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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/2/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 10/2/2026. Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 15 are amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 9-10, “contacts an upper portion of the isolation wall” should read --contacts the upper portion of the isolation wall-- and line 10, “and not contacting” should read --and does not contact-- (emphasis added).
In claim 3, line 2, “a STI layer” should read --a shallow trench isolation (STI) layer-- (emphasis added).
In claim 15, line 11, “and not contacting” should read --and does not contact-- (emphasis added).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15 and 17-19 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 15 recites the limitation “supporting wall clamping sidewalls of the fin structure” in line 5 and subsequently recites “the at least one supporting beam contacts an upper portion of the isolation wall and not contacting a bottom portion of the isolation wall” in lines 11-12. The term “the isolation wall” lacks antecedent basis in claim 15, and it is unclear whether “the isolation wall” refers to the previously recited “supporting wall” or to a separate structure.
For best understand and examination purpose, the claim will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts; and the claim limitation “the isolation wall” will be interpreted as “the supporting wall” in the instant Office Action.
Claims 17-19 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 15 from which they depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0067027) in view of Liu et al. (US 2014/0054699; hereinafter ‘Liu’).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a transistor structure (100, FIGS. 21A and 21B, [0078]) comprising:
a substrate (50, [0011]) with a fin structure (64A and 64B; hereinafter ‘64’);
an isolation wall (83, [0028]) clamping sidewalls of the fin structure (83 clamping sidewalls of 64);
a shallow trench isolation region (a trench region for 88 having 85 and 87 and 62, FIG. 9, [0043, 0049]; hereinafter ‘STI’) surrounding the isolation wall (STI surrounding 83);
at least one supporting beam (85 and 87 of 88) sustaining an upper portion of the isolation wall (88 sustaining an upper portion of 83),
wherein the at least one supporting beam is disposed within the shallow trench isolation region (88 is disposed within STI), and
the at least one supporting beam contacts an upper portion of the isolation wall (88 contacts the upper portion of 83); and
a gate region (72 and 97, FIGS. 14A and 17, [0078, 0080]; hereinafter ‘GR’) above the fin structure and the isolation wall (GR above 64 and 83);
wherein the isolation wall is configured to prevent the fin structure from collapsing (83 provides structural support for 64 to prevent collapse, [0084]).
Wang does not teach the transistor structure wherein the at least one supporting beam extends laterally from the upper portion of the isolation wall and not contacting a bottom portion of the isolation wall.
Liu teaches a transistor structure (30, FIG. 1, [0016]) wherein the at least one supporting beam (SiN layer 51, [0020]) extends laterally from the upper portion of the isolation wall (51 extends laterally from the upper portion of the oxide layer 53 corresponding to the claimed isolation wall, FIG. 10, [0020]) and not contacting a bottom portion of the isolation wall (51 does not contact the bottom portion of 53, FIG. 10).
As taught by Liu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wang to obtain and achieve the transistor structure wherein the at least one supporting beam extends laterally from the upper portion of the isolation wall and not contacting a bottom portion of the isolation wall as claimed, because this configuration provides additional protection to the upper portion of the STI region against etching and reduces STI material loss during subsequent processing [0024-0025].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Liu in combination with Wang due to the above reason.
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 1, wherein the gate region (Wang: GR, FIGS. 21A and 21B) comprising a gate dielectric layer (96, [0067]) over the fin structure substrate(96 over 64), a gate conductive layer (98) over the gate dielectric layer (98 over 96), and a cap layer (95, [0073]) over the gate conductive layer (95 over 98).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 5, wherein the isolation wall is configured to prevent the fin structure from collapsing during the formation of the gate dielectric layer, the gate conductive layer, and the cap layer (Wang: 83 prevents 64 from collapsing in subsequent processing, [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 1, further comprising a spacer layer (Wang: 73, FIG. 13, [0080]) on a sidewall of the gate region (73 on a sidewall of GR).
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches a transistor structure (FIGS. 21A and 21B, [0078]) comprising:
a substrate (50, [0011]) with a fin structure (64A and 64B; hereinafter ‘64’);
a shallow trench isolation region (a trench region for 88 having 85 and 87 and 62, FIG. 9, [0043, 0049]; hereinafter ‘STI’);
a composite structure (83 and 88, [0028, 0043]; hereinafter ‘CS’) surrounded by the shallow trench isolation region (CS surrounded by STI) and comprising a supporting wall (83) clamping sidewalls of the fin structure (83 clamping sidewalls of 64) and at least one supporting beam (85 and 87 of 88) sustaining an upper portion of the supportive wall (88 sustaining an upper portion of 83), wherein the at least one supporting beam is disposed within the shallow trench isolation region (88 is disposed within STI), and
the at least one supporting beam contacts an upper portion of the isolation wall (88 contacts the upper portion of 83); and
a gate region (72 and 97, FIGS. 14A and 17, [0078, 0080]; hereinafter ‘GR’) above the fin structure and the composite structure (GR above 64 and CS);
wherein the composite structure is configured to prevent the fin structure from collapse (CS prevents 64 from collapse, [0084]).
