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 of Species III in the reply filed on 9/15/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “trench;”. For the purpose of examination, it is considered as “trench.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1,8-9,11,13-14,17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120299146 A1 (Tani) in view of US 2010/0320501 A1 (Gendron).
Regarding claim 1, Tani shows (Fig. 2B) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
388
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
depositing an epitaxial layer (216, para 24) on a semiconductor substrate (205+205a, para 21) of a first conductivity type (P), wherein the epitaxial layer is of a second conductivity type N opposite to the first conductivity type P, and depositing the epitaxial layer comprises:
depositing a first epi-layer (206a, para 24) of a first doping concentration, a second epi-layer (206b, para 24) of a second doping concentration and a third epi-layer (206c, para 24) of a third doping concentration, such that a first P-N junction is formed at an interface between the semiconductor substrate and the first epi- layer, wherein the second epi-layer is arranged between the first epi-layer and the third epi-layer, and the second doping concentration is lower (para 24) than the first doping concentration and the third doping concentration; and
forming a first doped region (207, para 23) of the first conductivity type P at a surface of the third epi-layer, with a second P-N junction formed at an interface between the first doped region and the third epi-layer, wherein the semiconductor substrate, the epitaxial layer and the first doped region form a vertical bipolar junction transistor having an open base (similar to 200 as stated in para 21 but not repeated for 250).
Note: Although the epi-layers and substrate types are opposite in Tani reference, it is known in the art that a P and an N structures are interchangeable. Such an art is Gendron which discloses that P and N are interchangeable (para 21).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to form substrate and epi-layers along with their concentration differences such that the second doping concentration is higher than the first doping concentration and the third doping concentration, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 8, Tani shows wherein a thickness of the first epi-layer (206a) is substantially same as that of the third epi-layer (206c) [as shown above].
Regarding claim 9, Tani shows wherein the semiconductor device (250) is an electrostatic discharge (ESD) protection device [para 24].
Regarding claim 11, the prior art/s as noted in the above rejection of claim 1, discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Tani shows (Fig. 2B) a trench extending through the epitaxial layer into the semiconductor substrate.
Regarding claim 17, Tani shows (Fig. 2B) further comprising:
an electrically conductive material (212, polysilicon, para 22) filled in the trench; and
an electrically insulating material (211, dielectric, para 22) provided between the electrically conductive material and interior walls of the trench.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art/s as noted in the above rejection of claim 8, discloses the entire claimed invention.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art/s as noted in the above rejection of claim 9, discloses the entire claimed invention.
2. Claim(s) 2, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Gendron as applied to claim 1 or 11 above, further in view of US 20210399117 A1 (Chen).
Regarding claim 2, Tani in view of Gendron shows the first doped region, the third epi-layer along a plane that is parallel to a surface of the semiconductor substrate.
Tani in view of Gendron does not show the first doped region occupies a less area than the third epi-layer.
Chen shows (Fig. 4b) the first doped region (20, para 54) occupies a less area than the third epi-layer (18, para 54).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use first doped region according to the teaching of “Chen”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known “first doped region” on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art/s as noted in the above rejection of claim 2, discloses the entire claimed invention.
3. Claim(s) 3,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Gendron as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 20120261804 A1 (Li).
Regarding claim 3, Tani shows the epitaxial layer (216), the semiconductor substrate (205), a trench (210, para 22) extending through the epitaxial layer into the semiconductor substrate.
Tani does not show etching the epitaxial layer and the semiconductor substrate to form a trench extending through the epitaxial layer into the semiconductor substrate.
Li shows (Fig. 4) etching the epitaxial layer (104, para 22) and the semiconductor substrate (102, para 22) to form a trench (404, para 22) extending through the epitaxial layer into the semiconductor substrate.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to etch epi and substrate for having a trench according to the teaching of “Li”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known method of forming the trench on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 6, Tani shows filling the trench with an electrically insulating material (212, para 22, since undoped polysilicon can be heat insulating).
3. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Gendron and Li as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of US 20100090306 A1 (Salih).
Regarding claim 4, Tani in view of Gendron and Li shows the trench.
Tani in view of Gendron and Li does not show the trench is of a tubular shape.
Salih shows (Fig. 5-6) the trench (36,38, para 33) is of a tubular shape.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have tubular trench according to the teaching of “Salih”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known trench shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
3. Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Gendron and Li as applied to claim 3 or 13 above, further in view of Chen.
Regarding claim 5, Tani in view of Gendron and Li shows the first doped region is surrounded by the trench.
Tani in view of Gendron and Li does not show wherein the first doped region is surrounded by the trench without contacting the trench.
Chen shows (Fig. 4b) wherein the first doped region (20) is smaller than the third epitaxial layer (18).
Tani in view of Gendron, Li in combination with Chen teaches the whole limitation.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use first doped region without touching the trenches according to the teaching of “Tani in view of Gendron, Li in combination with Chen”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known “first doped region” on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Moreover, the court has held that a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, the prior art/s as noted in the above rejection of claim 5, discloses the entire claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tani in view of Gendron as applied to claim 13 above, further in view of Salih.
Regarding claim 4, Tani in view of Gendron shows the trench.
Tani in view of Gendron does not show the trench is of a tubular shape.
Salih shows (Fig. 5-6) the trench (36,38, para 33) is of a tubular shape.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have tubular trench according to the teaching of “Salih”, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known trench shape on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7,10,16,20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “forming a second doped region of the second conductivity type P at the surface of the third epi-layer, wherein the second doped region is surrounded by the first doped region in a top view, and the second doped region, a part of the epitaxial layer and the semiconductor substrate form a diode”.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the combination of limitations including “second doped region of the second conductivity type P formed at the surface of the third epi- layer and surrounded by the first doped region, wherein the second doped region, a part of the epitaxial layer and the semiconductor substrate form a diode”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASIUL HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-1554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 a.m. - 6 p.m..
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, William Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/WASIUL HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
