DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 19 December 2025 . Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
This application is a divisional of application Serial No. 17/008,251, filed on 31 August 2020, now US Patent 12,224,213.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 16-20 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the plurality of fin-shaped structures" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since claim 16, in line3 requires “a plurality of fin structures”.
Claims 17-20 are rejected, since they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend..
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.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al., US 8,916,460, of record.
With respect to claim 16, Kwon disclose an analog-to-digital converter, comprising:
a substrate 101 including a digital area V and an analog area I;
a plurality of fin structures F1 and F7 comprising a plurality of sources/drains 162 extending along a direction over the digital area V and the analog area I of the substrate 101, as shown in Fig. 13;
a first transistor (to the right of 112c) and a second transistor (to the left of 112c) in the digital area V, wherein the first transistor includes a first gate structure 147_1 disposed over at least one the plurality of fin structures F7 and the second transistor includes a second gate structure 147_1 disposed over at least one the plurality of fin structures F7, as shown in Fig. 13;
a first isolation structure 112c disposed between the first transistor and the second transistor (as shown in Fig. 13), wherein the first isolation structure 112c comprises a first isolation feature 112c extending a first depth into the plurality of fin structures F1 and F7 and a first isolation gate structure 647_1 disposed on the first isolation feature 112c, as shown in Fig. 13;
a third transistor (to the right of 112) and a fourth transistor (to the left of 112) in the analog area I, wherein the third transistor includes a third gate structure 147_1 disposed over the plurality of fin structures F1 and F7 and the fourth transistor includes a fourth gate structure 147_5 (shown in Fig. 1A) disposed over the plurality of fin structures F1 and F7, as shown in Figs. 1A and 13; and
a second isolation structure 112 disposed between the third transistor and the fourth transistor (as shown in Fig. 13), wherein the second isolation structure 112 comprises a second isolation feature 112 extending a second depth into the plurality of fin structures F1 and F7 and a second isolation gate structure 247_1 disposed on the second isolation feature 112, see Figs. 1A and 13;
wherein top surfaces of the plurality of fin-shaped structures F1 and F7 comprising a plurality of source/drains 162, arise above top surfaces of the first isolation structure 112c and the second isolation structure112, as shown in Fig. 13. The top surfaces of the plurality of source/drain regions of the plurality of fin-shaped structures F1 and F7 arise above top surfaces of the first isolation structure 112c and the second isolation structure112, as shown in Fig. 13.
Admittedly, the preamble of claim 16 recites an analog-to-digital convertor and the body of claim 16 requires a substrate including a digital area and an analog area. First, Kwon et al. disclose that areas I and V can comprise logic circuits. Second, it has been well established that the manner of operating a device does not patentably distinguish a claimed device from a prior art device which is structurally the same. Device claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to operate does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art device, if the prior art device teaches all the structural limitations of the device claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Therefore, requiring the device of claim 16 to be an analog-to-digital convertor (in the preamble) and requiring the substrate to include a digital area and an analog area are not deemed to structurally distinguish the device recited in claim 16 from the known device of Kwon et al.
With respect to claim 17, in the device of Kwon et al., the first depth is substantially identical to the second depth, as shown in Fig. 13.
With respect to claim 18, in the device of Kwon et al., the first isolation structure 112c includes a first width along the direction (see Fig. 13) and the second isolation structure 112 includes a second width W2 along the direction (see Figs. 6 and 13), wherein the width W2 of the second solation structure 112 is greater than the width of the first isolation structure 112c, as shown in Fig. 13. However, Kwon et al. do not disclose that the ratio of the second width to the first width is between about 3 and about 30. Since Kwon et al. do teach that the width W2 of the second isolation structure 112 is greater than the width of the first isolation structure, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to optimize the ratio of the second width to the first width in the known device of Kwon et al., in order to stably dispose the gate 247_1 on the second isolation structure 112, see column 11, lines 20-30. It has been well established that where 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, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowable over the prior art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 1-8: None of the references of record teach or suggest a semiconductor structure, as recited in independent claim 1, comprising a first gate structure disposed over the first fin segment; a first isolation gate structure disposed directly over the first isolation feature, wherein the first gate structure comprises a first gate length along the first direction, wherein the first isolation gate structure comprises a second gate length along the first direction, wherein the first gate length is greater than the second gate length.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 9-15: None of the references of record teach or suggest a semiconductor device, as recited in independent claim 9, comprising a substrate including a first area and a second area; a plurality of fin structures extending along a direction over the first area and the second area of the substrate; a first transistor and a second transistor in the first area, wherein the first transistor includes a first gate structure disposed over at least one the plurality of fin structures and the second transistor includes a second gate structure disposed over at least one the plurality of fin structures; a first isolation structure disposed between the first transistor and the second transistor; a third transistor and a fourth transistor in the second area, wherein the third transistor includes a third gate structure disposed over the plurality of fin structures and the fourth transistor includes a fourth gate structure disposed over the plurality of fin structures; and a second isolation structure disposed between the third transistor and the fourth transistor, wherein the first isolation structure includes a first width along the direction and the second isolation structure includes a second width along the direction, wherein the first width is below a resolution limit of a radiation source having a wavelength at about 248 nm, wherein the second width is within the resolution limit of the radiation source, wherein a ratio of the second width to the first width is between about 3 and about 30.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Kwon et al., applied above. However, Kwon et al. do not teach or suggest each of the first gate structure and the second gate structure includes a third width along the direction, wherein each of the third gate structure and the fourth gate structure includes a fourth width along the direction, wherein a ratio of the fourth width to the third width is between about 15 and about 400, as required in dependent claim 19.
Claim 20 has been objected to because of its dependency on claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Kwon not only fails to disclose but also teaches away from "wherein top surfaces of the plurality of fin-shaped structures arise above top surfaces of the first isolation structure and the second isolation structure," as required in amended in independent claim 16. However, the plurality of fin structures F1 and F7 comprise source and drain regions 162, as shown in Fig. 13. The top surfaces of the plurality of fin-shaped structures F1 and F2 comprise top surfaces of source/drain regions 162. The top surfaces of the plurality of source/drain regions of the plurality of fin-shaped structures F1 and F7 arise above top surfaces of the first isolation structure 112c and the second isolation structure112, as shown in Fig. 13. Therefore, Applicant’s claimed device is not patentably distinct from the known device of Kwon et al.
Conclusion
The additional references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additionally cited references are related applications to the instant application.
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 MARY A WILCZEWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1849. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
MARY A. WILCZEWSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2898
/MARY A WILCZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898