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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi (US 9, 691, 765) in view of CN’933 (CN 107491933, Machine Translation is provided).
Regarding claim 1, Bi discloses an isolation structure for a substrate (Fig.6, numeral 5), the isolation structure comprising: a lower portion (30a) having a first liner (31); an upper portion (40a) having a second liner (35) vertically over the first liner (31) wherein the second liner (35) immediately abuts end surfaces of a semiconductor layer (6); and a first dielectric material (30a) surrounded by the second liner (35) from above and by the first liner (31) from below and laterally.
Bi does not disclose wherein an upper surface of the second liner is coplanar with an upper surface of the semiconductor layer.
CN’933 however discloses wherein an upper surface of the second liner (Fig. 12, numeral 500) is coplanar with an upper surface of the semiconductor layer (210).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with CN’933 to have an upper surface of the second liner is coplanar with an upper surface of the semiconductor layer for the purpose of optimizing the electrical performance on the semiconductor device (CN’933, [0007]- [0008]).
Regarding claim 3, Bi discloses wherein the second liner (35) is U-shaped, and further comprising a second dielectric material (40a) within at least a part of the U- shape of the second liner (35).
Regarding claim 7, Bi discloses wherein the first liner (31) is U-shaped and the second liner (35) is U-shaped (Fig.6).
Regarding claim 9, Bi discloses an isolation structure for a substrate (Fig.6, numeral 5), the isolation structure comprising: a lower portion (30a) having a first U-shaped liner (31) and a first dielectric material (30a) within the first U-shaped liner (31); and an upper portion (40a) over the lower portion (30a), the upper portion having a second U-shaped liner (35) and a second dielectric material (40a) within at least part of the second U-shaped liner (35) wherein the second U-shaped liner (45) immediately abuts end surfaces of a semiconductor layer (6) and wherein a lower section (31) of the second U-shaped liner (35) contacts an upper surface of the first dielectric material (30a).
Bi does not disclose wherein an upper surface of the second U-shaped liner is coplanar with an upper surface of the semiconductor layer.
CN’933 however discloses wherein an upper surface of the second liner (Fig. 12, numeral 500) is coplanar with an upper surface of the semiconductor layer (210).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with CN’933 to have an upper surface of the second U-shaped liner is coplanar with an upper surface of the semiconductor layer for the purpose of optimizing the electrical performance on the semiconductor device (CN’933, [0007]- [0008]).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi in view of CN’933 as applied to claims 3 and 9 above, and further in view of Shen (US 2014/0227858).
Regarding claim 4, Bi discloses wherein the second dielectric material (40a) partially fills the U-shape of the second liner (35).
Bi does not disclose that an upper surface of the second dielectric material is below the upper surface of the semiconductor layer.
Shen however discloses that an upper surface of the second dielectric material (Fig.11, numeral 24) is below the upper surface of the semiconductor layer (10).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with Shen to have an upper surface of the second dielectric material is below the upper surface of the semiconductor layer for the purpose of effectively forming shallow trench insulation structures (Shen [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, Bi discloses wherein the second dielectric material (40a) partially fills the second U-shape liner (35).
Bi does not disclose that an upper surface of the second dielectric material is below the upper surface of the semiconductor layer.
Shen however discloses that an upper surface of the second dielectric material (Fig.11, numeral 24) is below the upper surface of the semiconductor layer (10).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with Shen to have an upper surface of the second dielectric material is below the upper surface of the semiconductor layer for the purpose of effectively forming shallow trench insulation structures (Shen [0002]).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 21- 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi in view of CN’933 as applied to claims 1, 3 and 9 above, and further in view of Hong (US 2003/0013272).
Regarding claim 5, Bi does not disclose wherein the first dielectric material is different than the second dielectric material.
Hong however discloses wherein the first dielectric material (171) is different than the second dielectric material (191) ([0057]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with Hong to have the first dielectric material is different than the second dielectric material for the purpose of forming trench isolation structures (Hong, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Bi does not disclose wherein the first liner is thinner than the second liner.
Hong however discloses wherein the first U-shaped liner (150) is thinner than the second U-shaped liner (181) ([0033]; [0055]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with Hong to have the first liner is thinner than the second liner for the purpose of forming trench isolation structures (Hong, Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Bi does not disclose wherein the first dielectric material is different than the second dielectric material.
Hong however discloses wherein the first dielectric material (171) is different than the second dielectric material (191) ([0057]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with Hong to have the first dielectric material is different than the second dielectric material for the purpose of forming trench isolation structures (Hong, Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Hong discloses wherein the first dielectric material (171) includes a first oxide, and the second dielectric material (191) includes a second, higher density oxide ([0057]).
Regarding claim 15, Bi does not disclose wherein the first U-shaped liner is thinner than the second U-shaped liner.
Hong however discloses wherein the first U-shaped liner (150) is thinner than the second U-shaped liner (181) ([0033]; [0055]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with Hong to have the first U-shaped liner is thinner than the second U-shaped liner for the purpose of forming trench isolation structures (Hong, Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Hong discloses wherein the first dielectric material includes a first oxide, and the second dielectric material includes a second, higher density oxide ([0057]).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Hong discloses wherein the first liner has a thickness in a range of 4 to 12 nanometers (nm) ([0033]) and wherein the second liner has a thickness in a range of 6 to 14 nm ([0055]).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bi in view of CN’933 as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Liou (US 2014/0191358).
Regarding claim 6, Bi discloses wherein the first liner includes at least one of silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride (column 8, lines 10-15).
Bi does not disclose that the second liner includes at least one of silicon oxy- carbonitride, silicon carbo-nitride and silicon boro-carbon nitride.
Liou however discloses that the second liner includes at least one of silicon oxy- carbonitride, silicon carbo-nitride and silicon boro-carbon nitride ([0032]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with Liou to have the second liner includes at least one of silicon oxy- carbonitride, silicon carbo-nitride and silicon boro-carbon nitride for the purpose of improving blocking properties (Liou, [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Bi discloses wherein the first U-shaped liner includes at least one of silicon nitride and silicon oxynitride (column 8, lines 10-15).
Bi does not disclose that the second U-shaped liner includes at least one of silicon oxy- carbonitride, silicon carbo-nitride and silicon boro-carbon nitride.
Liou however discloses that the second U-shaped liner includes at least one of silicon oxy- carbonitride, silicon carbo-nitride and silicon boro-carbon nitride ([0032]).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Bi with Liou to have the second U-shaped liner includes at least one of silicon oxy- carbonitride, silicon carbo-nitride and silicon boro-carbon nitride for the purpose of improving blocking properties (Liou, [0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-14, 21-23 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
Prosecution Insights