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 .
Election/Restrictions Acknowledged
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, directed to a method, Claims 1-9 and 22-25, provided by Response to Restrictions filed 10/27/25, has been acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 10-21 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-9 and 22-25 are examined on merits herein.
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. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
“a self-aligned non-mandrel cut adjacent one of the sacrificial mandrel features”, as Claim 1 recites: Currently, Figs. 6 show that a location of a self-aligned non-mandrel cut line is within trench 152 that is adjacent to a mandrel spacer 142, not to a mandrel 132 (see paragraph 0071 of the published application US 2024/0321587);
“continuity line openings”, cited by Clam 1: Currently, these openings – as openings in an interconnect layer 110 - are shown, but have no assigned number.
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 disclosure, including Abstract, is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract and paragraphs 0005, 0011 of Specification (of the published application US 2024/0321587) state that a non-mandrel cut is adjacent to a sacrificial mandrel feature, which contradicts with an overall disclosure of the application, teaching and showing that a non-mandrel cut is disposed in a trench 152 of Figs. 6A/B (paragraph 0071) separated from a sacrificial mandrel 132 by a mandrel spacer 142.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
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 8, dependent on Claim 1, recites: “filling one or more of the plurality of trenches with a flowable silicon dioxide”, where Claim 1 teaches a plurality of trenches created by removal sacrificial mandrel features. But the specification fails to teach the limitation of Claim 8, since it teaches that a flowable material 160 (see Figs. 7-8 and paragraph 0072) was used to fill other trenches (not the trenches cited by Claim 1), e.g., 160 fills trenches created by removal of a temporary insulating layer 145 which are disposed outside trenches created by removal of mandrels.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1: Claim 1 recites (line 6): “forming a self-aligned non-mandrel cut adjacent one of the sacrificial mandrel features”. The recitation is unclear for a same reason that is explained in the objection to the Abstract and Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was interpreted as: “forming a self-aligned non-mandrel cut between and separated from two adjacent sacrificial mandrel features”.
In re Claim 4: Claim 4 recites: “a thickness of the mandrel spacers on the sidewalls of the sacrificial mandrel features is evenly formed”. The recitation is unclear, since leads to a question: Does a word: “thickness” relates to a sum of thicknesses of mandrel spacers or to a thickness of one mandrel spacer?
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation was interpreted as: “a thickness of each mandrel spacer on a sidewall of a corresponding sacrificial mandrel feature is evenly formed”.
In re Claim 8: Claim 8 recites: “filling one or more of the plurality of trenches with a flowable silicon dioxide”. The recitation is unclear since it is not supported by the specification (as shown in the objection to the specification).
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022], inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claim language.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation was omitted from consideration.
In re Claim 9: Claim 9, dependent on Claim 8, recites: “removing the flowable silicon dioxide, forming one or more of the continuity line openings”. In view of the interpretation of Claim 8 as shown above, the cited limitation of Claim 9 was interpreted as: “forming one or more of the continuity line openings”.
In re Claim 21: Claim 21 in line 6 has a recitation similar to that of line 6 of Claim 1. The recitation is unclear, and for this Office Action, it was interpreted similar to interpretation of line 6 of Claim 1.
In re Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 22-25: Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on one of independent Claims 1 or 22.
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 1, 5-9, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 10,192,780).
In re Claim 1, Wang teaches a method of fabricating a semiconductor device (Abstract; column 1 lines 6-10), comprising:
providing (Figs. 1) a semiconductor structure having a dielectric stack 14, 16 (column 2 lines 56-59) and a mandrel layer – comprised sublayers 18 and 20 (column 2, lines 58-59) positioned on the dielectric stack 14, 16;
patterning (Figs. 2) an array of sacrificial mandrel features 24, 25 (column 3 lines 13-19, each comprising a stack of layers 26 and 28 created from sublayers 20 and 18) into the mandrel layer and on top of an insulating layer 16 of the dielectric stack 14, 16;
forming (Figs. 4-6) a self-aligned (Abstract, column 1 lines 6-10 and 59-61) non-mandrel cut 40 (filled with fill material 34, column 4 lines 57-58) adjacent one of the sacrificial mandrel features;
removing (Figs. 8) the sacrificial mandrel features 24, 25 (column 5 lines 18-19 and 57-58), wherein removal of the sacrificial mandrel features creates a plurality of trenches;
forming (Figs. 8) one or more self-aligned (Abstract, column 1 lines 6-10 and 59-61) mandrel cuts (filled with a fill material 27; column 5 lines 60-61) in one or more of the plurality of trenches after removal of the sacrificial mandrel features;
forming (Figs. 8, column 5 lines 62-65) non-mandrel openings – as second and fourth openings - on top of the insulating layer 16;
etching (Figs. 9-10) continuity line openings 59 (column 6 lines 3-10) into the dielectric stack, wherein the self-aligned non-mandrel cut (filled with the fill material 34) is disposed to interrupt a first of the continuity line openings and the one or more self- aligned mandrel cuts (filled with the fill material 27, as shown earlier) are disposed to interrupt a second of the continuity line openings; and
forming (Figs. 11) metal lines 70, 72, 74, and 76 (column 6 lines 46-48) in the continuity line openings, except where the self-aligned non- mandrel cut 34 and the one or more self-aligned mandrel cuts 27 are disposed.
Please, note that although Wang does not use such combination of words as: “self-aligned non-mandrel cut” and “self-aligned mandrel cut” - cited by the claim, but just refers to: “self-aligned double patterning” in Abstract and in various places of the specification, it is well- known in the art that “self-aligned double patterning” refers to “self-aligned non-mandrel cut” and “self-aligned mandrel cut” – see Bouche et al (US 9,818,641), Abstract and column 1 lines 16-35 on identification of the recitations, which represent a common knowledge in the art.
In re Claim 5, Wang teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising (Figs. 5) filling the self-aligned non-mandrel cut with a first placeholder material 50 (column 4 lines 62-63).
In re Clam 6, Wang teaches the method of Claim 5, further comprising (Figs. 7-8) filling the one or more self-aligned mandrel cuts with a second placeholder material 27 (column 5 lines 59-61).
In re Claim 7, Wang teaches the method of Claim 6, further comprising (Figs. 10-11; column 6 lines 19-50) removing the first placeholder material 34 and the second placeholder material 27: a final structure of Fig. 11 has no placeholder materials.
In re Claim 8, Wang teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising filling one or more of the plurality of trenches with a flowable silicon dioxide (e.g., in accordance with the claim interpretation).
In re Claim 9, Wang teaches the method of Claim 8, further comprising removing the flowable silicon dioxide (e.g., in accordance with the claim interpretation), forming one or more of the continuity line openings (as shown for Claim 1).
In re Claim 22, Wang teaches a method of fabricating a semiconductor device (Abstract; column 1 lines 4-10), comprising:
(Figs. 1) providing a semiconductor structure having a dielectric stack 14, 16 (column 2 lines 56-57, column 3 lines 1-2), an interconnect layer 14 in the dielectric stack 14, 16, and a mandrel layer – comprised sublayers 18, 20, column 2, lines 57-59) positioned on the dielectric stack 14, 16;
patterning (Figs. 2) an array of mandrels 24, 25 (comprised sublayers 28 and 26 created from 18 and 20, column 3 lines 14-24) into the mandrel layer 18, 20 and on top of an insulating layer 16 of the dielectric stack 14, 16;
forming (Figs. 4) a self-aligned (Abstract, column 1 lines 6-10 and 59-61) non-mandrel cut 40 (with non-mandrel cut blocks 34, column 4 lines 35-59) adjacent one of the mandrels;
removing (Figs. 6-8) the mandrels 28, 26 (column 5 lines 10-13 and 55-65), wherein removal of the mandrels creates a plurality of parallel trenches (shown in Figs. 8);
forming (Figs. 8) a self-aligned (Abstract, column 1 lines 6-10 and 59-61) mandrel cut mandrel cuts (filled with a fill material 27; column 5 lines 60-61) in one of the plurality of parallel trenches;
forming (Figs. 8) non-mandrel openings (filled with the material 34) on top of the insulating layer 16, wherein the non-mandrel openings are parallel to the plurality of parallel trenches (as shown);
forming (Figs. 10) continuity lines 60 (column 6 lines 33-34) in the interconnect layer 14, wherein: the continuity lines 60 are formed in the plurality of parallel trenches and in the non- mandrel openings (as shown);
a first continuity line – a second line 60 from the left - of the continuity lines 60 includes the self-aligned non-mandrel cut -shown with material 34; and
a second continuity line – a third line 60 from the left - of the continuity lines 60 includes the mandrel cut – shown with material 27.
Please, note that although Wang does not use such combination of words as: “self-aligned non-mandrel cut” and “self-aligned mandrel cut” - cited by the claim, but just refers to: “self-aligned double patterning” in Abstract and in various places of the specification, it is well- known in the art that “self-aligned double patterning” refers to “self-aligned non-mandrel cut” and “self-aligned mandrel cut” – see Bouche et al (US 9,818,641), Abstract and column 1 lines 16-35 on identification of the recitations, which represent a common knowledge in the art.
In re Claim 23, Wang teaches the method of Claim 22, further comprising forming (Figs. 3-4) mandrel spacers 32 (column 4 lines 1-41) on sidewalls of the mandrels (each being a stack of 26, 28).
In re Claim 24, Wang teaches the method of Claim 23, wherein (Figs. 3-4) the mandrel spacers 32 on the sidewalls are disposed to evenly space the continuity lines – a spacer layer 30 (from which the spacers are created) has a defined thickness (column 4 lines 13-14).
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.
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ko et al. (US 2021/0407804).
In re Claim 2, Wang teaches the method of Claim 1 as cited above. Wang further teaches forming (Figs. 3-4, column 4 lines 1-41) mandrel spacers 32 on sidewalls of the sacrificial mandrel features. Although, based on a method of forming the mandrel spacers, especially, based on lines 5-9 of column 4 directed to a disposition of a spacer material 30, it is possible to suggests that the Wang spacers are self-aligned on sidewalls of the sacrificial mandrel features, Wang does not state that spacers are self-aligned on the sidewalls of sacrificial mandrel features.
Ko teaches (paragraph 0015) that it is common in the art forming spacers on sidewalls of mandrels being self-aligned.
Wang and Ko teach analogous arts directed to a method of creating a semiconductor device using mandrels and mandrel spacers, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Wang method in view of the Ko method, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Ko’ method created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Wang method (if needed) to create the sacrificial mandrel spacers in a self-aligned manner, as is common in the art.
In re Claim 3, Wang/Ko teaches the method of Claim 2 as cited above.
Wang further teaches that a step of removing the mandrel spacers 32 (Figs. 9-10) is made prior to etching the continuity line openings 60 (in Figs. 10-11).
In re Claim 4, Wang/Ko teaches the method of Claim 2 as cited above.
Wang further teaches that a thickness of the mandrel spacers 32 on the sidewalls of the sacrificial mandrel features 26/28 (Figs. 3-4) is evenly formed since a layer of a spacer material 30 has a defined thickness (column 4 lines 13-14).
As far as the claims are understood, Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhou et al. (CN 11569217A).
In re Claim 25, Wang teaches the method of Claim 22 as cited above, including the first and second continuity lines, but does not teach that an end of the first continuity line is staggered from an end of the second continuity line – his continuity lines have ends at the same level.
Zhou teaches (Figs. 4, as related to mandrels responsible for creating continuity lines, and an underlined text on page 7) that creating lines with different lengths (e.g., having staggered ends of at least two adjacent lines) is beneficial for a technological monitoring of to be created structure.
Wang and Zhou teach analogous arts directed to creation of semiconductor devices using mandrels, and one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Wang device and method in view of the Zhou teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Zhou’ method created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Wang device and method by creating continuity lines of different lengths when such modification is beneficial for improving a quality of the method (Zhou, page 7, paragraph 3 from the top). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to dispose the continuity lines such that an end of the first continuity line is staggered from an end of the second continuity line, if such shapes of the first and second continuity lines are preferred by the device designer: In accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible). Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 10/31/25