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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant’s remarks regarding claims 6 and 12 (as well as dependent claims thereof) are not persuasive.
It is unclear what applicant means by bottom “surface” of the doped region, or which part of the top “surface” of the substate the applicant refers.
The fins (18) are shapes of the upper surface of the substrate (12). The upper portion of the second fin (18) is doped to form a doped region (24) within the second fin (18), which is part of the substrate (12) (see applicant’s Fig. 2-4).
The top surface of the substrate (12) and the top surface of the fins (18) are one and the same. The top surface of the doped region (24) and the top surface of the second fin (18) are one and the same. The top surface of the substrate (12) and the top surface of the doped region (24) are one and the same. Therefore, it is unclear how a bottom “surface” of the doped region (24) is higher than the top surface of the substrate (12).
The entirety of the breadth of the recitations and the relationships as claimed do not appear to be supported.
There is no written description support that the doped region has a bottom “surface,” per se. There are no “surfaces” between the doped region (24) of the fin (18) and the substrate (18). As one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the doped region (24) is within the fin (18) of the substrate (12) and will have a dopant profile with a boundary of the dopants at a depth therein. This is boundary is not equivalent to a “surface.” Furthermore, there is not enough written description support for the entire breadth of the claim recitation that the bottom “surface” of the doped region is higher than any top surface of the substrate (12), but rather only a specific portion(s) thereof.
As the applicant shows in the manufacturing steps from Fig. 4 to Fig. 9, the substrate (12) has a top surface with different portions at different levels (i.e. the top of the fins 18 and the portion that interfaces directly with the bottom or the STI 22). The lower boundary of the doped region (18) is above the portion of the substrate (12) directly below the doped region (18). However, the lower boundary of the doped region (18) is not above the portion of the top surface (12) directly adjacent and to the left of the doped region (18) as shown in the left cross-section (A-A’).
At best, a lower boundary of the doped region (24) within the second fin (18) is higher than a portion of the top surface of the substrate (12) directly under the shallow trench isolation (STI) (22).
As insofar as claimed, supported and definite, the examiner contends that the prior art reference of Pei et al. still teaches the newly claimed limitation. Pei teaches that the fin (12) is doped and that the upper portion of the substrate (14) is also doped to form doped region (22) with the same conductivity type as the fin (12) (par. 12). There are two doped regions disclosed, the entirety of the fin (12) and a portion (22) of the substrate (14). The lower boundary (between 12 and 22) of the doped region of the fin (12) is higher that the portion (directly under 16) of the top surface of the substrate (14). Pei also teaches that the lower boundary (between 22 and 14) of the combined doped regions (12 and 22) is higher that the portion (directly under 22) of the top portion of the substrate (14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6 and 12, the entirety of the breadth of the newly added recitations and the relationships as claimed do not appear to be supported. Claims 7-11 include the limitations of claim 6.
There is no written description support that the doped region has a bottom “surface,” per se. There are no “surfaces” between the doped region (24) of the fin (18) and the substrate (18). As one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize that the doped region (24) is within the fin (18) of the substrate (12) and will have a dopant profile with a boundary of the dopants at a depth therein. This is boundary is not equivalent to a “surface.” Furthermore, there is not enough written description support for the entire breadth of the claim recitation that the bottom “surface” of the doped region is higher than any top surface of the substrate (12), but rather only a specific portion(s) thereof.
As the applicant shows in the manufacturing steps from Fig. 4 to Fig. 9, the substrate (12) has a top surface with different portions at different levels (i.e. the top of the fins 18 and the portion that interfaces directly with the bottom or the STI 22). The lower boundary of the doped region (18) is above the portion of the substrate (12) directly below the doped region (18). However, the lower boundary of the doped region (18) is not above the portion of the top surface (12) directly adjacent and to the left of the doped region (18) as shown in the left cross-section (A-A’).
As written the newly added recitation is not supported by the originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Referring to Claim 6 and 12, it is unclear what applicant means by bottom “surface” of the doped region, or which part of the top “surface” of the substate the applicant refers. Claims 7-11 include the limitations of claim 6.
The fins (18) are shapes of the upper surface of the substrate (12). The upper portion of the second fin (18) is doped to form a doped region (24) within the second fin (18), which is part of the substrate (12) (see applicant’s Fig. 2-4).
The top surface of the substrate (12) and the top surface of the fins (18) are one and the same. The top surface of the doped region (24) and the top surface of the second fin (18) are one and the same. The top surface of the substrate (12) and the top surface of the doped region (24) are one and the same. Therefore, it is unclear how a bottom “surface” of the doped region (24) is higher than the top surface of the substrate (12).
As the applicant shows in the manufacturing steps from Fig. 4 to Fig. 9, the substrate (12) has a top surface with different portions at different levels (i.e. the top of the fins 18 and the portion that interfaces directly with the bottom or the STI 22). The lower boundary of the doped region (18) is above the portion of the substrate (12) directly below the doped region (18). However, the lower boundary of the doped region (18) is not above the portion of the top surface (12) directly adjacent and to the left of the doped region (18) as shown in the left cross-section (A-A’).
As currently written the structural scope of the claims is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pei et al. (U.S. Patent 9,852,982).
As insofar as Claim 6 is supported and definite, Pei teaches in Fig. 1-5, a semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate (14) having a transistor region (left side) and an one time programmable (OTP) capacitor region (right side); a first fin-shaped structure (10) on the transistor region and a second fin-shaped structure (12) on the OTP capacitor region, wherein the first fin-shaped structure (10) and the second fin-shaped structure (12) comprise different shapes; and a first gate electrode (36) on the first fin-shaped structure (10) and a second gate electrode (40) on the second fin-shaped structure (12), a doped region in the second fin-shaped structure (12), wherein a bottom “surface” of the doped region (i.e. the lower boundary of the dopants of 12; par. 12) is higher than a top “surface” of the substrate (14). The bottom “surface” of the doped region (i.e. the lower boundary of the combined dopant regions of 12 and 22; par. 12) is higher than a top “surface” portion of the substrate (14) directly below (22).
It has been held that when the claimed and prior art products are identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
"The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2131.
Referring to Claim 7, Pei further teaches wherein a concentration of dopants in the first fin-shaped structure (10) is less than a concentration of dopants in the second fin-shaped structure (12).
Referring to Claim 8, Pei further teaches wherein the first fin-shaped structure (10) comprises a rectangle in a cross-section perspective.
Referring to Claim 9, Pei further teaches wherein the second fin-shaped structure (12) comprises a triangle in a cross-section perspective.
Referring to Claim 10, Pei further teaches wherein the first gate electrode (36) comprises a metal gate (Col. 6, Lines 9-10).
Referring to Claim 12, Pei teaches in Fig. 1-5, a semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate (14) having a transistor region (38) and an anti-fuse capacitor region (44); a first fin-shaped structure (10) on the transistor region (38) and a second fin-shaped structure (12) on the anti-fuse capacitor region (44), wherein the first fin-shaped structure (10) and the second fin-shaped structure (12) comprise different shapes; and a first gate electrode (36) on the first fin-shaped structure (10) and a second gate electrode (40) on the second fin-shaped structure (12) , a doped region in the second fin-shaped structure (12), wherein a bottom “surface” of the doped region (i.e. the lower boundary of the dopants of 12; par. 12) is higher than a top “surface” of the substrate (14). The bottom “surface” of the doped region (i.e. the lower boundary of the combined dopant regions of 12 and 22; par. 12) is higher than a top “surface” portion of the substrate (14) directly below (22).
It has been held that when the claimed and prior art products are identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP § 2112.01. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
"The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2131.
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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pei et al. (U.S. Patent 9,852,982) in view of in further view of Ou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0249421).
As insofar as Claim 11 is supported and definite, Pei teaches the limitations of claim 6 and further teaches wherein the first gate electrode comprise: a high-k dielectric layer (34) on the first fin-shaped structure (10) (Col. 6, Lines 1-7). Pei teaches the well-known replacement gate process using a dummy gate located in the space over fin (10) subsequently occupied by the gate electrode (36) and dummy terminal located in the space over fin (12) subsequently occupied by the terminal (40). Sharpening is performed after removing the dummy terminal from its location on the fin (12) thereby exposing the top surface of the fin (12) and before the terminal (40) and gate electrode (36) are concurrently formed (Col. 7, Lines 1-17). While Pei discloses performing a replacement metal gate (RMG) process to transform the first gate electrode (“dummy gate”) and the second gate electrode (“dummy terminal”) into a first metal gate (36) and a second metal gate (40), Pei does not explicitly state having a work function metal layer on the high-k dielectric layer (34); and a low resistance metal layer on the work function metal layer.
Ou teaches in Fig. 5A-6D for example, a work function metal layer (195) on the high-k dielectric layer (192); and a low resistance metal layer (196) on the work function metal layer (195) (par. 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide the gate structure at taught by Ou for the gate structure of Pei based on its well-known suitability in the art in order to provide the desired electrical properties (i.e. threshold voltage) of the device structures utilizing the disclosed metal gate materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the method for fabricating a semiconductor device comprising forming a shallow trench isolation (STI) around the first fin-shaped structure and the second fin-shaped structure; removing part of the STI such that the first fin-shaped structure and the second fin-shaped structure protrude above a top surface of the STI while transforming the first fin-shaped structure and the second fin-shaped structure to comprise different shapes in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claims 2-5 include the limitations of claim 1.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights