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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Dec. 17th 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on Dec. 9th 2025 has been entered. Claims 19-38 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification (Title) have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed on Oct. 10th, 2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rengarajan et al. (US 6074903) in view of Jangjian et al. (US 20130234202).
Regarding claim 34, Rengarajan teaches a method (Abstract) of forming a semiconductor device (semiconductor device; Abstract), the method comprising:
forming a first doped liner (fig. 3, inner sidewall portions 34 of thin layer 24 with n-type conductivity dopant; col. 3, lin. 22, 38-39, 63-64) within a substrate (substrate 10; col. 2, lin. 67), wherein outer sidewalls of the first doped liner (sidewalls 34 of 24) are formed contacting the substrate (10);
forming a second generic liner (thin layer 24 outside and liner 26; col. 3, lin. 24-27) within the substrate (10), wherein outer sidewalls of the second generic liner (sidewalls of 24 outside and 26 stack) are formed contacting (BRI: 26 also at least indirectly contacting 10) the substrate (10);
forming a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure (Silicon dioxide dielectric material 38; col. 4, lin. 2) within the substrate (10) extending from a vertically extending sidewall (vertical sidewall) of the first generic liner (34 of 24) to a vertically extending sidewall (vertical sidewall) of the second generic liner (24, 26);
forming a doped region (p-type conductivity buried channel regions 42 with regions for source and drain regions 60, 62; col. 4, lin. 32-33 49-50) between the inner sidewalls of the first doped liner (34 of 24);
forming a source region and a drain region (source and drain regions 60, 62; col. 4, lin. 49-50) within the doped region (42 and regions for 60/62), wherein the first doped liner (34 of 24) separates the STI structure (38) from the source region and the drain region (60, 62).
Rengarajan fails to explicitly teach the second generic liner are doped liner.
However, Jangjian teaches the second generic liner are doped liner (Jangjian: fig. 4, epitaxial layer 18 with first portion 181 and second portion 182 are n-type doped; para. 0012, similar to 24 and 26 of Rengarajan).
Jangjian and Rengarajan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of STI structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed method to add the second generic liner are doped liner as taught by Jangjian.
Doing so would realize a doped liner to repair damage to the substrate and reduce detrimental leakage current (Jangjian: para, 0013).
Regarding claim 35, Rengarajan in view of Jangjian further teaches the method of claim 34, wherein the second doped liner (Rengarajan: fig. 3, 24, 26 as 18 of Jangjian) is formed extending past the first doped liner (Rengarajan: 34 of 24) beneath the STI structure (Rengarajan: 38).
Regarding claim 36, Rengarajan in view of Jangjian further teaches the method of claim 34, further comprising:
forming a buried channel region (Rengarajan: fig. 3, n-type conductivity wells 30, which has the same function to support the buried channel region; col. 3, lin. 35) below the doped region (Rengarajan: 42).
Regarding claim 37, Rengarajan in view of Jangjian further teaches the method of claim 36, wherein the first doped liner (Rengarajan: fig. 3, 34 of 24) is formed extending from the doped region (Rengarajan: 42, 60, 62) into the buried channel region (Rengarajan: 30).
Regarding claim 38, Rengarajan in view of Jangjian further teaches the method of claim 36, wherein the source region, the drain region, and the doped region (Rengarajan: fig. 3, 60, 62 and 42) are formed with a first doping type (p-type); and
the buried channel region (Rengarajan: 30), the first doped liner (Rengarajan: 34 of 24), and the second doped liner (Rengarajan: 24, 26 as 18 of Jangjian) are formed with a second doping type (n-type), wherein the first doping type (p-type) and the second doping type (n-type) are different.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-33 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
“forming a first photoresist on an outer portion of the STI trench; implanting a dopant type into the STI trench forming a first doped liner on an inner portion of the STI trench; removing the first photoresist; forming a second photoresist in the STI trench covering the first doped liner; implanting the dopant type into the STI trench forming a second doped liner on the outer portion of the STI trench; wherein the second doped liner is formed with a different thickness than the first doped liner; removing the second photoresist; forming a STI structure in the STI trench over the first doped liner and the second doped liner; and forming a gate electrode within the gate opening, wherein the gate electrode is formed with a first gate protrusion and a second gate protrusion separated by the doped region; and wherein the first gate protrusion and the second gate protrusion are connected by a gate body of the gate electrode formed above the doped region” as cited in claim 19.
Claims 20-25 are allowable for being dependent on claim 19.
“forming a first doped liner on the substrate exposed within the STI trench, and laterally surrounding an area in the substrate, wherein the first doped liner is formed in a first portion of the STI trench including a first vertically extending sidewall of the STI trench and a first portion of a bottom surface of the STI trench;
forming a second doped liner on the substrate exposed within the STI trench, wherein the second doped liner extends from the first doped liner in a direction away from the area in the substrate, and wherein the second doped liner is formed in a second portion of the STI trench opposite the first portion of the STI trench, including a second vertically extending sidewall of the STI trench opposite the first vertically extending sidewall of the STI trench, and a second portion of the bottom surface of the STI trench that is adjacent to the first portion of the bottom surface of the STI trench;
forming a gate electrode comprising a gate body disposed above the doped region, wherein the gate electrode is formed with a first gate protrusion and a second gate protrusion that extend downward from outer edges of the gate body to laterally flank the doped region, the first gate protrusion and the second gate protrusion formed with nearest neighboring inner sidewalls that substantially extend in parallel with the line, wherein the first doped liner separates the first and second gate protrusions from the doped region.” as cited in claim 26.
Claims 27-33 are allowable for being dependent on claim 26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 from applicant' s remarks, filed on Dec. 9th 2025, with respect to claims 26-33 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 of claims 26-33 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on Dec. 9th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to pages 11-12 of applicant’s response of claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103.
Applicant submits "Outer sidewalls of the silicon nitride layer 26 of Rengarajan that are formed on inner sidewalls of the thin layer 24 is not the same as outer sidewalls of the second doped liner formed contacting the substrate".
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown in fig. 3 of Rengarajan, the second doped liner is the outside 24+26 stack and the outer sidewalls of outside 24+26 stack contacting the substrate 10. On the other hand, in an alternative consideration, even the second doped liner is 26 itself. The second doped liner 26 contacting (indirectly) the substrate 10. As result, given a broadest reasonable interpretation, Rengarajan in view of Jangjian teaches all limitations of claims 1. Details of rejections are discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIJUN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-3447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-5pm ET.
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 at (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.
/ZHIJUN XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/BRIAN TURNER/Examiner, Art Unit 2818