 cm-2 (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 14, in FIGs. 1-10, Birner discloses that nitrogen is implanted with a dose of 2x1013 cm-2 to 2x1015 cm-2 (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 16, in FIGs. 1-10, Birner discloses that fluorine is implanted with a dose of 5x1013 cm-2 to 4x1015 cm-2 (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 19, Birner discloses that the first conductivity type is p-type and the second conductivity type is n-type (the doping concentrations of all of the regions can be reversed, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 21, in FIGs. 1-10, Birner discloses a method of forming an integrated circuit including a p-type lateral-diffusion MOS (PLDMOS) transistor, comprising: forming a p-type drift region (20, paragraphs [0022]; note: the doping concentrations of all of the regions can be reversed, paragraph [0017]) in a lightly-doped p-type epitaxial layer (12, paragraph [0016]); forming an n-type well region (18; implant 40 can be performed before or after the carbon implant paragraph [0041]; note: the doping concentrations of all of the regions can be reversed, paragraph [0017]) in a body region of the epitaxial layer; forming a gate electrode (22) over the epitaxial layer overlapping the n-type well region and the p-type drift region; implanting one or more of carbon, nitrogen, and fluorine into the n-type well region (paragraphs [0040]-[0041]); forming a p-type source region (14; note: the doping concentrations of all of the regions can be reversed, paragraph [0017]) in the n-type well region; and forming a p-type drain region (16; note: the doping concentrations of all of the regions can be reversed, paragraph [0017]) in the p-type drift region.
Regarding claim 22, in FIGs. 1-10, Birner discloses forming a dielectric structure (24, paragraph [0030]) extending into (or overlapping with) the drift region, wherein the gate electrode extends over the dielectric structure.
Regarding claim 24, in FIGs. 1-10, Birner discloses that carbon is implanted with a dose of 2x1013 cm-2 to 1x1015 cm-2 (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 26, in FIGs. 1-10, Birner discloses that nitrogen is implanted with a dose of 2x1013 cm-2 to 2x1015 cm-2 (paragraph [0032]).
Regarding claim 28, in FIGs. 1-10, Birner discloses that fluorine is implanted with a dose of 5x1013 cm-2 to 4x1015 cm-2 (paragraph [0032]).
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.
Claims 10-11, 17-18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birner (US Pub. No. 2014/0042537) in view of Chen (US Pub. No. 2006/0284249).
Regarding claim 10, Birner appears not to explicitly disclose that carbon and nitrogen are implanted into the body region.
Chen discloses a similar device wherein carbon and nitrogen are used to retard the diffusion of p-type impurities (paragraph [0015]).
To retard the diffusion of p-type impurities it 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 to implant carbon and nitrogen into the body region.
Regarding claim 11, Birner appears not to explicitly disclose that carbon, nitrogen, and fluorine each implanted into the body region.
Chen discloses a similar device wherein carbon and nitrogen are used to retard the diffusion of p-type impurities and nitrogen and fluorine are used to retard diffusion of n-type impurities (paragraph [0015]).
To retard the diffusion of p-type and n-type impurities it 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 to implant carbon, nitrogen, and fluorine into the body region.
Regarding claims 17-18 and 29, Birner appears not to explicitly disclose implanting an amorphizing species into the body region before implanting the at least one of carbon, nitrogen, and fluorine, wherein the amorphizing species includes indium or germanium.
Chen discloses a similar device wherein an amorphizing species, comprising germanium, is implanted into the body region before implanting the at least one of carbon, nitrogen, and fluorine to prevent subsequently doped impurities from channeling through spaces between the crystal lattice structure and reaching depths greater than desired (paragraph [0022]).
To prevent subsequently doped impurities from channeling through spaces between the crystal lattice structure and reaching depths greater than desired it 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 to implant germanium as an amorphizing species into the body region before implanting any dopants, including the at least one of carbon, nitrogen, and fluorine.
Claims 13, 15, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birner (US Pub. No. 2014/0042537).
Regarding claims 13 and 25, Birner appears not to explicitly disclose that carbon is implanted at an implant angle within a range of 2 degrees to 45 degrees.
However, Birner discloses that carbon is implanted at an implant angle that overlaps or lies inside the claimed range (paragraphs [0032] and [0040]).
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05, I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Accordingly, it 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 to implant carbon at an implant angle within a range of 2 degrees to 45 degrees.
Regarding claims 15 and 27, Birner appears not to explicitly disclose that nitrogen is implanted at an implant angle within a range of 2 degrees to 45 degrees.
However, Birner discloses that nitrogen is implanted at an implant angle that overlaps or lies inside the claimed range (paragraph [0032]).
According to well established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.05, I), “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Accordingly, it 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 to implant nitrogen at an implant angle within a range of 2 degrees to 45 degrees.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birner (US Pub. No. 2014/0042537) in view of Malhi (US Patent No. 5,304,827).
Regarding claim 23, Birner appears not to explicitly disclose that the dielectric structure is a local oxidation of silicon (LOCOS) structure.
The art however well recognized a local oxidation of silicon (LOCOS) structure to be suitable for use as a dielectric structure in an LDMOS. See, for example, Mahli, FIG. 6, col. 4, lines 4-9.
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the Birner disclosed dielectric structure as a local oxidation of silicon (LOCOS) structure for its recognized suitability as a dielectric structure in an LDMOS.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that “the region 26 is on a drain side of gate electrode 22.”
This argument is not persuasive. At least FIG. 8 and paragraphs [0039]-[0040] of Birner discloses implanting at least one of carbon, nitrogen, and fluorine into the body region on a source side of the gate electrode. As such the method disclosed by Birner is commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 TUCKER J WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3234. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/TUCKER J WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891