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 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.
Claims 6-12 & 21-25 are 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “one or more fins … wherein the one or more fins comprises a first fin and a second fin” in lines 18-19. There is no support for one fin comprising a first fin and a second fin in the specification.
Claims 7-12 are rejected for being dependent on claim 6.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “one or more fins” similar to claim 6. There is no support for one fin comprising a first fin and a second fin in the specification.
Claims 22-25 are rejected for being dependent on claim 21.
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 6-12 & 21-25 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “one or more fins … wherein the one or more fins comprises a first fin and a second fin” in lines 18-19. The limitation raises ambiguity as it is unclear how one fin can comprise a fist fin and a second fin. Correction/clarification is required.
Claims 7-12 are rejected for being dependent on claim 6.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “one or more fins” similar to claim 6. The limitation raises ambiguity as it is unclear how one fin can comprise a fist fin and a second fin. Correction/clarification is required.
Claims 22-25 are rejected for being dependent on claim 21.
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.
As best understood, claims 6-10, 12, 21-22 & 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US Pub. 2020/0135469) in view of Su et al. (US Pub. 2015/0091054).
Regarding claim 6, Liu teaches a method of forming a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
forming a patterned mask 24 over a substrate 20, wherein the patterned mask 24 has an opening 28 over a first portion of the substrate 20 (Fig. 2);
implanting a first dopant 26 (P-type dopant) into the substrate with a first ion beam at a first angle, wherein the first ion beam is in a first plane parallel to a side of the first portion in a plan view, wherein the first plane being perpendicular to a top surface of the substrate 20, wherein the first ion beam impacts the top surface of the substrate 20 at the first angle relative to a line perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate (Fig. 2 and respective text); and
implanting the first dopant 32 (p-type dopant) into the substrate 20 with a second ion beam at a second angle (Fig. 3), wherein the second ion beam is in a second plane parallel to the side of the first portion in a plan view, wherein the second plane being perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate 20, wherein the second ion beam impacts the top surface of the substrate 20 at the second angle relative to the line perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate, wherein the first ion beam and the second ion beam are on opposite sides of the line perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate, wherein implanting with the first ion beam and implanting with the second ion beam forms a first well 30 (Fig. 2-3 and associated text).
While Liu teaches etching the substrate to form one fin in the first well 30 and wherein a maximum concentration of the first dopant is below a bottom of the one or more fins (Fig. 5-6, Fig. 19 and associated text); however, Liu is silent on etching the substrate to form more than one fins in the first well and to define an upper surface of the substrate, wherein the more than one fins comprises a first fin and a second fin, wherein the upper surface of the substrate is between the first fin and the second fin. Su teaches in Fig. 6, etching a substrate to form more than one fins 22 in a first well 26A/26 and to define an upper surface of the substrate, wherein the more than one fins 22 comprises a first fin and a second fin, wherein the upper surface of the substrate is between the first fin and the second fin (see Fig. 6). This has the advantage of obtaining a semiconductor device with multiple fins to increase drive current and allow higher clock speeds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Liu with the multiple fin structure, as taught by Su, so as to obtain an improved semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liu and Su teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising rotating the substrate after implanting with the first ion beam and prior to implanting with the second ion beam (Para [0022]).
Regarding claims 8-10, Liu teaches wherein a magnitude of the first angle is greater than 0 degree and less than 15 degrees (Para [0021]); and wherein a magnitude of the second angle is greater than o degree and less than 15 degrees; and wherein a magnitude the first angle is equal to a magnitude of the second angle (Para [0021]). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, though Liu teaches the method of claim 6, wherein a maximum concentration of the first dopant is the nanometers (see Fig. 18-19); however Liu is silent on wherein a maximum concentration of the first dopant is in a range of 130 nm to 160o nm below the bottom of the one or more fins. Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 21, Liu teaches a method of forming a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
implanting a first dopant having a first conductivity type (e.g. P-type) into a substrate 20 with a first ion beam, wherein the first ion beam impacts a top surface of the substrate 20 at a first angle relative to a line perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate 20 (Fig. 2 and respective text); and
implanting the first dopant into the substrate 20 with a second ion beam, wherein the second ion beam impacts the top surface of the substrate 20 at a second angle relative to the line perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate 20 (Fig. 3 and respective text), wherein the first ion beam and the second ion beam are on opposite sides of the line perpendicular to the top surface of the substrate, and wherein implanting with the first ion beam and implanting with the second ion beam forms a first well 30 (Fig. 2-3); and wherein an average concentration of the first dopant in a first region of the substrate below the one or more fins and between the first lateral boundary and the second lateral boundary is in a range from 5 x 1017 atom/cm3 to 7 x 1017 atom/cm3. (Para [0023, 0024, 0026-0027]). Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Liu is silent on forming a second well 26A/26 on a first side of a first well 26B/26;
forming a third well 26C/26 on a second side of the first well 26B/26 opposite the first side of the first well 26B/26, wherein the first well is between the second well and the third well (see Fig. 6); and etching a substrate to form one or more fins in the first well, wherein a first lateral boundary is aligned with a first sidewall of the one or more fins, wherein a second lateral boundary is aligned with a second sidewall of the one or more fins, wherein the first sidewall is a sidewall of the one or more fins closest to the second well, wherein the second sidewall is a sidewall of the one or more fins closest to the third well. This has the advantage of obtaining a semiconductor device with multiple fins to increase drive current and allow higher clock speeds. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Liu with the multiple fin structure, as taught by Su, so as to obtain an improved semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Liu and Su is silent on the method of claim 21, wherein the first region is disposed 50 nm to 280 nm below a bottom of the one or more fins. However, Liu discusses dimensions in (Para [0021]) that makes said claim dimensions obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art. Notwithstanding, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Liu and Su teaches the method of claim 21, wherein the second well and the third well comprise a second dopant having a second conductivity type, and wherein the second conductivity type is opposite the first conductivity type (Liu’s Fig. 5-6 and Su’s Fig. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
Claims 11 & 23-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable, pending resolution of 112 issues, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6-12 & 21-25 have been considered but they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOR KARIMY whose telephone number is (571)272-9006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:30 AM -5:00 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/TIMOR KARIMY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818