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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 12/03/2025, in which claims 1, 3-4, 9, 23 were amended, claims 7-8, 13-14 were cancelled, claim24 was added, has been entered.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “a concentration of impurities greater than in a range of 5×1018 cm−3 to 1020 cm−3”. It is unclear the meaning of “greater than in a range”. It is unclear how a concentration is greater than in a range.
For the purpose of this Action, the above limitation of claim 4 will be interpreted and examined as -- a concentration of impurities in a range of 5×1018 cm−3 to 1020 cm−3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 15, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US Pub. 20220028752).
Regarding claims 1, 21 and 24, Huang et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 16A-C, Fig. 21A-21C, Fig. 23A-23C, Fig. 24A-24C, Fig. 27A-27C a method comprising:
implanting impurities in a semiconductor substrate [50] to form an etch stop region [50B] within the semiconductor substrate [50][Fig. 2, paragraph [0020] “a buried oxide (BOX) layer formed by a process such as separation by implanted oxygen (SIMOX)”];
forming a transistor structure on a front side of the semiconductor substrate [50], wherein the transistor structure comprises a gate structure [100 and 102], wherein the gate structure is physically separated from the etch stop region [50B][Fig. 1, Fig. 16A-16C, paragraph [0042]];
forming a front-side interconnect structure [114, 112 and 120] over the transistor structure [Fig. 21A-21C, paragraph [0049]-[0055]];
performing a thinning process on a back side of the semiconductor substrate [50] to reduce a thickness of the semiconductor substrate [50], wherein the thinning process is slowed by the etch stop region [50B], wherein a portion of the etch stop region [50B] remains after performing the thinning process [Fig. 23A-23C, paragraph [0064]]; and
forming a back-side interconnect structure [145, 127, 136] over the back side of the semiconductor substrate [50] and over a back side of the portion of the etch stop region [50B][Fig. 24A-24C, Fig. 27A-27C, paragraph [0065]-[0070]];
wherein a thickness of the etch stop region [50B] after performing the thinning process is smaller than a thickness of the semiconductor substrate [50] after performing the thinning process [Fig. 23A-23C];
after performing the thinning process, forming a recess extending through the portion of the etch stop region [50B][Fig. 24A-24C, paragraph [0065]].
Notes, “etch stop” and “wherein the thinning process is slowed by the etch stop region” are intended purposes of an implanted region. An implanted region 50B is capable of performing the intended function of an etch stop region and slow the thinning process. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. MPEP2112.01. Further, per MPEP 2131, “[t]he elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Regarding claims 9, 15, 22-23, Huang et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Fig. 16A-C, Fig. 21A-21C, Fig. 23A-23C, Fig. 24A-24C, Fig. 27A-27C a method comprising:
performing an implantation process to form an implanted region [50B] of a substrate [50], wherein the implanted region [50B] is separated from a top surface of the substrate [50] by a first distance [Fig. 2, paragraph [0020] “a buried oxide (BOX) layer formed by a process such as separation by implanted oxygen (SIMOX)”];
forming an isolation region [68] over the implanted region [50B] of the substrate [50], wherein the implanted region [50B] is separated from a top surface of the isolation region [68] by a second distance [Fig. 1, Fig. 16A-C, paragraph [0029]];
forming a first transistor over the isolation region [68] and the implanted region [50B] of the substrate [50], wherein the first transistor comprises a source/drain region [92] that is separated from the implanted region [50B][Fig. 16B, Fig. 16C, paragraph [0038]];
forming a first interconnect structure [114, 112 and 120] over a first side of the first transistor, wherein the first interconnect structure [114, 112 and 120] is electrically coupled to the first transistor [Fig. 21A-21C, paragraph [0049]-[0055]];
thinning the substrate [50], wherein the implanted region [50B] is exposed after the thinning of the substrate [50][Fig. 23A-23C, paragraph [0064]]; and
forming a second interconnect structure [145, 127, 136] over a second side of the first transistor, wherein the second interconnect structure [145, 127, 136] is electrically coupled to the first transistor [Fig. 24A-24C, Fig. 27A-27C, paragraph [0065]-[0070]];
wherein the implantation process comprises implanting oxygen ions [paragraph [0020] “a buried oxide (BOX) layer formed by a process such as separation by implanted oxygen (SIMOX)”];
wherein the first distance is different than the second distance [Fig. 1, Fig. 16A];
wherein the implanted region [50B] is vertically separated from a top side of the source/drain region [92] of the first transistor by a third distance [Fig. 16B, Fig. 16C].
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Pub. 20220028752) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Mouli (US Pub. 20070012970).
Regarding claim 2, Huang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the impurities comprise boron, aluminum, gallium, indium, or titanium
Mouli discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0039] wherein the impurities [114 and 116] comprise boron, aluminum, gallium, indium, or titanium [boron].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Mouli into the method of Huang et al. to include wherein the impurities comprise boron. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a boron-rich BOX to achieve certain characteristics of the devices [paragraph [0039] of Mouli].
Regarding claim 3, Huang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the impurities are implanted using a dose in a range of 5×1014 cm−2 to 2×1015 cm−2.
Mouli discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0039] wherein the impurities are implanted using a dose in a range of 5×1014 cm−2 to 2×1015 cm−2 [“Oxygen (or nitrogen) is implanted 114 into the substrate 110 (typically about 1015 to about 1018 ions cm-2)”] “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Mouli into the method of Huang et al. to include wherein the impurities are implanted using a dose in a range of 5×1014 cm−2 to 2×1015 cm−2. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable concentration of the impurities of BOX layer [paragraph [0039] of Mouli].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. and Mouli to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain a doped region having desired characteristic. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Pub. 20220028752) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nishiguchi (US Pat. 4908693).
Regarding claim 4, Huang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the etch stop region has a concentration of impurities in a range of 5×1018 cm−3 to 1020 cm−3.
Nishiguchi discloses in column 2, lines 34-38 wherein the etch stop region has a concentration of impurities in a range of 5×1018 cm−3 to 1020 cm−3 [7x1019 ions/cm3]. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nishiguchi into the method of Huang et al. to include wherein the etch stop region has a concentration of impurities in a range of 5×1018 cm−3 to 1020 cm−3. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable concentration of the impurities of an etch stop layer.
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. and Nishiguchi to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain a doped region having desired characteristic. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claims 5-6, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Pub. 20220028752) as applied to claim 1 and claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 5, Huang et al. discloses the claimed etch stop region. Thus, the etch stop region disclosed by Huang et al. would have the claimed property of “a removal rate of the thinning process within the etch stop region is between 55% and 90% of a removal rate for the semiconductor substrate outside of the etch stop region.” “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” MPEP 2112.01
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain desired etch selectivity. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 6, Huang et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2 wherein the etch stop region [50B] is separated from a front surface of the semiconductor substrate [50] by a distance.
Huang al. fails to disclose
the distance is in a range of 40 nm to 60 nm.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain optimal distance of a doped region for its intended purpose. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 10, Huang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the implantation process comprises an energy in a range of 20 keV to 40 keV.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range.
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to provide wherein the implantation process comprises an energy in a range of 20 keV to 40 keV for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain a doped region at desired location. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 11-12, Huang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the implanted region has a height is in a range of 100 nm to 300 nm;
wherein the height of the implanted region corresponds to an impurity concentration in a range of 5×1018 cm−3 to 1020cm-3.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to provide the claimed ranges for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain optimal height and optimal impurity concentration of a doped region for its intended purpose. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Pub. 20220028752) in view of Xie et al. (US Pub. 20190214482).
Regarding claims 16-18, Huang et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 27A-27C a device comprising:
a semiconductor fin [66] comprising an implanted region [50B] at a first side [back side] of the semiconductor fin [66], wherein the implanted region has a first concentration of implanted impurities [oxygen], wherein a height of the implanted region [50B] is less than a height of the semiconductor fin [66], wherein a second side [front side] of the semiconductor fin [66] has a second concentration of the implanted impurities [oxygen] that is less than the first concentration [paragraph [0020] “a buried oxide (BOX) layer formed by a process such as separation by implanted oxygen (SIMOX)…The oxide layer 50B may be a buried oxide (BOX) layer. In some embodiments, the BOX layer is silicon dioxide (SiO2). The semiconductor layer 50C may include silicon”];
an isolation region [68] surrounding the semiconductor fin [66][Fig. 1, Fig. 27A, paragraph [0029]];
a source/drain region [92] on the second side of the semiconductor fin [66][Fig. 27B, 27C, paragraph [0038]];
a via [91 and 145] penetrating the semiconductor fin [66] to electrically contact the source/drain region [92], wherein the via [91 and 145] penetrates the implanted region [50B][Fig. 27A-B, paragraph [0037], [0065]];
a first interconnect structure [127, 136] over the first side [back side] of the semiconductor fin [66], wherein the first interconnect structure [127, 136] is electrically connected to the via [91 and 145][Fig. 27A-27C, paragraph [0066], [0067]]; and
a second interconnect structure [120] over the second side [front side] of the semiconductor fin [66][ Fig. 27A-27C, paragraph [0050]];
wherein the second interconnect structure [112 and 120] is electrically connected to the source/drain region [92][Fig. 27C].
Huang et al. fails to disclose
wherein surfaces of the isolation region and the implanted region of the semiconductor fin are level;
wherein surfaces of the isolation region and the implanted region of the semiconductor fin are level to within 5 nm.
Xie et al. discloses in Fig. 4
wherein surfaces of the isolation region [132] and the implanted region [104] of the semiconductor fin [120] are level;
wherein surfaces of the isolation region [132] and the implanted region [104] of the semiconductor fin [120] are level to within 5 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Xie et al. into the method of Huang et al. to include wherein surfaces of the isolation region and the implanted region of the semiconductor fin are level; wherein surfaces of the isolation region and the implanted region of the semiconductor fin are level to within 5 nm. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative configuration of the isolation region and the buried oxide to enhance isolation between adjacent fins/devices. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain optimal distance of a doped region for its intended purpose. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 19, Huang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the first concentration is greater than 5×1018 cm−2 and less than 1020 cm−2.
However, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Huang et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain a doped region having desired characteristic. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here 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). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Pub. 20220028752) and Xie et al. (US Pub. 20190214482) as applied to claim 16 above and in view of Mouli (US Pub. 20070012970).
Regarding claim 20, Huang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the implanted impurities comprise boron.
Mouli discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0039] wherein the implanted impurities [114 and 116] comprise boron.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Mouli into the method of Huang et al. to include wherein the implanted impurities comprise boron. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Huang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing a boron-rich BOX to achieve certain characteristics of the devices [paragraph [0039] of Mouli].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 9-12, 15-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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 D 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893