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
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 of this title, 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 1-8 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagishita (2008/0006884).
Regarding claims 1 and 25, Yagishita teaches in figure 1 and related text an apparatus comprising:
active areas (top part of substrate 10) and shallow trench isolation structures 101 on a base material 10;
a conductive material (the material of element 10 located just under element 13) vertically adjacent to an active area of the active areas and between sidewalls of laterally adjacent shallow trench isolation structures 101;
a contact 19 vertically adjacent to the conductive material, a portion of the contact 19 between sidewalls of the laterally adjacent shallow trench isolation structures 101 and a portion of the contact vertically adjacent to the shallow trench isolation structures;
a silicon carbide material 63 on opposing sidewalls of the shallow trench isolation structures 101, the silicon carbide material 63 exhibiting substantially vertical sidewalls, and
the portion of the contact 19 between the laterally adjacent shallow trench isolation structures 101 extending between opposing sidewalls of the silicon carbide material 63;
a first dielectric material 13 adjacent to the active areas and shallow trench isolation structures 13; and
a digit line 20 adjacent to the contact 19.
Yagishita does not teach forming the gate dielectric layer of ONO material, such that a second dielectric material is adjacent to the first material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the gate dielectric layer of ONO material, such that a second dielectric material adjacent to the first material, in Yagishita’s device, in order to provide higher chemical stability than silicon, and improve the adhesion and the insulation between the contact metal and the substrate and to lower the electrical resistance, by using conventional and well-known materials.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the silicon carbide material to comprise a carbon content of from about 0.1 atomic percent to about 20 atomic percent in prior art’s device in order to improve the device characteristics by reducing the stress relaxation effect.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope the silicon carbide material comprises a doped silicon carbide material selected from the group consisting of a silicon carbon oxide material, a silicon carbon nitride material, a silicon carboxynitride material, and a silicon boronitrocarbide material in prior art’s device in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by using conventional doping materials.
Regarding claim 4, Yagishita teaches in figure 9 and related text that an interface between the conductive material and the active area vertically adjacent to the conductive material is substantially free of damage (since Yagishita does not teach any damage).
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a substantially square cross-section of the silicon carbide material in the STI structure of Yagishita, in order to form the device as intended by Yagishita.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a width of the active areas less than or equal to about 35 nm in prior art’s device in order to reduce the size of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Yagishita teaches in figure 9 and related text that a width of the conductive material is less than a width of the active areas.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a silicon carbide layer on nitride material, in prior art’s device, in order to provide higher chemical stability than silicon, and would contribute towards increasing adhesion between a contact metal and the substrate, lowering the electrical resistance.
Regarding claim 23, Yagishita teaches in figure 1 and related text that another portion of the contact is directly adjacent to the silicon carbide material and the shallow trench isolation structures, and an interface between the another portion of the contact and the silicon carbide material and an interface between the contact and the shallow trench isolation structures are substantially free of damage (since Yagishita does not teach any damage).
Regarding claim 24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an angle a defined by an intersection between an upper surface of the shallow trench isolation structures and the opposing sidewalls of the silicon carbide material to range between about 85 degrees and about 100 degrees, in prior art’s device, in order to adjust the device characteristics according to the requirements of the application in hand.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicants argue that Yagishita does not teach "a conductive material vertically adjacent to an active area", because “Yagishita does not indicate that any portion of its "silicon (Si) substrate 10" under its "gate oxide film 13" is a "conductive material."
1. The portion of the silicon substrate 10 under the gate oxide film 13 must be conductive material, because said area is the channel region of the device and electrons flow between the source and drain regions. The device will not operate if current does not flow between the source and drain regions.
2. Applicants argue that Yagishita does not teach that “its gate electrode 19 is "extending between" the SiC material; instead, the gate electrode 19 of Yagishita - asserted as being "the contact"" recited in claim 1 - is "extending between" sidewalls 51 and 53, which are formed of silicon nitride not SiC”.
2. Yagishita teaches that its gate electrode 19 is extending between opposing sidewalls the SiC material, because the SiC material is located on both sides of the gate electrode 19 in the horizontal direction.
3. Applicants argue, regarding using ONO material, that “there is no correlation between the given "reasoning" for modifying Yagishita and the resulting structure. In other words, there is nothing in the record that indicates that incorporating "an oxide material adjacent to the active areas" and "shallow trench isolation structures" along with "a nitride material adjacent the oxide material" would be beneficial in the Yagishita structure”.
3. It is well known in the art using three dielectric materials as gate dielectric, such as ONO, provides better protection to the gate. The record does not need to teach well-known reasonings.
4. Applicants argue regarding claim 2 that “Yagishita does not teach such carbon content of its SiC material, failing to support the rejection”, and “there is no evidence in the record, or taught by Yagishita, that having a carbon content such as that recited in claim 2 would reduce the stress relaxation effect or improve device characteristics”.
4. The courts are clear regarding the patentability of concentration in the claims. As decided by the courts “differences in concentration or temperature do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Hoeschele , 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc . v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc. , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling , 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
This is sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness and shift the burden to Appellants to show that the concentration recited in the claim represents a range that is critical for obtaining an unexpected result. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980); In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Aller, 220 F.2d at 456. Appellants present no convincing evidence of unexpected results on this record.
It has been held in that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art(Emphasis added).
5. Applicants argue regarding claim 3 that doping the SiC of Yagishita would not simplify the processing steps of making the device, because “adding an additional process step - doping of the material - does not "simplify the processing steps" but instead adds at least the additional step of doping and perhaps additional masking processes”.
5. The rejection recites “it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope the silicon carbide material comprises a doped silicon carbide material selected from the group consisting of a silicon carbon oxide material, a silicon carbon nitride material, a silicon carboxynitride material, and a silicon boronitrocarbide material in prior art’s device in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by using conventional doping materials” (Emphasis added).
Yagishita already recites that the SiC material is a doped material (“impurity diffusion layers 61 and 63”). The rejection refers to the selection of the claimed various materials used in the modified device which are conventional doping materials. Clearly, using conventional doping materials would simplify the processing steps of making the device.
6. Applicants argue regarding claim 7 that “Yagishita does not disclose a width of any "active areas" in Figure 9 or anywhere else in the text”, such that width of the conductive material is not less than a width of the active areas.
6. In the rejection, the conductive material is identified as the material of element 10 located just under element 13. The active areas are located on both sides of the conductive material 10. Therefore, the width of the conductive material must be less than a width of the active areas.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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.
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/
9/11/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights