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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 8/21/2026, in which claims 1, 9-10, 13, 19- 20 were amended, claims 3-6, 12, 14-15 were cancelled, claim 21 was added, has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Fig. 9 shows a region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channels and the second nonlinear channel is filled with gate 190. The drawings do not show any isolation region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channels and the second nonlinear channel; and do not show the first concave sidewall and the second concave sidewall face an isolation region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channels and the second nonlinear channel. Therefore, the feature of “wherein the first concave sidewall and the second concave sidewall face an isolation region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channels and the second nonlinear channel” of claim 1 and claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 1 and claim 10 each recites the limitation “the first concave sidewall and the second concave sidewall face an isolation region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channels and the second nonlinear channel.” However, the specification does not describe the above claimed subject matter. The specification does not describe any isolation region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channels and the second nonlinear channel.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, 13, 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 10, claim 1 and claim 10 each recites the limitation “wherein the first concave sidewall and the second concave sidewall face an isolation region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channels and the second nonlinear channel.” However, the specification does not describe any isolation region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channels and the second nonlinear channel. Further, there is no description of any such steps whether conventional or inventive that demonstrates possession thereof or therefor. Accordingly, claim 1, claim 10 and all claims depending therefrom were not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
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 1-2, 7-11, 13, 16-19 and 21 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.
Regarding claim 1 and claim 10, claim 1 and claim 10 each recites the limitation “wherein the first concave sidewall and the second concave sidewall face an isolation region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channels and the second nonlinear channel.” However, claim 1 and claim 10 each previously requires a plurality of first nonlinear channels and a plurality of second nonlinear channel each under the same gate. It is unclear how a plurality of first nonlinear channels and a plurality of second nonlinear channel each under the same gate if there is an isolation region disposed between the plurality of first nonlinear channel and the second nonlinear channel.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumida et al. (US Pub. 20110068401) in view of Yeo et al. (US Pub. 20170194442), and Lin (US Pub. 20210020762).
Regarding claim 20, Izumida et al. discloses in Figs.1-2, Fig. 3A-4M a finFET fabrication method comprising:
forming a plurality of nonlinear fins [20] over a horizontal semiconductor substrate [10], wherein each of the plurality of nonlinear fins [20] comprises a first fin and a second fin formed by patterning at least a part of the horizontal semiconductor substrate [10], the first fin having a first concave sidewall facing the second fin, and the second fin having a second concave sidewall facing the first fin, wherein the first concave sidewall and the second concave sidewall are mirrored across a vertical bisector of each of the plurality of nonlinear fin [20];
forming a sacrificial gate [28/32] over the first fin and over the second fin;
forming gate spacers [34 and 38] upon respective sidewalls of the sacrificial gate [32];
forming a source [40] in physical contact with a first end surface of the first fin;
forming a drain [40] in physical contact with a second end surface of the first fin.
wherein a respective channel length of the first fin and the second fin is measured in a direction from the source to the drain between the first end surface and the second end surface of the respective fin;
wherein the respective channel length of the first fin and the second fin are greater than a gate length of the sacrificial gate [28/32] measured in a direction from the source to the drain.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Izumida et al. fails to disclose
the plurality of nonlinear fins comprises a plurality of conic nonlinear fins.
Lin et al. discloses in Figs. 8-9
the plurality of nonlinear fins [111] comprises a plurality of conic nonlinear fins.
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 Lin et al. into the method of Izumida et al. to include the plurality of nonlinear fins comprises a plurality of conic nonlinear fins. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Izumida et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative configuration of annular fins and providing curved fins to increase carrier mobility and increase in device performance [paragraph [0001], [0072] of Lin et al.].
Izumida et al. fails to disclose
removing the sacrificial gate between the gate spacers; and
forming a replacement gate between the gate spacers, the replacement gate having a gate length measured in a direction from the source to the drain.
Yeo et al. discloses in Fig. 10-Fig. 14, paragraph [0038], [0048]
removing the sacrificial gate [122] between the gate spacers [112][Fig. 10, paragraph [0038]]; and
forming a replacement gate [110] between the gate spacers [112], the replacement gate having a gate length measured in a direction from the source to the drain [Fig. 10, paragraph [0038]].
Yeo et al. discloses a gate length of the replacement gate [110] is equal to a gate length of the sacrificial gate [122].
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 Yeo et al. into the method of Izumida et al. and Lin et al. to include removing the sacrificial gate between the gate spacers; and forming a replacement gate between the gate spacers, the replacement gate having a gate length measured in a direction from the source to the drain”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Izumida et al. and Lin et al. in the above manner for the purpose of performing a replacement gate process thereby replacing the polysilicon gate stack with a high-K metal gate to improve device performance [paragraph [0048] of Yeo et al.]. 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).
Izumida et al. discloses in Fig. 4M wherein the respective channel length of the first fin and the second fin are greater than a gate length of the sacrificial gate [28/32] measured in a direction from the source [40] to the drain [another 40].
Thus, the combination of Izumida et al., Lin et al. and Yeo et al. would result to “wherein the respective channel length of the first fin and the second fin are greater than the gate length of the replacement gate.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 7-11, 13, 16-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection and 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
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 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