Wang does not teach the transistor structure wherein the at least one supporting beam extends laterally from the upper portion of the isolation wall and not contacting a bottom portion of the isolation wall.
Liu teaches a transistor structure (30, FIG. 1, [0016]) wherein the at least one supporting beam (SiN layer 51, [0020]) extends laterally from the upper portion of the isolation wall (51 extends laterally from the upper portion of the oxide layer 53 corresponding to the claimed isolation wall, FIG. 10, [0020]) and not contacting a bottom portion of the isolation wall (51 does not contact the bottom portion of 53, FIG. 10).
As taught by Liu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wang to obtain and achieve the transistor structure wherein the at least one supporting beam extends laterally from the upper portion of the isolation wall and not contacting a bottom portion of the isolation wall as claimed, because this configuration provides additional protection to the upper portion of the STI region against etching and reduces STI material loss during subsequent processing [0024-0025].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Liu in combination with Wang due to the above reason.
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 15, wherein the upper portion of the supporting wall extends upward from the bottom portion of the supporting wall (Wang: the upper portion of 83 extends in a vertical direction, FIG. 21B).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 15, wherein the supporting wall and the at least one supporting beam are made of nitride (Wang: 83 and 88 are made of nitride, [0028, 0043]).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 15, wherein the at least one supporting beam abuts against the supporting wall (Wang: 88 abuts against 83, FIG. 21B).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0067027) in view of Liu (US 2014/0054699) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Utomo et al. (US 2014/0191297; hereinafter ‘Utomo’).
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 1, but does not teach the transistor structure wherein the isolation wall clamps four sidewalls of the fin structure.
Utomo teaches a transistor structure (FIGS. 10A-10C, [0033-0035]) wherein the isolation wall (20, [0093]) clamps four sidewalls of the fin structure(20 contacts and surrounds all sidewalls of 12, which is the fin structure, [0064, 0093]).
As taught by Utomo, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wang in view of Liu to obtain and achieve the transistor structure wherein the isolation wall clamps four sidewalls of the fin structure as claimed, because this configuration not only ensures perfect electrical isolation from the substrate, but also enhances mechanical stability and provides uniform stress distribution across the fin structure [0090, 0093].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Utomo in combination with Wang in view of Liu due to the above reason.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Liu and Utomo teaches the transistor structure in claim 2, further comprising a STI layer (Wang: 62, FIG. 21B, [0036]) surrounding the isolation wall (62 surrounding 83).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0067027) in view of Liu (US 2014/0054699) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2013/0056795; hereinafter ‘Wu’).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 1, but does not teach the transistor structure further comprising a sheet channel layer disposed between the sidewalls of the fin structure and the isolation wall, wherein the sheet channel layer is formed by selective epitaxy growth.
Wu teaches a transistor structure (FIGS. 6A-6C, [0009]), further comprising a sheet channel layer (151, which is a thin layer, [0014, 0021]) disposed between the sidewalls of the fin structure and the isolation wall (151 disposed between 150 and 170), wherein the sheet channel layer is formed by selective epitaxy growth (151 is epitaxially grown by selective epitaxial growth, [0022]).
As taught by Wu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wang in view of Liu to obtain and achieve the transistor structure further comprising a sheet channel layer disposed between the sidewalls of the fin structure and the isolation wall, wherein the sheet channel layer is formed by selective epitaxy growth as claimed, because the sheet channel layer, having a think thickness and a lower bandgap than that of the fin structure, improves electrostatic control and mitigates short-channel effects [0021, 0044]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Wu in combination with Wang in view of Liu due to the above reason.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0067027) in view of Liu (US 2014/0054699) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 2016/0163862; hereinafter ‘Hu’).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 7, but does not teach the transistor structure wherein a first conductive region is formed in a first concave under an original surface of the substrate.
Hu teaches a transistor structure (100, fig. 7, [0033]), wherein a first conductive region (132) is formed in a first concave under an original surface of the substrate (132 formed in a recess of 106).
As taught by Hu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wang in view of Liu to obtain and achieve the transistor structure wherein a first conductive region is formed in a first concave under an original surface of the substrate as claimed, because it achieves uniform epitaxial growth and stable junction formation [0033].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Hu in combination with Wang in view of Liu due to the above reason.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0067027) in view of Liu (US 2014/0054699) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guillorn et al. (US 2018/0006159; hereinafter ‘Guillorn’).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 1, further comprising: a first conductive region (Wang: 80, FIG. 21A, [0078]) between the gate region and the shallow trench isolation regions (80 between GR and STI, FIGS. 21A and 21B).
Wang in view of Liu does not teach the transistor structure further comprising a metal region between the gate region and the shallow trench isolation region; wherein at least two sides of the first conductive region contact to the metal region.
Guillorn teaches a transistor structure (100, FIGS. 15A and 15B, [0119]), further comprising a metal region (242, [0122]) between the gate region and the shallow trench isolation region (242 between 230 and 214, FIGS. 5B and 11A, [0088, 0110]); wherein at least two sides of the first conductive region (222, FIGS. 8A and 8B, [0101]) contact to the metal region (at least two sides of 222 contact to 242).
As taught by Guillorn, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wang in view of Liu to obtain and achieve the transistor structure further comprising a metal region between the gate region and the shallow trench isolation region; wherein at least two sides of the first conductive region contact to the metal region as claimed, because forming the metal region conformally on the first conductive region enlarges the S/D-metal interface, producing a low-resistance ohmic contact and improving current uniformity along the fin sidewalls [0067-0068].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Guillorn in combination with Wang in view of Liu due to the above reason.
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Liu and Guillorn teaches the transistor structure in claim 9, wherein the shallow trench isolation region extends upward and above an original surface of the substrate (Wang: STI extends upward and above the original surface of 50, FIG. 21B).
Wang in view of Liu does not teach the transistor structure wherein the first conductive region is not over the shallow trench isolation region.
Guillorn teaches the transistor structure wherein the first conductive region (222, FIGS. 8A and 8B) is not over the shallow trench isolation region (222 is not over 214).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Guillorn g to obtain and achieve the transistor structure wherein the first conductive region is not over the shallow trench isolation region as claimed, because the conductive region is formed with sufficient separation from the surrounding structures to prevent merging, thereby ensuring electrical isolation and improving overall device stability [0102].
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Liu and Guillorn teaches the transistor structure in claim 9, Wang in view of Liu does not teach the transistor structure wherein the metal region contacts a top surface and a sidewall of the first conductive region.
Guillorn teaches the transistor structure wherein the metal region contacts a top surface and a sidewall of the first conductive region (242 contacts the top surface and the sidewall of 222, FIG. 15A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Guillorn to obtain and achieve the transistor structure wherein the metal region contacts a top surface and a sidewall of the first conductive region as claimed, because utilizing sidewall contact increases interfacial contact area and thereby reduces contact resistance [0067-0068].
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Liu and Guillorn teaches the transistor structure in claim 9, further comprising an L shape isolator under a bottom of the first conductive region (Wang: 65 under the bottom of 80 has the L-shape, FIG. 21A, [0056]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0067027) in view of Liu (US 2014/0054699) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schulz (US 2006/0189043).
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Liu teaches the transistor structure in claim 1, further comprising
a channel region (Wang: the exposed top region of 64 within 89, FIGS. 15 and 21A, [0066]; hereinafter ‘64T’); and
a first conductive region (80) electrically contacting to the channel region (80 electrically contacting to 64T through 65, FIG. 13, [0056]);
wherein a bottom of the gate region outside the fin structure (the bottom of 72 of GR positioned outside 64, FIG. 14A).
Wang in view of Liu does not teach the transistor structure further comprising wherein a bottom of the gate region outside the fin structure is lower than a bottom of the first conductive region.
Schulz teaches a transistor structure (FIGS. 14a and 14b, [0022]), further comprising wherein a bottom of the gate region (the bottom of 810 of the gate region including 810, 910, and 1222, [0044, 0050]) outside the fin structure (610, [0037]) is lower than a bottom of the first conductive region (the bottom of 810 is lower than a bottom of the 1310, [0052])
As taught by Schulz, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Wang in view of Liu to obtain and achieve the transistor structure further comprising wherein a bottom of the gate region outside the fin structure is lower than a bottom of the first conductive region as claimed, because the gate spacer is formed lower than the source/drain regions in order to achieve a planarized gate electrode, thereby reducing step height and improving chemical-mechanical polishing uniformity of the gate structure [0010-0012].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Schulz in combination with Wang in view of Liu due to the above reason.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Liu and Schulz teaches the transistor structure in claim 13, wherein the bottom of the gate region outside the fin structure is over a part of the shallow trench isolation region (Wang: the bottom of 72 corresponds to the bottom of 74 is over the part of 62, since 62 is STI layer, FIGS. 14A and 14C, [0036]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure in that Fujimoto (US 2012/0049261), Lee et al. (US 2008/0179689), and Sheen et al. (US 2008/0001249) disclose semiconductor devices having supporting structures within the shallow trench isolation region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 10/14/26
