DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 2, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks with respect to claims #1-8 in the reply filed on December 31, 2025 have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
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, 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0098303 A1), hereafter “Lai”.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lai, Annotated FIG. 17B
As to claim 1, Lai teaches:
A semiconductor fin 52. See Lai, FIG. 1, FIG. 17A, FIG. 17B.
A first source/drain region 82 and a second source/drain region 82 separated by a channel 58 within the fin. Id.
A gate dielectric 92 over the channel, wherein the gate dielectric includes a first layer 92A having a first width, and a second layer 92B in contact with the first layer, wherein the second layer has a second width smaller than the first width, wherein the first layer includes a first vertical thickness (thickness of 92A) at edges of the first width, wherein the first vertical thickness is thinner than a combined vertical thickness of the first layer and the second layer at edges of the second width. As depicted in Annotated FIG. 17B above, the second width (distance between innermost vertical sidewalls of 92) is smaller than a first width (distance between outermost vertical sidewalls of 92). A first vertical thickness (thickness of 92A) is thinner than a combined vertical thickness of the first layer and the second layer (thickness of 92B). Id. at FIG. 17C.
A gate 94 located over the gate dielectric. Id. at FIG. 1.
As to claim 3, Lai teaches the first layer and the second layer are both oxides and therefore both contain oxygen. Id. at ¶ [0047]. The manner in which the claim is written does not define “same chemistry”. The second layer may comprise silicates such as hafnium silicate. Id. at ¶ [0043]. Thus the first layer comprising silicon oxide and the second layer comprising hafnium silicate may both include the same chemistries, e.g. silicon and oxygen.
As to claim 4, Lai teaches the first layer 92A comprises silicon oxide and the second layer 92B may comprise hafnium silicate. Id. at ¶¶ [0043], [0047]. Both silicon oxide and hafnium oxide have tetragonal microstructures.
As to claim 5, Lai teaches the first layer 92A comprises silicon oxide and the second layer 92B may comprise hafnium oxide (“combinations thereof”). Id. at ¶¶ [0043]. Silicon oxide has a tetragonal microstructure and hafnium oxide has monoclinic or cubic microstructures.
As to claim 6, Lai teaches nitride spacers 86 on either side of the gate. Id. at FIG. 9B.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lai as applied to claim 1.
As to claim 2, Lai teaches the gate material includes metal, but does not teach tungsten. See Lai, ¶ [0041].
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use tungsten for a metal gate material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 7, Lai teaches nitride spacers 86 and additional spacers 80 on either side of the gate. See Lai, FIG. 9B.
However, Lai does not teach the additional spacers comprising oxide layers.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use oxide layers for the insulating gate spacer material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 8, Lai does not teach the gate has a width smaller than the second width.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights