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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh (US 2011/0260294).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses an isolation structure of a semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate (Fig.2, numeral 31) having a first region (33) and a second region (32) , wherein there is a boundary between the first region (33) and the second region (32); a first isolation structure (39B) disposed in the first region (33) of the substrate (31), wherein the first isolation structure (39B) comprises a dielectric liner and a first insulating layer ([0082]); and a second isolation structure (39A) disposed in the second region (32) of the substrate (31), wherein the second isolation structure (39A) comprises a second insulating layer ([0083]), the first isolation structure (36A) and the second isolation structure (39A) are respectively located on both sides of the boundary, a boundary structure (32/33) is defined between the first isolation structure (39B) and the second isolation structure (39a), a width of the boundary structure is less than or equal to 50 nm, and the boundary structure is not a fin structure (Fig.2; note: direct contact between 32/33).
Regarding claim 3, Oh discloses wherein a material of the dielectric liner comprises an oxide or a nitride ([0082]).
Regarding claim 4, Oh discloses wherein a material of the dielectric liner is different from a material of the first insulating layer ([0082]- [0084]).
Regarding claim 5, Oh discloses wherein a material of the first insulating layer is identical to a material of the second insulating layer (Fig.3E, numeral 39).
Regarding claim 6, Oh discloses wherein the material of the first insulating layer comprises an oxide ([0083]).
Regarding claim 7, Oh discloses wherein a height of the first isolation structure (39B) is greater than a height of the second isolation structure (39A) (Fig.2C).
Regarding claim 8, Oh discloses wherein a width of the first isolation structure is greater than a width of the second isolation structure ([0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Oh discloses wherein a distance between the first isolation structure and the second isolation structure is less than or equal to 50 nm (Fig.2, boundary 32/33).
Regarding claim 10, Oh discloses wherein an operation voltage of the first region (Fig.2, numeral 33) is greater than an operation voltage of the second region (32).
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 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2016/0064234).
Regarding claim 2, Oh does not disclose wherein an inclined degree of a side surface of the first isolation structure relative to a top surface of the substrate is less than an inclined degree of a side surface of the second isolation structure relative to the top surface of the substrate.
Lin however discloses that the sidewalls of the first isolation structure and the second isolation structure could be tapered as well as vertical ([0024]; [0025]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was filed to have an inclined degree of a side surface of the first isolation structure relative to a top surface of the substrate is less than an inclined degree of a side surface of the second isolation structure relative to the top surface of the substrate for the purpose of optimization stress in shallow trench isolation structures and improve device performance (Lin, [0004];[0021)
Regarding claim 11, Oh discloses a fin structure disposed in the second region, and the second isolation structure surrounds the fin structure.
Lin however discloses a fin structure (Fig. 2C, numerals 214f, 202a) disposed in the second region, and the second isolation structure (216) surrounds the fin structure (214f) (Fig. 2F).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Oh with Lin to have a fin structure disposed in the second region, and the second isolation structure surrounds the fin structure for the purpose of fabrication FinFet device (Lin, [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891