DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-final office action on the merits on patent application 18116721, attorney docket AA6116-US-D1-C1 111548 which has a claimed effective filing date of 11/30/201711/19/2010, based on parent provisional application 62593149,and the application is assigned to Intel Corp. The present application was filed on or after March 16, 2013 and is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8 and 13 by replacing the word “planar” with “flat,” and argues that the §112 rejection for new matter is improper and points to paragraphs 0156-0158, and figure 5B as support for the amended limitation of a flat surface in the original disclosure. Examiner disagrees. Figures 4a-4c show the formation of the trenches, but do not show the formation of a flat portion, and the disclosure does not discuss how to form a flat bottom from the trenches formed in those figures. There is no discussion of how the erosion described in the disclosure interacts with the sidewalls to form a flat surface, and the applicant did not provide relevant art to show that the disclosure uses a method known in the art to form flat bottom surfaces between fins. As previously noted, un-annotated figures are not sufficient evidence of support of a claim limitation. The applicant argues that enablement in the disclosure can be explicit, implied or inherent, but fails to cite support for the assertion. Therefore, the examiner must maintain the rejection for new matter, copied below from the previous office action, and the objection to the specification.
Specification
The amendment filed 8/5/2024 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: a planar (flat) bottom surface of the isolation stack
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended claims 1, 8 and 13 include conformal isolation layers between fins that have a planar bottoms and rounded corners. Applicant points to paragraphs [0156-0159] and figures 5B and 6B for support, but cited passage does not disclose the feature, and appears to teach away from the limitation. Paragraph [0156] states “Also, trench isolation structures between fins may also become eroded to have non-planar topography or may be formed with non-planar topography up fabrication.” It would not be clear to one skilled how the fins will be eroded into a curved shape and the lower corners rounded out while maintaining a planar bottom. It is not disclosed that the trench ever had a flat surface. Paragraph [0057] states that the end portion is co-planar with the shoulder, which describes the upper surface of the isolation stack and the exposed shoulder 554 of the fin, but is silent on the bottom surface. Paragraph [0158] discussed the fill material 578, but not the bottom surface. A search of the specification for the terms “bottom,” “flat” and “planar” did not provide any text to support the flat bottom trench. Figure 5B and 6B show a surface that appears flat, but there is no description providing limits on how planar a planar surface needs to be, and the examiner cannot assume the figures are dimensionally accurate or proportional.
Although drawings can be used as evidence of possession of the invention, See MPEP 2163 II A3a, it alone is not sufficient to support a claim. It appears to the examiner that the depiction of the flat area of the trench is incidental, not significant to the disclosure which was filed to claim the multi-layer conformal nature of an isolation structure. See Eclipse Mach. Co. v. J.H. Specialty Mfg. Co., 4 F. Supp. 306, 313 : “There is no written description of a flattened spring in Bendix patent, No. 1,172,864, therefore there is no disclosure in such patent sufficient to support the right to claim and protect an invention of such spring, and without such a disclosure there can be no dedication. This is clearly so when, as in the said patent No. 1,172,864, there is only an incidental delineation in the drawing of a flattened spring, that was unnecessary for the purpose of the invention of that patent, which relates to novel means for mounting the drive spring, and the particular shape or configuration of that spring had nothing to do with those means. The shape or configuration of the spring was not and could not have been claimed in that patent. American Steel Foundries v. Scullin-Gallagher I. S. Co. (C.C.A.) 197 F. 49; Wolff Truck Frame Co. v. American Steel Foundries (C.C.A.) 195 F. 940, 945; Simpson Newport News Shipbuilding Dry Dock Co. (D.C.) 18 F.2d 318, 322; Fulton Co. v. Powers Regulator Co. (C.C.A.) 263 F. 578; Stewart v. American Lava Co., 215 U.S. 161, 30 S. Ct. 46, 54 L. Ed. 139.
Where the written description is silent regarding some feature, the fullest disclosure of that feature by the drawing will not suffice to support a claim. Tinker v. Wilber Eureka M. R. Mfg. Co., 1 F. 138, 139; Frazer v. Gates Scoville Iron Works (C.C.) 22 F. 439, 442; Gunn v. Savage (C.C.) 30 F. 366, 369; Windle v. Parks Woolson Mach. Co. (C.C.A.) 134 F. 381. Eclipse Mach. Co. v. J.H. Specialty Mfg. Co., 4 F. Supp. 306, 313 (E.D.N.Y. 1933)
The applicant has not provided any discussion as to an advantage or motivation to form a planar-bottomed isolation surface stack. Examiner can imagine that the flat portion allows the pitch of fin to increase without increasing the depth. Without boundaries on the area considered planar, the trenches (T1) between the fins of Sung (U.S. 2016/0351565) in figure 2 have a localized flat bottom, if only the differential distance across the tangential line of the bottom of the trench extending into the figure. And, using the motivation, one skilled would provide a planar bottom between the local fins if she desired to increase the fin pitch.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time.
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, Yara Green can be reached on 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights