Attorney’s Docket Number: SAM-58291
Filing Date: 8/2/2021
Claimed Foreign Priority Dates: 2/18/2021 (KR 10-2021-0021748)
12/7/2020 (US 63/122,276)
Inventors: Kim et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 12/10/2025.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 12/10/2025 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 20, mailed on 10/2/2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-14, 16-18, 21 and 23-28.
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.
Claims 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
The claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites that the liner portion of the blocking film includes a pinning region and that the thickness of the blocking film decreases and then increases in the pinning region as it extends away from the low pattern. The term “pinning region” renders the claim indefinite because the claim fails to provide objective boundaries or definitional criteria for determining the scope of this region.
In particular, although the claim associates the “pinning region” with a thickness profile in which the blocking film “decreases and then increases,” the claim does not specify where the “pinning region” begins or ends, the extent of the decrease and increase, or any structural or positional parameters that would allow a person of ordinary skill in the art to identify, with reasonable certainty, what portion of the blocking film constitutes the claimed “pinning region.” As such, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter are unclear.
While the specification may describe a “pinning region,” the claim itself does not incorporate sufficient structure or objective limitations from the specification to define the term. Reliance on the specification to supply essential boundaries for a claim limitation is improper where the claim language itself fails to provide reasonable certainty as to scope.
Accordingly, claim 16 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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.
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 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.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (US 2020/0381546) in view of Peng (US 2020/0168716).
Regarding claim 16, Cho (see, e.g., fig. 35) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device comprising:
An active pattern extending in a first direction and including a lower pattern 100a and a plurality of sheet patterns 132
A plurality of gate structures 162 including a gate electrode 160b and a gate insulating film 160a wrapping the sheet patterns 132
A source/drain recess 140 defined between adjacent gate structures, and
A source/drain pattern inside the recess and including a semiconductor blocking film 150 formed continuously along the recess 140
wherein:
The sheet patterns 132 are spaced apart from the lower pattern 100a in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction
The gate structures 162 are disposed on the lower pattern 100a to be spaced apart from each other in the first direction
The blocking film includes a liner portion and a protruding portion
The liner portion extends along a side wall and the bottom surface of the recess
The protruding portion protrudes from the liner portion in the first direction
The thickness of the blocking film 150 increases and then decreases as it extends away from the lower pattern
Cho, however, fails to show the semiconductor blocking film 150 contacting the gate insulating film 160a. He differently shows the film contacting an inner spacer 144. In figure 15, Peng, like Cho, shows a semiconductor device including a semiconductor blocking film 52 contacting an inner spacer 55. In figure 13, Peng shows another device like the one in figure 15, wherein the semiconductor blocking film 52 contacts the gate insulating film 82. Peng is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that a device having the semiconductor blocking film contacting the inner spacer would have been equivalent to a device having the film contacting the gate insulating film, and that doing so would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the device. That is, both semiconductor blocking films would yield the predictable result of lining the source/drain recess to form the source/drain pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the blocking film of Cho contacting the gate insulating film or to have it contacting an inner spacer because both these structures were recognized in the semiconductor art as equivalents, as taught by Peng, and both would yield the predictable result of lining a source/drain recess to form a source/drain pattern. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho/Peng in view of Kang (US 2020/0381564).
Regarding claim 21, Cho (see, e.g., fig. 35) teaches a semiconductor structure including a blocking film 150 and a filling film 152, wherein the blocking film 150 is formed as a single layer with a thickness that decreases and then increases as the film extends away from the lower pattern 100a. However, Cho does not explicitly teach that the blocking film comprises lower and upper films.
Kang (see, e.g., fig. 3) teaches a semiconductor device including a blocking film SP1, formed as a single layer, and in another embodiment (see, e.g., fig. 5) the blocking film comprises lower SP1 and upper SPa films. Thus, Kang teaches that a blocking film may be implemented either as a single layer or as multiple sublayers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the blocking film of Cho to comprise lower film and upper films, as taught by Kang. Kang demonstrates that forming the blocking film as multiple sublayers is a known alternative to forming the blocking film as a single layer. Selecting among known alternatives to achieve predictable results constitutes an obvious design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
As set forth in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its application is beyond the skill of the art. Furthermore, where a claimed structure is merely one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, the choice of such an option is likely the product of ordinary skill and common sense.
Additionally, the selection of a known alternative configuration (i.e., a multi-layer blocking film instead of a single-layer blocking film) is considered an obvious matter of design choice where the alternatives perform the same function and yield predictable results. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Cho in view of Kang to arrive at the claimed invention, including the limitation that the blocking film comprises a lower film and an upper film.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 8, 12-14 and 23-28 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
March 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights