Conclusion
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, see Remarks, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 have have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant first argues (remarks page 10-12) that Kim does not teach “a first fin formed on the first and second areas and extending lengthwise along the first direction, and a second fin formed on the second and third areas and extending lengthwise along the first direction”. The examiner respectfully disagrees it sufficiently illustrated fig. 1 wherein lengthwise is (X) widthwise is (Y) see annotation below. The examiner further notes that “on” includes the use “used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with” [Merriam-Webster dictionary] under broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
501
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1
The applicant second argues that (remarks page 10 and 12-15) Chen does not teach “used as a function word to indicate position in close proximity with”. The examiner must first preface that the applicant has misquoted the clear language used by the examiner in non-final office action filed 09/03/2025. The exact langue used by the examiner:
“Chen teaches a similar device wherein widths (500A and 500B comprising length 420 plus length 350 Fig. 4) of a power rail (310 and/or 313, met under MPEP 2112.01 is compositionally the same as a power rail and/or MPEP 2111 broadest reasonable interpretation of "power rail") in a first area [comprising 500A see annotation below] and a third area [Comprising 500B see annotation below] being greater than a width (350 fig. 4) of the power rail in a second area [comprising 520 see annotation below] in a second direction (Y fig. 4).”
The examiner agrees that Kim does not teach the claimed width.
The examiner also agrees that Chen does not teach that the “power lines” are “buried”
However, Kim does teach “buried power lines” and Chen does teach “a similar device wherein widths of a power rail in a first area being greater than a width of the power rail in a second area in a second direction”. The examiner met the limitation within Chen of “power rail” under both MPEP 2112 and MPEP 2111. Under MPEP 2112 they are structural and/or material the same --a metal and/or conductive line-- thus is capable of meeting the function of providing power. Under broadest reasonable interpretation the term “rail” is a synonym to the term “line” and it provides power and/or an electrical connection to other devices and/or elements. The examiner agrees that the power line of Chen is a bit line and notes that the narrower meaning/limitations of bit line fits within the wider scope of power lines/rails and the teaching/motivation to change the widths to reduce/optimize the risk of electrical shorting, risk of electrical bridging, and/or reduction of electrical resistance within the device that can be taken from bit lines still apply to buried power lines as they are materially the same conductive/metal lines. The term “buried” denotes the location and/or arrangement of the power rail.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The amended limitation sufficiently change the scope of what is claimed in view of the new dependent claims. Thus, 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).
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 1-2, 4-5, 22-30, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200098681 A1 Kim et al hereafter “Kim”, and further in view of US 11121078 B2 Chen et al hereafter “Chen”.
Claim 1 Kim teaches a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a substrate (comprising 11 and NW figs. 1-3) including a power rail region (sufficiently disclosed), the power rail region including a first area (a first portion the plurality of I-I’ cross sections, Illustrated fig. 1 and 2), a second area (the plurality of II-II’ cross sections, Illustrated fig. 1 and 3), and a third area arranged (a second portion of the plurality of I-I’ cross sections, Illustrated fig. 1 and 2, see annotation below for an example) along a first direction (Y figs. 1-3);
a first fin (one of a left AP and/or APR figs. 1-3) on the first and second areas and extending lengthwise along the first direction, and a second fin (one of a right AP and/or APR figs. 1-3) on the second and third areas and extending lengthwise along the first direction, the first and second fins being arranged widthwise along a second direction (X figs. 1-3), and the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction;
a buried power rail (comprising 13 and 14 figs. 1-3) having a length spanning [sufficiently illustrated figs. 1-3] the first, second and third areas along the first direction in the power rail region, the buried power rail being formed in the substrate [sufficiently illustrated figs. 1-3], the buried power rail in the second area being between the first fin and the second fin [sufficiently illustrated figs. 1-3] , and
an isolation film formed (14 and 58 figs. 1-3) between the buried power rail and the substrate.
Kim does not teach in the second direction widths of buried power rails in the first area and the third area being greater than a width of the buried power rail in the second;
Chen teaches a similar device wherein in a second direction (Y fig. 4) widths (500A and 500B comprising length 420 plus length 350 Fig. 4) of a power rail (310 and/or 313, met under MPEP 2112.01 is compositionally the same as a power rail and/or MPEP 2111 broadest reasonable interpretation of “power rail”) in a first area [comprising 500A see annotation below] and a third area [Comprising 500B see annotation below] being greater than a width (350 fig. 4) of the power rail in a second area [comprising 520 see annotation below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the relative proportions of the buried power rail of Kim in view of the power rail of Chen such that “in the second direction widths of buried power rails in the first area and the third area being greater than a width of the buried power rail in the second area” as a part of routine optimization of the risk of electrical shorting, risk of electrical bridging, and/or reduction of electrical resistance within the device [Chen Column 11 line 24-column 12-29][See MPEP 2144.05 II] and/or changes in relative proportion are prima facie type obviousness [See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.].
PNG
media_image2.png
501
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim Annotated fig. 1: highlighting a first area, second area, and a third area
PNG
media_image3.png
594
817
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Chen Annotated fig. 4: highlighting a first area, second area, and a third area
Claim 2 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 1, further comprising a first dielectric layer (15 figs. 1-3) on a top surface [the top surface] of the substrate, wherein:
A top surface [the top surface] of the first dielectric layer is lower than top surfaces of the first and second fins along a third direction (Z), the buried power rail also extends upward along the third direction into the first dielectric layer, the isolation film is also between sidewalls of the buried power rail and the first dielectric layer, and a top surface (the top most surface) of the buried power rail is lower than the top surface (the top most surface) of the first dielectric layer along the third direction, the third direction being perpendicular to both the first direction and the second direction [sufficiently illustrated fig. 2].
Claim 4 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first source-drain opening (left Wsd and/or WC fig. 2, illustrated but not labeled fig. 1) in the first fin on the first area [sufficiently illustrated fig. 1];
a first source-drain structure (left SG fig. 2, SG in the first area fig. 1) in the first source-drain opening [sufficiently illustrated figs. 1-2]; and
a first conductive structure (92a fig. 2, 92 in the first area fig. 1) on the first area [illustrated figs. 1-2], the first conductive structure being in contact with a top surface of the first source-drain structure and a top surface of the buried power rail in the first area [Sufficiently illustrated figs. 1-2].
Claim 5 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 1, further comprising:
a second source-drain [the opening around SG in the second area fig. 1] opening in the second fin on the third area;
a second source-drain structure [SG in the second area fig. 1] in the second source-drain opening [sufficiently illustrated fig. 1]; and
a second conductive structure [92 in the second area fig. 1] on the third area, the second conductive structure being in contact with a top surface of the second source-drain structure and a top surface of the buried power rail in the third area [sufficiently disclosed and/or illustrated fig. 1, in context of fig. 2].
Claim 22 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 2, further comprising an interlayer dielectric layer (60 fig. 2) on a surface [the top surface fig. 2] of the first dielectric layer.
Claim 23 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 4, further comprising an interlayer dielectric layer (60 fig. 2) on the first source-drain structure [sufficiently illustrated fig. 2, met under broadest fig. 2 illustrates at least part of 60 on the first source-drain structure and/or “on” includes the use as “a functional word used to indicate position in close proximity with” [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]].
Claim 24 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 5, further comprising an interlayer dielectric layer (60 fig. 2) on the second source-drain structure [sufficiently illustrated fig. 2, met under broadest fig. 2 illustrates at least part of 60 on the top of first source-drain structure and/or “on” includes the use as “a functional word used to indicate position in close proximity with” [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]].
Claim 25 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 1, wherein the substrate is made of silicon, silicon carbide, silicon germanium, a multi-component semiconductor material composed of group Ill-V elements, silicon-on-insulator (SOI), or germanium-on-insulator [sufficently disclosed paragraph 0032 “group III-V compound semiconductor”, or “a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate or a germanium-on-insulator (GOI) substrate”].
Claim 26 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 1, wherein the buried power rail is made of rubidium, tungsten, or cobalt [the embodiment of “tungsten” is sufficiently disclosed Paragraph 0039].
Claim 27 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 1, wherein the isolation film is made of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, silicon oxycarbide, silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon nitride carbide, or silicon nitride/oxycarbide [sufficiently discloses “Silicon nitride” or “Silicon oxynitride” Paragraph 0044 for at least part of the isolation film comprising 58 and 14].
Claim 28 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 1, wherein the substrate further includes a third fin and a fourth fin on two sides of the power rail region respectively along the second direction [sufficiently illustrated fig. 1-3 under broadest reasonable interpretation, fig. 2 illustrates four fins (AP fig. 2) wherein two fins on the left side and two fins on the right side ].
Claim 29 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown the structure according to claim 2, wherein the first dielectric layer is on sidewalls of the first fin and the second fin [illustrated fig. 2].
Claim 30 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 2, insulating layer materials silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, and silicon oxide layer [Paragraph 0044].
Kim in view of Chen Does not explicitly teach wherein the first dielectric layer is made of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, silicon oxycarbide, silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxide, or aluminum nitride.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select one of the known material “silicon nitride, silicon oxynitride, or silicon oxide” such that “the first dielectric layer is made of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, silicon oxycarbide, silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxide, or aluminum nitride” as selection of a known material for its known material properties is prima facie type obviousness [See MPEP 2144.07] in this case the insulative and/or dielectric property.
Claim 33 Kim in view of Chen teach as shown above the structure according to claim 1, further comprising a first gate, a second gate, a third gate, and a fourth gate [comprising GSP and GSPN fig. 1 illustrates 4 each gate spanning a distance between gate isolation pattern 80 in the second direction Y], wherein: the first gate spans along the second direction the first fin of the second area, and the second fin of the second area [sufficiently illustrated fig. 1 see annotation below]; and the fourth gate spans along the second direction the first fin of the second area and the second fin of the second area [sufficiently illustrated under broadest reasonable interpretation of the second area wherein the second area and/or a second area maybe include a plurality of second areas fig. 1 see annotation below. The examiner notes that if amended such that the separation and/or cuts between the gates and/or segments were claimed more explicitly as depicted in fig. 19 would overcome the prior art of record and would require more search and consideration. However as written the limitation is met under broadest reasonable interpretation as shown above.].
PNG
media_image4.png
504
606
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 highlighting a first gate and a fourth gate
Claim 34 Kim in view of Chen teach as shown above the structure according to claim 1, wherein orthographic projections, to a plane perpendicular to the first direction, of the first fin and a portion of the buried power rail in the third area overlap with each other [illustrated between figs. 1 a portion buried power rail 13 overlaps with the third area]; and orthographic projections, to a plane perpendicular to the first direction, of the second fin and a portion of the buried power rail in the first area overlap with each other [illustrated between figs. 1 a portion buried power rail 13 overlaps with the first area].
PNG
media_image5.png
585
604
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Kim Annotated fig. 1: highlighting a first area, second area, and a third area
Claims 3, 21 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Chen as applied the claims above, and further in view of US 20210375722 A1 Kim et al hereafter “J. Kim”
Claim 3 Kim in view of Chen teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 2.
Kim in view of Chen Does not teach as disclosed a second dielectric layer on the top surface of the buried power rail and in the first dielectric layer.
J. Kim teaches a second dielectric layer (135 fig. 3) on a top surface of a buried power rail (120 fig. 3) and in a first dielectric layer (162 comprising 162b fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim in view of Chen in further view of J. Kim by combining the buried power rail such that there is “a second dielectric layer on the top surface of the buried power rails and in the first dielectric layer” to cap and/or insulate the top side of the buried line [sufficiently disclosed paragraph 0041-0042 J. Kim] and/or combining equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie type obviousness [See MPEP 2144.06] in this case it’s combining a buried power rail structure without a capping layer with a buried power rail with a capping layer such that there is a capping layer.
Claim 21 Kim in view of Chen and J. Kim teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 3, wherein a top surface of the second dielectric layer is flush with the top surface of the first dielectric layer along the third direction [sufficiently met in view of the modification of J. Kim illustrated fig. 3 and disclosed paragraph 0041 “The insulating capping layer 135 may have an upper surface 135T that is substantially coplanar with an upper surface 162T of the device isolation layer 162. Terms such as “same,” “equal,” “planar,” or “coplanar,” as used herein encompass near identicality including variations that may occur, for example, due to manufacturing processes. The term “substantially” may be used herein to emphasize this meaning, unless the context or other statements indicate otherwise.”].
Claim 31 Kim in view of Chen and J. Kim teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 3, wherein the second dielectric layer is made of silicon oxide [met in view of J. Kim paragraph 0059 “SiO2” Silicon oxide ].
Claim 32 Kim in view of Chen and J. Kim teaches as shown above the structure according to claim 22, wherein the interlayer dielectric layer is made of silicon oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide, silicon oxycarbide, silicon oxynitride, aluminum oxide, aluminum nitride, silicon nitride carbide, or silicon nitride/oxycarbide [sufficiently discloses “Silicon nitride” or “Silicon oxynitride” Paragraph 0044 for at least part of the isolation film comprising 58 and 14].
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 William C Trice whose telephone number is (703)756-1875. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Britt Hanley can be reached at (571) 270-3042. 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.
/WCT/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/Britt Hanley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893