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 .
Defective Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
the declaration fails to identify a proper error under 35 U.S.C. 251. The presented error that the claims were too narrow is inconsistent with prosecution history, which shows that the “active fins” limitation was added to secure allowance. Accordingly, the narrowing was not an error correctable by reissue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 7-31 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action
Claims 7-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that at least one of the broadening aspects (in the reissue) relates to claim subject matter that the applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application for the patent. Accordingly, at least some of the narrow scope of the claims in the patent were not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
Three Step Test for Recapture per MPEP 1412.0
Step 1: Whether the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims.
New independent claims 7 and 20 are broader than patent independent claim 1 by not including at least one of the following limitations:
the specific spacing of the inactive fins in relationship with the active fins as recited claim 1/lines 24-29:
PNG
media_image1.png
28
265
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
24
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2: Whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution:
PNG
media_image3.png
129
619
media_image3.png
Greyscale
From the prosecution record of the original application (15/396,993), the examiner rejected independent 1 and dependent claims 2-6 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2015/017097) (see Non Final Rejection sent on 12/18/2027; pages 3-4).
In response to the office action, applicant amended independent claim 1 to include narrower limitations as shown below (see, also, amendment filed on 03/06/2018). Applicant provided arguments about the patentability of claim 1 in light of the amendment as a whole (see remarks filed on 03/06/2018; page 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
293
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Step 3: Whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.
The recapture rule cannot be avoided since each of the listed surrender generating limitations (SGL) has been entirely eliminated from a claim present in this reissue application (see MPEP 1412.I.C(1)). Moreover, the reissue claims are not materially narrowed in any other respect. Therefore, new independent claims 7 and 20 and their dependent new claims 8-19 and 21-31 violate the recapture rule.
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.
Claims 7-9 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 9,355,911) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2010/0197096) and further in view of Wei et al. (US 2015/0115418).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Kim (figs. 1-8) teaches a method of forming an SRAM cell (e.g. fig. 16A). Kim’s fig. 1-3 teaches the same inventive concept disclosed in the instant patent figs.1A-1D. Mandrels formed on a substrate, spacers are formed on the sidewalls and a region between mandrels defined by spacer interaction. This is the same inventive concept and/or physical mechanism as claimed in claim 71. The only difference, is that the instant claim includes 3+ mandrels instead of two. However, this is considered a scaling/repetition of the same unit structure. This repetition concept is disclosed by Johnson (e.g. figs. 5-6).
PNG
media_image5.png
271
332
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
294
349
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
280
367
media_image7.png
Greyscale
This repetition concept is disclosed by Johnson (e.g. figs. 5-6). Therefore, Kim teaches the claim limitation of forming first sidewall spacers on a first set of mandrels 50, the first sidewall spacers comprising: spacers 62 that remain spaced apart from one another to form unmerged sidewall spacers; and spacers 64 that merge with one another between adjacent mandrels of the first set to form a merged sidewall spacer (Johnson teaches repetition). Also, Kim teaches that the unmerged and merged sidewall spacers comprise a first patter (e.g. fig. 4).
PNG
media_image8.png
296
325
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Kim also teaches the step of forming second sidewall spacers 70 on a second set of mandrels 42a/42b wherein the second set of mandrels are disposed in the first pattern such that each mandrel corresponds to one of the unmerged or merged sidewall spacers (see fig. 5; col. 8/ll. 51-62).
PNG
media_image9.png
293
328
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Additionally, second sidewall spacers 72 comprise a second pattern (see fig. 6).
PNG
media_image10.png
297
349
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Kim teaches the step of transferring the second pattern to a substrate to form a fin structure, the fin structure comprising first fin pairs of the SRAM cell (e.g. figs. 7, 8, 16A).
PNG
media_image11.png
253
318
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
269
334
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding the claim limitation claiming a plurality of merged spacers, this limitation is considered a scaling/repetition of the same unit structure. This repetition concept is disclosed by Johnson (e.g. figs. 5-6).
PNG
media_image13.png
261
702
media_image13.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a plurality of mandrels as that disclosed by Johnson to form multiple adjacent regions, as such repetition of unit structure is a routine design choice in semiconductor patterning and because combining prior art elements according to known methods will yield predictable results (i.e. higher integration, higher memory capacity). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Kim in view of Johnson does not disclose the step of forming a mask with an edge aligned between the fins of the second fin pair. Johnson teaches that small pitches2 are required for newer applications but they do not disclose a pitch of less than 40 nm as claimed. However, Wei teaches this step in figures 29/30. This step is similar to the disclosed step by applicant’s specification fig. 1N. Wei teaches forming a mask 706 with an edge aligned between the fins of the second fin pair ¶¶0062-0063]
PNG
media_image14.png
215
415
media_image14.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of the invention to include the method step disclosed by Wei which include the step of aligned between the fins of the second fin pair to obtain FinFET devices with tight fin pitches, for example, fin pitches of approximately 25 nm and above as suggested by Wei (¶0044).
Regarding claim 20, Johnson discloses forming mandrels having different widths in a spacer based patterning process, wherein the width of the mandrels affects the resulting spacer defined features and spacing. Accordingly, mandrel width is a result effective variable [¶0006; 0018-0023]. However, the combination does not disclose that wider mandrel has a width about twice that of each of the narrower mandrel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select appropriate relative widths of mandrels, including a ration in which a wider mandrel is twice the width of the narrower mandrel, in order to achieve desired pattern geometry, as such selection involves routine optimization of a known result-effective variable [MPEP 2144.05/2144.06].
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Johnson and further in view of Wei teaches a contiguous portion of the mask is disposed over one of the first fin pairs and a fin of the second fin pair.
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Kim in view of Johnson and further in view of Wei teaches the step of cutting a fin of the second fin pair through an opening adjacent to the mask edge.
Regarding claims 16 and 28, Wei suggests that the method produces fin pitches of approximately 25 nm and above (¶0044).
Claims 10, 11, 22 and 23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 9,355,911 ) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2010/0197096) further in view of Wei et al. (US 2015/0115418) and in further view of Porter (US 6,005,797).
Regarding claims 10, 11, 22 and 23, Kim teaches a SRAM. As shown in figure 19A, two fins of the SRAM cell form a pass gate transistor G. Also, it is implicit that the SRAM disclosed by Kim includes two access transistors, two pull up transistors and two pull down transistors. However, it is not explicitly disclosed. Nonetheless, Porter teaches the components of a conventional SRAM includes two access transistors, two pull up transistors and two pull down transistors (col. 8-20; see fig. 1).
PNG
media_image15.png
569
397
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the SRAM disclosed by Kim in view of Johnson and further in view of Wei so as to include two pass gate transistors, two pull down transistors and two pull up transistors as it is conventional in the art and as disclosed by Porter because combining prior art elements according to known methods will yield predictable results (i.e. higher integration, higher memory capacity). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) .
Claims 12-15 and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 9,355,911 ) in view of Johnson et al. (US 2010/0197096) in further view of Wei et al. (US 2015/0115418) and in further view of LiCausi (US 8,557,675).
Regarding claims 12-15 and 24-27, Kim in view of Johnson and further in view of Wei does not disclose the claimed material. However, LiCausi teaches that amorphous silicon and polysilicon are suitable materials for making mandrels (col. 4/ll. 5-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the mandrels disclosed by Kim in view of Johnson and further in view of Wei of amorphous silicon or polysilicon as disclosed by LiCausi, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 and 29-31 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 and the amendment overcome the recapture rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONARDO ANDUJAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10 AM to 8 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, Patricia L Engle can be reached at (571)272-6660. 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.
/Leonardo Andujar/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3991 CRU
Conferees
/LEE E SANDERSON/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
1 The inventive concepts provide a fine-patterning method capable of realizing a variety of pitches of successively-arranged patterns and a method of fabricating semiconductor devices using such methods (col. 1/ll. 21-38).
2 FinFETs with smaller channel lengths and smaller gate pitch exhibit higher current drive strength and less capacitance, and can operate at higher frequency, thus providing overall increased device performance. However, as semiconductor structures approach the 22 nanometer (nm) and 15 nm technology nodes, FinFETs with small channel lengths may suffer from static current leakage, with the static current leakage increasing as the channel length decreases. In addition, current processes for fabricating such small channel length FinFETs often result in high channel length variability, which can adversely affect transistor performance [0004].
Prosecution Insights