DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Election and Amendment filed on October 28, 2025.
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 Group I, Species A in the reply filed on October 28, 2025 is acknowledged. The applicant asserts that claims 1-7, amended claims 15-20, and new claims 21-27 correspond to Group I and Species A by way of amendments. However, the amended claims still correspond to Species B which is an image sensor device having pixels as shown in the embodiment of figure 10. New claims 21-27 still correspond to Group II which is a method of making a semiconductor. Group I, species A is a semiconductor device that corresponds to the embodiment of figure 2.
Amended claims 15-20 and new claims 21-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species. there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 6,624,018 B1).
In re claim 1, Yu et al. shows (figs. 8, 9) a semiconductor device, comprising: a plurality of dielectric layers (9a, 12a, 13a, 9b, etc.) that are arranged in a first direction (stacked vertically) and extend in a second direction (left-right) approximately perpendicular with the first direction; and a deep trench capacitor structure (22) that extends through the plurality of dielectric layers, wherein the deep trench capacitor structure comprises: a central portion (in opening 15b) that extends in the first direction through the plurality of dielectric layers; and a plurality of fin portions (in recess 16) that extend laterally outward from the central portion in the second direction.
In re claim 2, Yu et al. shows (figs. 8, 9) wherein the plurality of dielectric layers and the deep trench capacitor structure are included in a back end of line (BEOL) region of the semiconductor device (the upper layers of interlayer insulation above the substrate surface).
In re claim 3, Yu et al. shows (figs. 8, 9) wherein the plurality of fin portions extend laterally outward from the central portion in a third direction that is perpendicular with the first direction and the second direction. (There is no top view or alternative view to determine the third direction, but the fin portions inherently extend in the third direction since the structure is perceived to be a 3-dimensional object).
In re claim 5, Yu et al. shows (figs. 8, 9) a bottom metal contact (11a) below the plurality of fin portions; and a top metal contact (21) above the plurality of fin portions, wherein the deep trench capacitor structure is electrically connected with the bottom metal contact and the top metal contact.
In re claim 6, Yu et al. shows (figs. 8, 9) wherein the deep trench capacitor structure further comprises: a bottom contact region (not labeled but connected to 11a), of the central portion (15b) of the deep trench capacitor structure, that is electrically connected with the bottom metal contact (11a).
In re claim 7, Yu et al. shows (figs. 8, 9) wherein the deep trench capacitor structure further comprises: a plurality of bottom contact regions (not labeled but connected to 11b), of the central portion (18b) of the deep trench capacitor structure, that are electrically connected with the bottom metal contact (11b).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 6,624,018 B1) and further in view of Reznicek et al. (US Pub. 2019/0296103 A1).
In re claim 4, Yu et al. shows all of the elements of the claims except the at least a subset of the plurality of fin portions have angled walls such that the subset of the plurality of fin portions taper between the central portion and ends of the subset of the plurality of fin portions. Reznicek et al. shows (fig.11) a trench capacitor device having fin portions (402a, 402b, 402c, etc.) that have angled walls that taper between the central portion and ends of the fin portions. This configuration shows that tapered shaped fins are suitable for high capacity trench capacitors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the trench capacitor of Yu by forming angled tapered fins because Reznicek teaches that such structures suitable shapes for high capacity trench capacitors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nguyen (US 5,753,948 A), Cheng (US Pub. 2017/0033112 A1), Lan (US Pub. 2012/0199949 A1), Ishikawa (US Pub. 2009/0283819 A1), Yu (KR-20080108697-A), (JP-2024542384-A), and Pia (CN-113345896-A) also disclose elements of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E WARREN whose telephone number is (571)272-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am - 6pm.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/MATTHEW E WARREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815