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 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagishita (2008/0006884).
Regarding claim 1, 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;
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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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/
4/29/2026 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800
Prosecution Insights