Attorney’s Docket Number: TSMP20191877US02
Filing Date: 8/8/2023
Claimed Priority Dates: 9/11/2020 (US 17/018,031)
10/29/2019 (US 62/927,330)
Inventors: Lin et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 4/21/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for a rejection as subjected to pre-AIA instead, 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 4/21/2026 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 3, mailed on 12/5/2003, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-20.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the species wherein:
the gate spacers 86, as illustrated in figs. 10C-10D, are present, as set forth in par.0045/ll.10-13,
the gate dielectric 92 in the N region 50N and the P region 50P, as illustrated in figs. 7 and 14C, are different, as set forth in par.0053/ll.5-7,
the gate filler 94C in the N region 50N and the P region 50P, as illustrated in figs. 7 and 14C, are different, as set forth in par.0053/ll.11-14,
the two inter-dielectric layers 88/108, as illustrated in figs. 16A-16B, are different, as set forth in par.0055/ll.13-14,
the s/d regions 82 are as illustrated in fig. 10C, and
the manufacturing process #1 is used to make conformal 92A and non-conformal 92B sub-layers, as illustrated in figs. 17A and 18-20, wherein:
the conformal and non-conformal sub-layers are made of different materials, as set forth in par.0069/ll.11-13,
the process sequence comprises an ALD followed by a PVD, as set forth in par.0061/ll.1-7, and
the ALD and PVD processes use the same precursors, as set forth in par.0061/ll.5-8
in in the reply filed on 4/21/2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The applicant indicated that claims 1-20 read on the elected species. Claims 9, 11 and 17, however, read on non-elected species of the invention. Accordingly, claims 9, 11 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 16, 18-20, 1-4, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ching (US 10,181,426).
Regarding claim 16, Ching (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a device 100A comprising:
a fin 106A extending from a substrate 102A,
an isolation structure 104A over the substrate and adjacent the fin,
a gate dielectric layer 114A/1116A along the top surface and sidewalls of the fin and the top surface of the isolation structure, and
a gate electrode 118A over the gate dielectric,
wherein:
the top surface of the fin 106A is above the top surface of the isolation structure 104A,
a first thickness (T1) of the gate dielectric layer 114A/116A along the top surface of the fin 106A is greater than a second thickness (T2) of the gate dielectric layer along the sidewalls of the fin
the gate dielectric layer comprises at least one conformal 116A and one non-conformal 114A sub-layer
Regarding claim 1, Ching (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a device 100A comprising:
a fin 106A extending from a substrate 102A,
an isolation structure 104A over the substrate and adjacent the fin,
a gate dielectric layer 114/116 along the top surface and sidewalls of the fin and the top surface of the isolation structure, and
a gate electrode layer 118A over the gate dielectric
wherein:
the top surface of the fin 106A is above the top surface of the isolation structure
a first thickness (T1) of the gate dielectric along the top surface of the fin is greater than a second thickness (T2) of the gate dielectric along the sidewalls of the fin
Regarding claim 10, Ching (see, e.g., fig. 2A) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a device 100A comprising:
a fin 106A extending from a substrate 102A
an isolation structure 104A over the substrate and adjacent the fin
an interfacial layer along the top surface and sidewalls of the fin (see, e.g., col.4/ll.16-18)
a gate dielectric layer 114A over the interfacial layer (see, e.g., col.14/ll.32-42), and
a gate electrode layer 118A over the gate dielectric
wherein:
the top surface of the fin 106A is above the top surface of the isolation structure 104A
the gate dielectric comprises oner or more conformal sub-layers 116A and one or more non-conformal sub-layers 114A, and
a first thickness (T1) of the gate dielectric layer 114/116 along the top surface of the fin 106 is greater than a second thickness (T2) of the gate dielectric along the sidewalls of the fin
Regarding claims 18 and 2, Ching shows that 1 < T1/T2 < 1.2 (see, e.g., col.7/ll.26-32 and col.10/ll.42-47).
Regarding claims 19 and 3, Ching shows that T1 is 10-30Å (see, e.g., col.10/ll.42-47, col.7/ll.26-32).
Regarding claim 4, Ching shows the device further comprising an interfacial layer between the fin and the gate dielectric layer (see, e.g., col.14/ll.16-18).
Regarding claims 20 and 14, Ching shows that the conformal sub-layer 116A is a different material than the non-conformal sub-layer 114A (see, e.g., col.8/ll.1-29).
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.
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching in view of Kang (US 2010/0109057).
Regarding claim 12, Ching fails to show that a third thickness (t3) of the first non-conformal sub-layer 114A along the top surface of the fin is 2-10Å and that a fourth (t4) thickness of the non-conformal sub-layer along the sidewalls is 1-6 Å.
Ching (see, e.g., fig. 2A) does teach that the non-conformal sub-layer 114A has a thicker portion at the top surface of the fin 106A than along the sidewalls of the fin.
Kang (see, e.g., ¶¶0027-0028) teaches that varying the thickness of the gate dielectric at different surfaces of the fin affects device performance. In particular, Kang teaches increasing dielectric thickness at the upper portion of the fin relative to the sidewalls in order to reduce electric-field concentration at upper corners of the fin and prevent degradation of on-current (see, e.g., ¶0036).
Taken together, Ching and Kang would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the relative thicknesses of dielectric material at the top surface and sidewalls of the fin constitute parameters affecting electrical performance characteristics of the device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to adjust and optimize the thicknesses of Ching including reducing the absolute thickness values while maintaining the thicker-top/thinner-sidewall relationship taught by the Ching/Kang, in order to obtain suitable electrical characteristics for a particular device implementation. Optimization of a recognized result-effective variable is ordinarily within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977).
The claimed thickness ranges therefore represent no more than the optimization of known device parameters absent persuasive evidence that the claimed values are critical or produce unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, Ching shows that 1.6 < t3/t4 < 2.5 (see, e.g., col.7/ll.26-32, col.10/ll.42-47).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 15 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.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application may be obtained from the 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 more information contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (in USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
May 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights