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
Applicant’s election without traverse of species II, claims 1-16 and 21-24, in the reply filed on January 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 4, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because i) "103" in Fig. 3C should read "101"; ii) "118" should be removed from Fig. 10C; iii) "232" in Fig. 12B should read "132"; iv) a top surface for both "132" and "106a" should be lower than a top surface of "136" in Fig. 13; v) "106a" in Figs. 15D, 16D, 41D and 42D, should read "116"; vi) "218" should be removed from Fig. 36C; vii) a top surface for both "232" and "106a" should be lower than a top surface of "236" in Fig. 39; viii) "116" in Figs. 43B, 44B and 45B should read "160"; and ix) "218" and "106a" (of top and bottom ones) should be removed and "160" should be included; and "106" (middle one) in Fig. 43D should read 116". 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
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: 1) exceed 150 words in length; and 2) improper language. Changing the word "comprising" (line 5) to the word "including" is suggested. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. Changing "contract" to "contact" after "S/D" ([0084], line 14), are suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 21-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “a” should be inserted before “portion” (claim 3, line 4); and 2) each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP § 608.01(m) and 37 CRF 1.75(i). Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the original specification (in the prior-filed application #17/225,859, filed on April 8, 2021) for the claim limitations of "forming a fin structure and an adjacent dielectric fin from the substrate", as recited in claim 21.
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 1-16 and 21-24 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.
The claimed limitation of "first, second, and third fin structures", as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to whether each of first, second and third fin structures are in singular or plurality form applicant refers.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first fin structure" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as for different from “first, second, and third fin structures”, as recited in claim 1, line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second fin structure" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as for different from “first, second, and third fin structures”, as recited in claim 1, line 2.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the third fin structure" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as for different from “first, second, and third fin structures”, as recited in claim 1, line 2.
The claimed limitation of "semiconductor layers", as recited in claim 1, lines 4-5 26, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "semiconductor layers", as recited in claim 1, line 4.
The claimed limitation of "the first", as recited in claims 1 (lines 5, 8, 21, 23 and 26), 6, 7, 14, 21, 22 and 24, is unclear as to the first of which element applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "second", as recited in claims 1, lines 5, 8, 21, 23 and 26, is unclear as to second of which element applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "third plurality of semiconductor layers", as recited in claims 1, lines 5-6, 23-24 and 26, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a third plurality of semiconductor layers”, as recited in claim 1, lines 4-5.
The claimed limitation of "a portion of …", as recited in claims 1, 2 and 6-8, is unclear as to a portion of which element(s) applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "a portion of the first fin structure", as recited in claims 1 (line 19), 2, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a portion of the first fin structure”, as recited in claim 1, line 16.
The claimed limitation of "portions of …", as recited in claims 1, line 21, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a portion of …”, as recited in claim 1, lines 16 and/or 19.
The claimed limitation of "the second semiconductor layers of the first, second, and third plurality of semiconductor layers", as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to the second semiconductor layers of each, one or some of the first, second and third plurality of semiconductor layers applicant refers.
The claimed limitations of "at least three surfaces of the first semiconductor layers of the first, second, and third plurality of semiconductor layers", as recited in claim 1, are unclear as to at least three surfaces of each, one or some of the first semiconductor layers of each, one or some of the first, second and third plurality of semiconductor layers applicant refers.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the exposed portions of the first fin structure and the third fin structures" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear 1) as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “portions of the first, second, and third fin structures”, as recited in claim 1; and 2) the exposed portion(s) of which element applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "an end cut", as recited in claim 4, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "an end cut", as recited in claim 1.
The claimed limitation of "a top of the substrate", as recited in claim 4, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "an upper portion of the substrate", as recited in claim 1.
The claimed limitations of "a top portion of the substrate" and “an exposed top of the substrate, as recited in claim 4, is unclear as to whether said limitations are the same as or different from "an upper portion of the substrate", as recited in claim 1.
The term "slightly" in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "slightly" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The claimed limitation of "second dielectric features", as recited in claims 6 and 24, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a second dielectric feature", as recited in claims 1 and 21, respectively.
The claimed limitation of "second semiconductor layers", as recited in claims 7 (lines 8-9), 14 and 21 (lines 10-12, 18 and 20), is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a plurality of second semiconductor layers", as recited in claim 7 (line 3) and 21 (line 8).
The claimed limitation of "a portion of the fin structure", as recited in claims 7 (line 14) and 8, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a portion of the fin structure", as recited in claim 7, line 12.
The claimed limitation of "the second semiconductor layers", as recited in claim 7, line 20, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a a plurality of second semiconductor layer" and/or “second semiconductor layer”, as recited in claim 7, lines 3 and/or 8-9.
The claimed limitation of "a topmost first semiconductor layer", as recited in claims 8 and 11, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a plurality of second semiconductor layers", as recited in claim 7.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first semiconductor layers" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, it is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a plurality of first semiconductor layers”, as recited in claim 7.
The claimed limitation of "a dielectric feature", as recited in claim 14, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a dielectric feature", as recited in claim 7.
The claimed limitation of "third dielectric layers", as recited in claims 14 (line 7) and 24 (line 8), is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a third dielectric layer", as recited in claim 14 (line 6) and 24 (line 7).
The claimed limitation of "the dielectric fin", as recited in claim 15, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a dielectric fin”, as recited in claims 7 and/or 14.
The claimed limitation of "an isolation region having a first portion and a second portion separated by a dielectric fin over a substrate", as recited in claim 21, is unclear as to which element over a substrate applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "a topmost first semiconductor layer", as recited in claims 8 and 11, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a plurality of second semiconductor layers", as recited in claim 7.
The claimed limitation of "portions of …", as recited in claim 21, is unclear as to portion(s) of which element applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "the removed portions", as recited in claim 21, is unclear as to the removed portion(s) of which element applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "removing … sacrificial layers …", as recited in claim 21, is unclear as to the structure relationship between sacrificial layers and said device.
The claimed limitation of "second portions", as recited in claim 22, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a second portion", as recited in claim 21.
The claimed limitation of "an adjacent dielectric fin", as recited in claim 22, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a dielectric fin", as recited in claim 21.
The claimed limitation of "the dielectric fin", as recited in claim 22, line 4, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "a dielectric fin", as recited in claim 7 and/or “an adjacent dielectric fin”, as recited in claim 22, line 3.
The claimed limitation of "forming each of the first and second dielectric structures", as recited in claim 24, is unclear as to which step “forming each of the first and second dielectric” applicant refers.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the recessed insulating material" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claimed limitation of "exposed semiconductor layers", as recited in claim 24, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from “a plurality of first semiconductor layers” and/or “a plurality of second semiconductor layers”, as recited in claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of “forming an end cut in the second fin structure, the end cut exposing an upper portion of the substrate; and forming a dielectric fin in the end cut”, as recited in claim 1; and “recessing the insulating material to expose the plurality of the first semiconductor layers and the plurality of second semiconductor layers and an upper portion of the dielectric fin; forming a dielectric feature over the insulating material between the fin structure and the dielectric fin; forming a sacrificial gate stack on a portion of the fin structure and a portion of the dielectric feature”, as recited in claim 7.
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reference A is cited as being related to a method for forming a semiconductor device structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, LYNNE GURLEY can be reached at (571)272-1670. 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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights