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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "when" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) before the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the “the first threshold value is adjustable by applying a biasing voltage at the buried terminal.” It appears that the claim directed to the method steps of using the device. And according to MPEP 2173.05 (p), II, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "when" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the gate layer" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore this limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the NW layer" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore this limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the gate layer" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore this limitation renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-19 are indefinite due to their dependence on indefinite claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mahajan (US 2022/0059525).
Regarding claim 1, Mahajan discloses an electrostatic discharge protection device comprising an N-type well layer (Fig.1, numeral 22; [0015]) having a first positive N-type diffusion region (36) ([0020]) coupled to an anode terminal ([0022]), a P-type well layer (20) ([0013]) having a second positive N-type diffusion region (34) coupled to a cathode terminal ([0022]), a substrate layer (12); a N-type buried layer (18) provided between the P-type well layer (20) and the substrate layer (12) , wherein the N-type buried layer (18) has a third N+ diffusion region (32) coupled to a buried layer terminal ([0021]); and a dielectric layer (42) coupled to a gate terminal (40); wherein the N-type well layer (22) is provided above the P-type well layer (20); and wherein a parasitic circuit is activated within the N-type well layer and the P-type well layer when the anode terminal receives a voltage equal or greater than a first threshold value ([0025]) .
Regarding claim 2, Mahajan wherein the first threshold value is adjustable by applying a biasing voltage at the buried layer terminal (see 112 rejections above).
Regarding claim 5, Mahajan discloses wherein the dielectric layer is a gate oxide layer coupled to the gate terminal ([0024]).
Regarding claim 6, Mahajan discloses wherein when a positive voltage is applied to the anode terminal above the first threshold value, a current pass from the first positive N-type diffusion region to the second positive N-type diffusion region via the parasitic circuit ([0025]; see 112 rejections above).
Regarding claim 11, Mahajan discloses wherein the N-type well layer (22) extends between a first end provided at an edge of the device (10), and a second end located below the first positive P-type diffusion region (26).
Regarding claim 13, Mahajan discloses wherein the N-type well layer (22) extends between a first end provided at an edge of the device (101) and a second end located below the gate layer (44).
Regarding claim 16, Mahajan discloses a blocking layer (Fig.1, numeral 44) covering at least partially a top surface of the N-type well layer (22).
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.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Solaro (US 2019/0057961).
Regarding claim 3, Mahajan discloses wherein the N-type well layer has a first positive P-type diffusion region (26) coupled to a floating terminal; and wherein the P-type well layer (20) has a second positive P-type diffusion region (30) ([0020]).
Mahajan does not disclose that the second positive P-type diffusion region coupled to a bulk terminal.
Solaro however discloses that the second positive P-type diffusion region coupled to a bulk terminal (Fig.1, numeral 141).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mahajan with Solaro to have the second positive P-type diffusion region coupled to a bulk terminal for the purpose of LDOMS device (Solaro, Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Solaro discloses comprising a biasing resistor coupling the buried layer terminal to the bulk terminal (Fig.2, numeral 201).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lai (US 2013/0207179).
Regarding claim 17, Mahajan does not disclose wherein the blocking layer is a silicide block layer or a resist protective oxide.
Lai however discloses wherein the blocking layer is a silicide block layer ([0024]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mahajan with Lai to have the blocking layer as a silicide block layer for the purpose of improving ESD performance (Lai, [0024]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2016/0172489).
Regarding claim 18, Mahajan does not disclose wherein the first threshold value is a function of an overlap between the NW layer and the gate layer.
Chen however discloses wherein the first threshold value is a function of an overlap between the NW layer and the gate layer ([0013]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mahajan with Chen to have the first threshold value is a function of an overlap between the NW layer and the gate layer for the purpose achieving higher threshold voltages (Chen, [0013]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Song (US 2024/10105711).
Regarding claim 19, Mahajan does not disclose wherein the device has a holding voltage, and wherein the holding voltage is a function of a diffusion length of the first positive P-type diffusion region.
Song however discloses wherein the device has a holding voltage, and wherein the holding voltage is a function of a diffusion length of the first positive P-type diffusion region ([0039]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Mahajan with Song to have a holding voltage, and wherein the holding voltage is a function of a diffusion length of the first positive P-type diffusion region for the purpose of forming ESD protection device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 12, 14, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the parasitic circuit comprises a first parasitic transistor coupled to a second parasitic transistor as required by claim 7.
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the first positive P-type diffusion region is segmented along the depth axis to form a segmented region having a plurality of diffusions regions alternating between positive P-type and positive N-type as required by claim 12
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest wherein the first positive P-type diffusion region is segmented along the depth axis to form a segmented region having a plurality of diffusions regions alternating between positive P-type and positive N-type, and wherein the segmented region is juxtaposed to a non-segmented positive P-type region as required by claim 14.
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest at least one of a gate resistor coupling the gate terminal to the cathode terminal, and a gate capacitor coupling the gate terminal to the anode terminal as required by claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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, 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights