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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments in the reply—filed 17 December 2025—addressing the objections to the specification in the previous office action—filed 3 September 2025—are acknowledged, and the associated objections to the specification are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments in the reply—filed 17 December 2025—addressing the objections to the drawings in the previous office action—filed 3 September 2025—are acknowledged, and the associated objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Applicant’s traversal on Pag. 10 of the reply—filed 17 December 2025—addressing the 112(b) rejections to the claims in the previous office action—filed 3 September 2025—are acknowledged; however, no grounds for the traversal are given for the 112(b) rejections. As such, the 112(b) rejections are still deemed proper.
Applicant’s amendments in the reply—filed 17 December 2025—addressing the 112(b) rejections to the claims in the previous office action—filed 3 September 2025—are acknowledged, and the associated 112(b) rejections to the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s traversal about the prior art rejections of Claims 1 – 14 & 21 – 26 on pages 10 – 11 of the reply—filed 17 December 2025—is acknowledged; however, said arguments are moot because they do not apply to the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
IDS
Applicant’s IDS submitted on 9 June 2022 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference characters "500" and "500a" have both been used to designate the “flowable insulating material” of Fig. 9A (Par. 65).
Reference character “htop” has been used to designate both the distance from the top of the “flowable insulating material” to the top of the fin in Fig. 9A and the distance from the top of “another layer of flowable instant material” to the top of the fin in Fig. 9B (Par. 65).
Reference character “wbot” has been used to designate both a maximum width of the fin in Fig. 9A and a width of a lower portion of the fin where the lower portion of the fin has substantially the same width as a the top portion of the fin in Fig. 9B (Par. 65).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 9A and Fig. 9B are drawn in juxtaposition on Pag. 9; however, 805 of Fig. 9B appears to have been lengthened when compared to 505 of Fig. 9A as a result of the disclosed process, which is not supported.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “upper portion”, “lower tapered portion”, and “maximum width of the lower tapered portion” as recited in Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “top portion”, “tapered base portion”, and “maximum width of the tapered base portion” as recited in Claims 9 & 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show element 103 as described in the specification in at least Par. 36 in any figure beyond Fig. 4C for the disclosed process. That is, according to the original disclosure, it appears that 103 should be present in at least Fig. 5A – 5D & Fig. 8A – 8D.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1 – 8, 21 – 23, & 26 – 28 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.
Regarding Claim 1,
Lin. 4 – 6 recite the limitation “forming an insulating material between the fins and to surround the lower tapered portion of the fins, wherein a top surface of the insulating material is at a height of the fins at which the varying width of the lower tapered portion is substantially equal to the top width” where 500b in Fig. 8D & 9B appears to be the only element in the original disclosure that fits this description of the claimed “insulating material”.
Lin. 8 – 10 recite the limitation “depositing an oxide over the insulating material…[and] planarizing the oxide”; however, the original disclosure does not appear to support depositing an oxide over 500b and planarizing the oxide. Further, 500b appears to be the last element introduced in the disclosed process for the elected species, as presented in Fig. 8D.
Regarding Claims 2 – 8,
These claims are dependent upon Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21,
Lin. 8 – 9 recite the limitation “forming a refill material to a height of the fins at which the varying width of the tapered base portion is substantially equal to the top width” where 500b in Fig. 8D & 9B appears to be the only element in the original disclosure that fits this description for the claimed “refill material”.
Lin. 10 – 12 recite the limitation “depositing an insulating material…wherein the insulating material covers a widest portion of at least one of the fins in the array of fins” where 500b in Fig. 8D & 9B, again, appears to be the only element in the original disclosure that fits this description for the claimed “insulating material”; however, the original disclosure does not appear to simultaneously support the “forming of a refill material” and “depositing and insulating material” as claimed.
Regarding Claims 22 – 23 & 26 – 28,
These claims are dependent upon 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 9 – 14 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.
Regarding Claim 9,
Lin. 4 recites the limitation "the base portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the tapered base portion”.
Lin. 5 recites the limitation "the base portions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the tapered base portions”.
Regarding Claims 10 – 14,
These claims are dependent upon Claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
620
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 13, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HSIEH (US 20180108570 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
HSIEH discloses:
A method, comprising:
forming fins (Fig. 2 & 12: 18/12P) on a substrate (Fig. 1 & 12: 10),
wherein at least one of the fins comprises an upper portion (Annotated Fig. 12: 12P) with a top width (Annotated Fig. 12: TW) and a lower tapered portion (Annotated Fig. 12: 18) with a varying width having a maximum width (Annotated Fig. 12: MW) greater than the top width;
forming an insulating material (Annotated Fig. 12: 20a; ¶ [0030]) between the fins and to surround the lower tapered portion of the fins,
wherein a top surface (Annotated Fig. 12: TS) of the insulating material is at a height of the fins at which the varying width of the lower tapered portion is substantially equal to the top width;
depositing an oxide (Annotated Fig. 12: 300; ¶ [0044]) over the insulating material to refill a space between the fins;
exposing the fins to a first annealing process (Annotated Fig. 12: 302; ¶ [0044]);
planarizing the oxide (Fig. 13: 312; ¶ [0045]);
exposing the fins to a second annealing process (Fig. 15: 340; ¶ [0047]); and
recessing the fins (Fig. 15: 314; ¶ [0047]) to expose top portions of the fins (Fig. 15: top surface of 18s).
Regarding Claim 6,
HSIEH discloses:
The method of claim1,
wherein recessing the fins comprises:
trimming the fins to a predetermined height;
(Fig. 15: 314 is an etching process—¶ [0047]—during which the 18s are exposed. Therefore, the 18s are partially etched—and thus “trimmed”—during 314 and to the height shown.)
Regarding Claim 8,
HSIEH discloses:
The method of claim 1,
wherein recessing the fins comprises
removing portions of the insulating material and portions of the fins.
(Fig. 15: during 314, the upper portions of 20a are removed, and the 18s are partially etched—as described for Claim 6—thereby removing portions of the 18s.)
Regarding Claim 9,
HSIEH discloses:
A method, comprising:
forming, on an isolation region, fins (Annotated Fig. 12: 18/12P, which may be formed on a “bottom oxide layer”—¶ [0028]—and, thus, on an “isolation region”.) with at least one of the fins having a tapered base portion (Annotated Fig. 12: 18) with a varying width comprising a maximum width (Annotated Fig. 12: MW) and a top portion (Annotated Fig. 12: 12P) with a top width (Annotated Fig. 12: TW) narrower than the maximum width of the tapered base portion;
forming a refill material (Annotated Fig. 12: 300; ¶ [0044]) to cover the tapered base portions of the fins to form substantially uniform fins having substantially vertical sidewalls (Annotated Fig. 12: 18/12P),
wherein the forming of substantially uniform fins comprises depositing (¶ [0044]) refill material to a height of the fins (Annotated Fig. 12: H) at which the varying width of the tapered base portion is substantially equal to the top width;
curing the refill material (¶ [0044]);
annealing the fins (Fig. 15: 340; ¶ [0047]); and
recessing a portion of the refill material (Fig. 15: 314; ¶ [0047]) to adjust the height of the fins.
(Fig. 15: during 314, the 18s are exposed and, thus, partially etched, thereby adjusting the height of the 18s.)
Regarding Claim 13,
HSIEH discloses:
The method of claim 9,
wherein depositing the refill material comprises depositing a flowable oxide using a flowable chemical vapor deposition (FCVD) process (¶ [0044]).
Regarding Claim 21,
HSIEH discloses:
A method, comprising:
forming an array of fins (Fig. 2 & 12: 18/12P) with substantially equal fin widths and substantially equal fin heights,
wherein the array of fins extend out from a surface of a substrate (Fig. 1 – 2: 10);
forming the array of fins with substantially equal fin widths comprises:
forming an array of fins having a tapered base portion (Annotated Fig. 12: 18) with a varying width having a maximum width (Annotated Fig. 12: MW) and a top portion (Annotated Fig. 12: 12P) with a top width (Annotated Fig. 12: TW) narrower than the maximum width of the tapered base portion;
forming a refill material (Annotated Fig. 12: 300; ¶ [0044]) to a height of the fins (Annotated Fig. 12: H) at which the varying width of the tapered base portion is substantially equal to the top width; and
depositing an insulating material (Annotated Fig. 12: 20b; ¶ [0031]) on the substrate and between adjacent fins of the array of fins,
wherein the insulating material covers a widest portion of at least one of the fins in the array of fins (Annotated Fig. 12: 20b covers all portions of the 18s).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSIEH in view of CHING969 (US 20170372969 A1).
Regarding Claim 2,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim1,
wherein depositing the oxide comprises exposing the fins to one or more of oxygen gas and argon gas to tune a composition of the exposed fins.
CHING969, though, discloses:
wherein depositing the oxide comprises exposing the fins to one or more of oxygen gas and argon gas (¶ [0028] teaches depositing an oxide for a similar process via FCVD for a similar FinFET device—Fig. 9: 100—comprises exposing the fins to oxygen.) to tune a composition of the exposed fins (¶ [0028] teaches that if the exposed fins are not protected then, inherently, the exposed fins will oxidize, changing—and thus tuning—the composition of the exposed fins.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to oxidize the fins of HSIEH as taught by CHING969 because doing so is a means to purposefully shape the exposed fins via their being partially consumed in the process (CHING969 ¶ [0028]).
Claims 3 – 5, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSIEH in view of CHING120 (US 20190067120 A1).
Regarding Claim 3,
HSIEH discloses:
The method of claim 1,
wherein the oxide is a flowable oxide (¶ [0044]),
HSIEH, however, does not disclose:
and further comprising exposing the flowable oxide to ultraviolet light.
CHING120, though, discloses:
and further comprising exposing the flowable oxide to ultraviolet light.
(¶ [0060] teaches exposing a flowable oxide to ultraviolet light in an analogous stage of fabrication for a similar FinFET device.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expose the flowable oxide of HSIEH with the ultraviolet light of CHING120, as doing so cures the flowable oxide (CHING120 ¶ [0060]) which is known in the art to improve the function of the oxide.
Regarding Claim 4,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 1,
wherein exposing the fins to the first and second annealing processes comprises heating the fins to a temperature in a range of about 500 °C to about 800 °C.
CHING120, though, discloses:
wherein exposing the fins to the first and second annealing processes comprises heating the fins to a temperature in a range of about 500 °C to about 800 °C.
(¶ [0060] teaches exposing the fins of a similar FinFET device to an annealing process in an analogous stage of fabrication comprises heating the fins to a temperature between about 500 °C to about 800 °C.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to execute the first and second annealing processes of HSIEH in the temperature range of CHING120, as such a range is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be typical for such a process under the given parameters.
Regarding Claim 5,
HSIEH discloses:
The method of claim 1,
wherein planarizing the oxide comprises:
depositing a cap oxide (Annotated Fig. 12: 20b; ¶ [0031]) over the insulating material; and
[planarizing] the cap oxide and the oxide (Fig. 13: 312; ¶ [0045]).
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 1,
wherein planarizing the oxide comprises:
polishing the cap oxide and the oxide.
CHING120, though, discloses:
wherein planarizing the oxide (Fig. 2B: 206; ¶ [0055]) comprises:
polishing (¶ [0055] teaches 206 may be planarized via CMP, which is a means of polishing.)
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of HSIEH with those of CHING120 to enable the polishing of the cap oxide and the oxide, as claimed, to be performed in HSIEH according to the teachings of CHING120, as HSIEH discloses planarizing the cap oxide and the oxide but does not disclose a method for doing so. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for a method of planarizing recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, the method of planarizing of CHING120 meets these criteria, as HSIEH and CHING120 planarize similar materials of similar devices at similar stages of fabrication (HSIEH: Fig. 13; ¶ [0045] & CHING120: Fig. 2B; ¶ [0055]).
Regarding Claim 22,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 21,
wherein forming the array of fins comprises forming the fin widths in a range of about 3 nm to about 8 nm.
CHING120 discloses:
wherein forming the array of fins comprises forming the fin widths in a range of about 3 nm to about 8 nm.
(¶ [0040] teaches forming an array of fins with widths in a range of “about 4 nm to about 6 nm”, which is construed to be about 3 nm to about 8 nm under BRI.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the fins of HSIEH with about the width range of CHING120, as such a range is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be typical for such devices.
Claims 7 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSIEH in view of XIE (US 20140203376 A1).
Regarding Claim 7,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 6,
wherein trimming the fins comprises trimming the fins to a height in a range of about 45 nm to about 55 nm.
XIE, though, discloses:
wherein trimming the fins comprises trimming the fins to a height in a range of about 45 nm to about 55 nm.
(Fig. 5 shows the array of 58s formed with fin heights 68 in a range of “about 20 nm to about 50 nm”, ¶ [0018], which is construed to be about 45 nm to about 55 nm under BRI. Furthermore, while the amount trimmed off the fins during the various etching steps mentioned in Claim 6 is inherently non-zero, it is minimal, ¶ [0024]. Therefore, the height range of the fins before and after their trimming is about the same.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the fin heights of HSIEH to be in the range given by XIE, as such a range is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be typical for such devices.
Regarding Claim 23,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 21,
wherein forming the array of fins comprises forming the fin heights in a range of about 45 nm to about 55 nm.
XIE, though, discloses:
wherein forming the array of fins comprises forming the fin heights in a range of about 45 nm to about 55 nm.
(Fig. 5 shows the array of 58s formed with fin heights 68 in a range of “about 20 nm to about 50 nm”, ¶ [0018], which is construed to be about 45 nm to about 55 nm under BRI.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the fin heights of HSIEH to be in the range given by XIE, as such a range is known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be typical for such devices.
Claims 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSIEH in view of LEE625 (US 20060076625 A1).
Regarding Claim 10,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 9,
wherein forming the fins comprises forming a nanostructured stack of alternating layers.
LEE625, though, discloses:
wherein forming the fins (Fig. 6B: 400; ¶ [0068]) comprises forming a nanostructured stack of alternating layers (Fig. 6A: 312/314; ¶ [0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fins of HSIEH with the structure of LEE625, as doing so allows for a gate-all-around device (GAA-FET) structure, which is known in the art to provide improved device operation (LEE625 ¶ [0023]).
Regarding Claim 11,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 10,
wherein forming the nanostructured stack of alternating layers comprises forming epitaxial silicon layers alternating with epitaxial SiGe layers.
LEE625, though, discloses:
wherein forming the nanostructured stack of alternating layers comprises forming epitaxial silicon layers (Fig. 6A: 314; ¶ [0067]) alternating with epitaxial SiGe layers (Fig. 6A: 312; ¶ [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fin materials of HSIEH with those of LEE625 because SiGe/Si stack FinFETs are known in the art to provide high quality devices, (LEE625 ¶ [0023]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSIEH in view of LEE625 and in further view of BELYANSKY (US 9397002 B1).
Regarding Claim 12,
HSIEH discloses:
The method of claim 10,
wherein forming the fins further comprises:
patterning the [fins] (Fig. 2; ¶ [0030]);
HSIEH does not disclose:
wherein forming the fins further comprises:
patterning the nanostructured stack of alternating layers; and
depositing a flowable shallow trench isolation (STI) material to insulate the nanostructured stack of alternating layers from neighboring devices.
LEE625 discloses:
wherein forming the fins further comprises:
patterning the nanostructured stack of alternating layers (Fig. 6A – 6B; ¶ [0068]);
LEE625 does not disclose:
wherein forming the fins further comprises:
depositing a flowable shallow trench isolation (STI) material to insulate the nanostructured stack of alternating layers from neighboring devices.
BELYANSKY discloses:
wherein forming the fins further comprises:
patterning the [fins] (Fig. 1: 110; ¶ [Col. 2, Lin. 55]); and
depositing a flowable shallow trench isolation (STI) material (Fig. 4: 210; ¶ [Col. 3, Lin. 30] & Fig. 5: 510; ¶ [Col. 4, Lin. 20]) to insulate the [fins] from neighboring devices (Fig. 5: neighboring 110).
(Depositing 210/510 insulates the 110s from neighboring 110s via reducing punch-through and reducing the aspect ratio of the remaining trench, easing the subsequent filling [of the refill material 605], ¶ [Col. 4, Lin. 40] & ¶ [Col .5, Lin. 10]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of HSIEH with those of BELYANSKY to enable the deposition of a flowable shallow trench isolation (STI) material to insulate the fins from neighboring devices in HSIEH according to the teachings of BELYANSKY for the further advantage of easing the subsequent filling of the refill material, thereby improving the resulting device (BELYANSKY ¶ [Col. 5, Lin. 10]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSIEH in view of NEMANI (US 20160194758 A1).
Regarding Claim 14,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 9,
wherein annealing the fins comprises annealing the fins at a temperature lower than a reflow temperature of the refill material.
NEMANI, though, discloses:
wherein annealing the fins comprises annealing the fins at a temperature lower than a reflow temperature of the refill material.
(¶ [0037] teaches annealing a similar device structure, such as a device with a high aspect ratio ¶ [0005]. And ¶ [0006] teaches annealing said similar device structure at a temperature lower than reflow temperature of the refill material.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to anneal the refill material of HSIEH at the temperature of NEMANI as doing so is known to avoid shrinkage of the refill material and other undesirable effects (NEMANI ¶ [0006]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSIEH in view of TAKETANI (US 20110049599 A1).
Regarding Claim 26,
HSIEH discloses:
The method of claim 21,
wherein depositing the insulating material comprises depositing an oxide layer, a nitride layer, or an oxynitride layer (¶ [0031], oxide).
HSIEH does not disclose:
…with a thickness of about 500 A to about 4000 A.
TAKETANI discloses:
…with a thickness of about 500 A to about 4000 A (Fig. 10(a-c) shows a planarized silicon oxide layer 117 deposited with an original thickness of 4000 A before planarization, ¶ [0037].).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the thickness of the insulating material in HSIEH with that of TAKETANI because such a range is known in the art to be typical for such devices.
Claims 27 & 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HSIEH in view of LEE003 (US 20150263003 A1).
Regarding Claim 27,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 9,
wherein the varying width further comprises a minimum width narrower than the top width.
LEE003 discloses:
wherein the varying width [of the tapered base portion] (Fig. 14: 190/185) further comprises a minimum width (Fig. 14: minimum width of 185) narrower than the top width (Fig. 14: 442; ¶ [0040]) [of the top portion] (Fig. 14: 430; ¶ [0039]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of HSIEH with those of LEE003 to enable the varying width to further comprises a minimum width narrower than the top width in HSIEH according to the teachings of LEE003, as this geometry results from a cleaning process that improves subsequent the gate stack formation process (LEE003 ¶ [0035]).
Regarding Claim 28,
HSIEH does not disclose:
The method of claim 21,
wherein the varying width further comprises a minimum width narrower than the top width, and
wherein an end of the tapered base portion with the minimum width is closer to the top portion than the substrate.
LEE003 discloses:
wherein the varying width [of the tapered base portion] (Fig. 14: 190/185) further comprises a minimum width (Fig. 14: minimum width of 185) narrower than the top width (Fig. 14: 442; ¶ [0040]) [of the top portion] (Fig. 14: 430; ¶ [0039]), and
wherein an end of the tapered base portion (Fig. 13 & 14: top end of 185) with the minimum width is closer to the top portion than the substrate (Fig. 13: 110).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of HSIEH with those of LEE003 to enable the varying width to further comprises a minimum width narrower than the top width, and an end of the tapered base portion with the minimum width to be closer to the top portion than the substrate in HSIEH according to the teachings of LEE003, as this geometry results from a cleaning process that improves subsequent the gate stack formation process (LEE003 ¶ [0035]).
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 Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (EST)..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview—preferably at 4 P.M. (EST)—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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898