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 arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. 20210202697.
PNG
media_image1.png
466
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
530
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, figs. 1 and 26 of Young discloses a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a substrate 50;
a plurality of channel layers 54A/B/C vertically stacked over the substrate and extending along a first lateral direction (into the page in fig. 26B) parallel to a surface of the substrate;
an isolation layer 58 on the substrate, wherein a top surface of the isolation layer is not higher than a top surface of any of the plurality of channel layers;
gate structures 102 over the isolation layer, wherein the gate structures surrounds a portion of a length of each channel layer of the plurality of channel layers;
PNG
media_image3.png
508
906
media_image3.png
Greyscale
outer spacers 91B extending vertically along sidewalls of the gate structures and the plurality of channel layers along the first lateral direction, wherein sidewalls of the outer spacers along a second lateral direction (across the page in fig. 26B) are recessed along the first lateral direction with respect to end surfaces of the plurality of channel layers, and the second lateral direction is parallel to the surface of the substrate and perpendicular to the first lateral direction;
an inner spacer (left 91A,100,right 91A) formed between adjacent two channel layers of the plurality of channel layers, the inner spacer comprising an opening (region occupied by 102) for enveloping an end of one of the gate structures formed between the adjacent two channel layers, wherein
the opening of the inner spacer is formed by a first corner layer (left) of the inner spacer and a second corner layer (right) of the inner spacer, both extending along the first lateral direction, and a middle layer 100 of the inner space extending along the second lateral direction between the first corner layer and the second corner layer, and
PNG
media_image4.png
696
870
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
427
1141
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a middle portion (as labeled by examiner above) of the end of the one of the gate structures (the gate can be divided into upper, middle and lower portion all of which) protrudes (into the page of fig. 26B to form the gate structure, the gate structure has to protrudes through the opening) along the first lateral direction into the opening of the inner spacer (in order to form the gate as shown in fig. 26B).
Regarding claim 2, fig. 26B of Young discloses wherein: a size (outer dimension of 91A/B to 91A/B) of the first corner layer and a size of the second corner layer along the first lateral direction is larger than a size of the middle layer along the first lateral direction.
Regarding claim 3, fig. 26B of Young discloses wherein: a vertical sidewall of the first corner layer completely contacts the end of the one of the gate structures, and a vertical sidewall of the second corner layer completely contacts the end of the one of the gate structures.
Regarding claim 5, par [0066] of Young discloses wherein the inner spacer is made of a material including silicon nitride.
Regarding claim 17, fig. 26 of Young does discloses further comprising: source/drain doped layers 92 at two sides of each gate structure along the first lateral direction and wherein surfaces of the source/drain doped layers, surfaces of inner spacers, and end surfaces of the plurality of channel layers are vertically coplanar with each other (see 92 and 54s are coplanar and 91A is coplanar with 92 and 91B is coplanar with 91A and 91B is the coplanar between the two, the combination of which are considered as vertically coplanar with each other in some way).
PNG
media_image6.png
575
984
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, figs. 26A-B discloses wherein: a top surface of the isolation layer is coplanar with a bottom surface of the source/drain doped layers.
Regarding claim 19, fig. 26A of Young discloses further comprising: a dielectric layer 100 over the isolation layer, wherein the dielectric layer covers a portion of the plurality of channel layers and the gate structures, and exposes top surfaces of the gate structures.
Regarding claim 20, fig. 26A of Young discloses wherein: the plurality of channel layers includes a bottom channel layer between adjacent isolation layers along the first lateral direction, the bottom channel layer has a top surface higher than the top surface of the isolation layers.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young.
Regarding claim 4, Young discloses claim 3, but does not disclose of wherein the sidewalls of the outer spacers are recessed with respect to the end surfaces of the plurality of channel layers by about 1 nm to about 5 nm.
However, although Lee is silent about the claimed range, it should be noted that a range does inherently exist in the fig. 21 of Lee reference, but it is not stated.
Therefore, the prior art of Lee provides foundation for experimental optimization and suggests a progress of changes in size/proportion in order to optimize the distance between the plurality of channels.
Therefore, while the structure of Lee does not quantitatively state a range, the courts have held that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a size/proportion, then a prima facie case of obviousness exists [See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art form a device of Young wherein said range is about 1 nm to about 5 nm in order to optimize the distance between the plurality of channels.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST.
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, PURVIS A. Sue can be reached on (571 )272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights