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
The present application is being examined as a continuation application of 17113057 (now US Pat. # 11637204), which is a continuing application of 16714607 (now US Pat. # 10861977), which is a continuing application of 15876196 (now US Pat. # 10510893), which is a continuing application of 14935115 (now US Pat. # 9876115). Now pending in this application are claims 1-20.
Specification
The specification submitted 4/21/2023 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 4/21/2023 have been accepted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/21/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 contains what the examiner believes to be a typographical error. The applicant recites “wherein the semiconductive fin has a bottom portion tapers towards the stop layer” and believes that the recitation should be “wherein the semiconductive fin has a bottom portion tapering towards the stop layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9876115 in view of Cai (US # 20140159163).
Current application (18304787)
US Patent # 9876115 (Application Number: 14935115)
1. A device, comprising:
a semiconductive substrate;
a stop layer over the semiconductive substrate
1. (currently amended) A semiconductor device, comprising:
a semiconductor substrate;
a stop layer on the semiconductor substrate;
(see modification with a secondary reference below for crossed-out language)
a semiconductive fin over the stop layer;
a fin isolation structure connected to a sidewall of the semiconductive fin; and
a semiconductor fin on the stop layer; and
two cells adjacent to each other on the semiconductor fin, the semiconductor fin having a fin isolation structure at a common boundary that is shared by the two cells, the fin isolation structure having a dielectric portion extending from a top of the semiconductor fin to the stop layer, wherein the dielectric portion divides the semiconductor fin into two portions of the semiconductor fin and sandwiching the dielectric portion,
a source/drain epitaxial layer adjacent to the semiconductive fin, wherein the semiconductive fin is between the source/drain epitaxial layer and the fin isolation structure.
10. The semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising: two epitaxial layers respectively at both sides of the two portions of the semiconductor fin; and two dielectric layers respectively on the epitaxial layers, wherein the two dielectric layers sandwich the dummy gate spacers and the dielectric portion.
Although claim 10 of US Patent # 9876115 recites much of the claimed invention, it does not recite the stop layer comprising SiGeOx, SiGe, SiP or SiPOx, where x is greater than 0.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed, in the same field of endeavor, renders such feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Cai (US # 20140159163) teaches a similar device (see Fig. 3 and corresponding text) comprising a stop layer (feature 310 is used in forming fins 312) comprising SiGeOx, SiGe, SiP or SiPOx, where x is greater than 0 ([0050]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the material of the stop layer recited in claim 10 of US Patent # 9876115, as suggested by Cai. Specifically, the modification suggested by Cai would be to employ a stop layer comprising SiGeOx, SiGe, SiP or SiPOx, where x is greater than 0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use SiGe for a stop layer since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Double-patenting analysis continued
Current application (18304787)
US Patent # 9876115 (Application Number: 14935115)
3. The device of claim 1, wherein the source/drain epitaxial layer is separated from the semiconductive substrate by the stop layer.
See Claim 1
4. The device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductive fin is separated from the semiconductive substrate by the stop layer.
See Claim 1
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US # 20160268392) in view of Cai (US # 20140159163).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhu (US # 20160268392) teaches a device (see Fig. 21 and corresponding text), comprising:
a semiconductive substrate (1002);
a stop layer (1003) over the semiconductive substrate
a semiconductive fin (F on either side of feature 1046) over the stop layer;
a fin isolation structure (1046) connected to a sidewall (left and right sidewalls) of the semiconductive fin; and
a source/drain epitaxial layer (1032 on either side of F) adjacent to the semiconductive fin, wherein the semiconductive fin is between the source/drain epitaxial layer and the fin isolation structure (shown in Fig. 21).
Although Zhu recites much of the claimed invention, it does not recite the stop layer comprising SiGeOx, SiGe, SiP or SiPOx, where x is greater than 0.
Nonetheless the prior art at the time the application was filed, in the same field of endeavor, renders such feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Cai (US # 20140159163) teaches a similar device (see Fig. 3 and corresponding text) comprising a stop layer (feature 310 is used in forming fins 312) comprising SiGeOx, SiGe, SiP or SiPOx, where x is greater than 0 ([0050]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized the desirability and advantages of modifying the material of the stop layer of Zhu as suggested by Cai. Specifically, the modification suggested by Cai would be to employ a stop layer comprising SiGeOx, SiGe, SiP or SiPOx, where x is greater than 0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use SiGe for a stop layer since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhu teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a top surface of the fin isolation structure is higher than a top surface of the semiconductive fin (shown in Fig. 21).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhu teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the semiconductive fin is separated from the semiconductive substrate by the stop layer (shown in Fig. 21).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhu teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a bottom surface of the semiconductive fin is substantially coplanar with a bottom surface of the source/drain epitaxial layer (shown in Fig. 21, especially with the fins not resting on feature 1003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 8, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including a bottom portion of the fin isolation structure having a second linear sidewall inclined to the first linear sidewall of a top portion, wherein an interface between the top portion and the bottom portion of the fin isolation structure is lower than a top surface of the source/drain epitaxial layer.
Regarding Claim 15, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including a stop layer over the semiconductive substrate and in contact with a sidewall of the fin isolation structure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including device of claim 1, wherein the fin isolation structure is in contact with a sidewall of the stop layer.
Regarding Claim 7, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including device of claim 1, wherein the fin isolation structure is in contact with the semiconductive substrate.
Claims 3 was rejected above, as being an obvious variation of an existing patent claim (double-patenting), but would be allowable if the applicant were to file a terminal disclaimer for the cited patents.
Regarding Claim 3, although the prior art shows substantial features of the claimed invention, the prior art reviewed by the examiner neither teaches nor reasonably suggests all the claimed limitations, including the device of claim 1, wherein the source/drain epitaxial layer is separated from the semiconductive substrate by the stop layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899