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 Invention II in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu et al (US Publication No. 2021/0257261).
Regarding claim 1, Chu discloses a method comprising: providing a semiconductor structure with a first sidewall distanced from a second sidewall Fig 2, fins located between the first sidewall and the second sidewall Fig 2, and isolation regions Fig 2, 206 located between the first sidewall and the second sidewall, wherein adjacent fins are separated by a respective isolation region Fig 2; and performing a plasma etching process to etch the fins and the isolation regions Fig 11A-11C ¶0030, wherein the plasma etching process chemically etches the fins Fig 11A-11C ¶0030, wherein the plasma etching process physically etches the isolation regions to surfaces defining a crown-shaped depth profile Fig 11A-11C and Fig 22A-22C ¶0030.
Regarding claim 2, Chu discloses wherein performing the plasma etching process comprises chemically etching the fins to a substantially same depth Fig 11A-11C and Fig 22A-22C.
Regarding claim 5, Chu discloses, wherein the fins are silicon, wherein the isolation regions are silicon oxide, and wherein the plasma etching process is performed with hydrogen bromide (HBr) as an etchant ¶0013-0017, 0030, 0043.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (US Publication No. 2018/0053824).
Regarding claim 9, Wang discloses a method comprising: forming a field of fins Fig 4 extending up from an isolation layer Fig 4, 420 in a first region, a second region, and a central region located between the first region and the second region Fig 4; and performing an etching process ¶0035 to etch the isolation layer, wherein the etching process etches the isolation layer in the first region and second region to a first depth Fig 4, 440 and etches the isolation layer in the central region to a second depth Fig 4, 140, wherein the first depth is deeper than the second depth Fig 4.
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.
Claims 3-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al (US Publication No. 2021/0257261) in view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2013/0277720).
Regarding claim 3, Chu discloses all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the fins.
Whereas Kim discloses wherein the fins and the isolation regions are located over a semiconductor material, and wherein performing the plasma etching process to etch the fins and the isolation regions comprises etching into the semiconductor material under each fin and under each isolation region Fig 10 and Fig 15 ¶0051 and 0071.
Chu and Kim are analogous art because they are directed to finfets and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chu and incorporate the teachings of Kim as an alternative arrangement as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the fins and the isolation regions are located over a semiconductor material, wherein performing the plasma etching process to etch the fins and the isolation regions comprises etching into the semiconductor material under each fin and under each isolation region, and wherein a minimum depth etched under the fins is greater than a maximum depth etched under the isolation regions Fig 10 and Fig 15 ¶0051 and 0071. Chu and Kim are analogous art because they are directed to finfets and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chu and incorporate the teachings of Kim as an alternative arrangement as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses wherein at least three fins are located between the first sidewall and the second sidewall Fig 15-16. Chu and Kim are analogous art because they are directed to finfets and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chu and incorporate the teachings of Kim as an alternative arrangement as a matter of design choice.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu et al (US Publication No. 2021/0257261) in view of Chang et al (US Publication No. 2017/0194149).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Chu discloses all the limitations but silent on the arrangement of the gate structure.
Whereas Chang discloses wherein: the first sidewall is distanced from the second sidewall in a Y-direction; providing the semiconductor structure comprises providing the semiconductor structure with a first end wall distanced from a second end wall in an X-direction perpendicular to the Y- direction, with the first end wall located between a first gate structure and the second end wall, and with the second end wall located between a second gate structure and the first end wall Fig 1L.
Chu and Chang are analogous art because they are directed to finfets and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chu and incorporate the teachings of Chang as an alternative arrangement as a matter of design choice. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claims 10-12, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US Publication No. 2018/0053824) in view of Chang et al (US Publication No. 2017/0194149).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses all the limitations but silent on the depth.
Whereas Chang discloses wherein performing the etching process comprises etching the fins to a third depth, wherein the third depth is deeper than the first depth ¶0017 and 0019.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depth of the recess, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses wherein performing the etching process comprises chemically etching the fins and physically etching the isolation layer ¶0039-0040
Regarding claim 12, Chang discloses wherein the first region is formed with a terminal isolation layer segment and with intermediate isolation layer segments located between the terminal isolation layer segment and the central region Fig 1L; the second region is formed with a terminal isolation layer segment and with intermediate isolation layer segments located between the terminal isolation layer segment and the central region Fig 1L; and performing the etching process comprises etching the terminal isolation layer segment to a maximum first depth and etching the intermediate isolation layer segments to shallower first depths Fig 1L. Wang and Chang are analogous art because they are directed to finfets and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Wang because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wang and incorporate the teachings of Chang as an alternative arrangement as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Wang and Chang disclose all the limitations except the specific depth of the recess.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depth of the recess, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US Publication No. 2018/0053824) in view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2013/0277720).
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses all the limitations but silent on the etching process.
Whereas Kim discloses wherein the fins and isolation layer are formed overlying a semiconductor substrate; and wherein performing the etching process comprises removing the isolation layer, removing the fins, and recessing the semiconductor substrate to form a trench Fig 10-13.
Wang and Kim are analogous art because they are directed to finfets and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wang and incorporate the teachings of Kim as an alternative method that would improve device processing.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses depositing dielectric material in the trench to define an edge of a semiconductor device Fig 10-13. Wang and Kim are analogous art because they are directed to finfets and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wang and incorporate the teachings of Kim as an alternative method that would improve device processing.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US Publication No. 2017/0194149) in view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2013/0277720).
Regarding claim 21, Chang discloses a method comprising: forming a gate structure Fig 1L, 185/180;forming a trench adjacent to the gate structure Fig 1L, forming a spaced apart projections separated by recesses Fig 1J, wherein each projection has an uppermost surface Fig 1J, and wherein the uppermost surfaces of the projections located nearer to the gate structure are located at a greater depth than the uppermost surfaces of the projections located at a center of the trench Fig 1J; and forming a dielectric material in the trench Fig 1J.
Chang discloses all the limitations but silent on a trench bottom surface including spaced apart projections.
Whereas Kim discloses forming a trench Fig 10, wherein the trench has a trench bottom surface including spaced apart projections separated by recesses Fig 10, wherein each projection has an uppermost surface Fig 10.
Chang and Kim are analogous art because they are directed to finfets and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chang because they are from the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chang and incorporate the teachings of Kim as an alternative method that would improve device processing.
Regarding claim 22, Chang discloses a vertical depth of each uppermost surface, measured from the top surface of the gate structure, is less than 170 nanometers (nm) ¶0019. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depth of the recess, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Regarding claim 23, Kim discloses wherein each recess has a lowest surface, and wherein the lowest surfaces are located at depths within ten percent of one another Fig 10.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depth of the recess in Chang as taught by Kim, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Regarding claim 24, Chang discloses wherein the uppermost surfaces of the projections define a crown-shape profile Fig 1C.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 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, 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.
/CHRISTINE A ENAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811