The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the embodiment of figure 9 in the reply filed on 07/29/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Although the Office indicates that "none is generic," Applicant respectfully traverses and directs attention to amended independent claim 1, which recites the features common to the disclosed embodiments, and submits that claim 1 as amended is a generic claim readable on each of the identified species. Claims 2 and 4 are amended to depend from claim 1, such that claims 2 through 5 each now require all of the limitations of claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that claims 2 through 5 are sufficiently related to claim 1 that they may be examined together with the elected species, and that an election among them is not required. Withdrawal of the Election of Species Requirement is respectfully requested. Applicant intends to request rejoinder of any withdrawn claims upon an indication that claim 1 is allowable, and requests that claims 2 through 5 remain pending for that purpose”.
This is not found persuasive because the application, as filed, included five independent and distinct embodiments and three independent claims such that no claim was generic. Applicants amended the claims such that claim 1 is now generic.
Although the application now includes only one generic claim this does not mean that the application does not include five independent and distinct embodiments.
It is noted that applicants have the right to reinstate the two deleted independent claims after the next office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no support in the embodiment of figure 2 for the claimed limitation of “a plurality of third contacts formed on the third semiconductor region such that the plurality of third contacts penetrates the insulating layer and reaches the second conductive film”, as recited in claim 1, because figure 9 does not depict a plurality of third contacts. In fact, the disclosure does not mention the elements “a plurality of third contacts”.
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 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.
Claims 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skocki (7,129,558) in view of Farrenkopf et al. (5,899,714) and Goldman (3,820,235).
Regarding claim 1, Skocki teaches in figure 3 and related text a semiconductor device comprising:
a first semiconductor region 24 of a first conductivity type N formed in a semiconductor substrate 26;
a second semiconductor region (small part of element 34 which is located directly under element 22. Note that the term “region” does not provide explicit boundaries) of a second conductivity type P opposite to the first conductivity type, and arranged on an upper surface of the semiconductor substrate;
a first conductive film 22/14 formed on the first semiconductor region 24 and the second semiconductor region 34 such that the first conductive film directly contacts with both of the first semiconductor region and the second semiconductor region;
an insulating layer 30 formed on the first conductive film;
a plurality of first contacts 18, 40 and a plurality of second contacts (another 18, 40) formed on the second semiconductor region such that the plurality of first contacts;
a third semiconductor region 28 of the first conductivity N formed on the first semiconductor region 24, arranged on the upper surface of the semiconductor substrate and outside of the buried insulating film in plan view:
a second conductive film 12 formed on the third semiconductor region 28 such that the second conductive film directly contacts with the third semiconductor region: and
a plurality of third contacts (still another 18, 40, see figure 1) formed on the third semiconductor region 28 such that the plurality of third contacts penetrates the insulating layer and reaches the second conductive film,
wherein the plurality of first contacts is along one side of the second semiconductor region in plan view, and
wherein, the plurality of second contacts is adjacent to the plurality of first contacts in plan view.
Skocki does not teach a buried insulating film formed on the first semiconductor region such that the buried insulating film surrounds the second semiconductor region in plan view; and wherein the plurality of second contacts 18/40 reaches the first conductive film 22/14.
Farrenkopf et al. teach in figure 11f.3 and related text a buried insulating film 44 formed on the first semiconductor region such that the buried insulating film 44 surrounds the second semiconductor region in plan view;
Farrenkopf et al. and Skocki are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor regions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Skocki because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form a buried insulating film formed on the first semiconductor region such that the buried insulating film surrounds the second semiconductor region in plan view, as taught by Farrenkopf et al., in Skocki’s device in order to provide better protection to the device.
Regarding the claimed limitation of “wherein the plurality of second contacts reaches the first conductive film”, Skocki teaches in figure 1 and related text that some of the plurality of second contacts 18 reaches the first conductive film 14.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form some of the plurality of second contacts reaches the first conductive film, in Skocki’s device in order to improve the contact resistance of the device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
8/9/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights