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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (2022/0139912).
Re claim 1, Kwon et al. disclose forming a plurality of first mandrel patterns (300/400) at a first mandrel pitch on a substrate (100); forming a plurality of first spacers (310) on opposing side walls of each of the plurality of first mandrel patterns (Fig. 10~ [0008]); forming a first fin group (FG1) and a first dummy fin group (DFG1) by patterning the substrate by using the plurality of first spacers, wherein the first fin group is adjacent to the first dummy fin group in a first direction (Fig. 8); and removing the first dummy fin group ([0094]); wherein the first fin group (FG1) includes a first fin (F1) and a second fin (F2) adjacent to each other and arranged at a first fin pitch (FP1) in the first direction, wherein the first fin (F1) and the second fin (F2) extend in a second direction that crosses the first direction, the first dummy fin group (DFG1) includes a first dummy fin (DF1) and a second dummy fin (DF2) adjacent to each other and arranged at the first fin pitch in the first direction, wherein the first dummy fin (DFG1) and the second dummy fin (DFG2) extend in the second direction, and the second fin (F2) and the first dummy fin (DF1), which is adjacent to the second fin (F2), are arranged at a second fin pitch that is greater than the first fin pitch ([0040]~ Fig. 2).
Re claim 7, Kwon et al. disclose wherein the first fin group (FG1) and the first dummy fin group (DFG1) are arranged at the first mandrel pitch (Fig. 8).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of the following comments.
Re claim 4 and 9, Kwon et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the second fin pitch is greater than the first fin pitch and less than twice the first fin pitch; herein the first mandrel pitch is at least about 76 nm, and the first fin pitch is less than half the first mandrel pitch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited pitches through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of pitch, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed pitch or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen pitch or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen pitch is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 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.
Pending the correction of issues outlined in the rejection above, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the following in combination the remaining limitations called for in each claim:
wherein the forming the first fin group and the first dummy fin group includes forming a second fin group that is separated from the first fin group by the first dummy fin group, wherein the method further comprises, after the removing of the first dummy fin group: forming a first field insulating film between the first fin group and the second fin group; forming a first trench by etching a portion of the first field insulating film between the first fin group and the second fin group; and forming a second field insulating film in the first trench, wherein the first field insulating film has a different stress state than that of the second field insulating film, as recited in claim 2;
wherein the forming of the first trench further includes etching a portion of the substrate, wherein a lower surface of the first trench is at a lower vertical level than that of a lower surface of the first field insulating film, as recited in claim 3;
wherein the forming the first fin group and the first dummy fin group includes forming a second fin group that is separated from the first fin group by the first dummy fin group, and the first fin group and the second fin group are arranged at a first fin group pitch that is twice the first mandrel pitch, as recited in claim 5;
wherein the first fin group pitch is greater than four times the first fin pitch, as recited in claim 6;
further comprising forming a second spacer covering the plurality of first mandrel patterns before the forming the plurality of first spacers, wherein the forming the plurality of first spacers includes forming a plurality of first spacers separated from each of the plurality of first mandrel patterns by the second spacer, and the second spacer has an etch selectivity with respect to the plurality of first spacers; as recited in claim 8.
Claims 10-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to claim 10, there is no disclosure in the prior art of wherein the first fin group includes a first fin and a second fin adjacent to each other and arranged at a first fin pitch in the first direction, wherein the first fin and the second fin extend in a second direction that crosses the first direction, the second fin group includes a third fin and a fourth fin adjacent to each other and arranged at the first fin pitch in the first direction, wherein the third fin and the fourth fin extend in the second direction, and the second fin and the third fin, which is adjacent to the second fin, are arranged at a second fin pitch that is greater than three times the first fin pitch in combination with the remaining limitations recited in claim 10.
None of the prior art on record contains such a limitation, nor given the prior art on record is it obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to add said limitations as recited in claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is allowed as it is not anticipated by or obvious over the teachings of the prior art on record. Furthermore, claims 11-14 are also allowed as they depend from an allowed base claim.
With respect to claim 15, there is no disclosure in the prior art of wherein the plurality of second fin groups are alternately arranged with the plurality of second dummy fin groups in a second direction; and removing the plurality of first dummy fin groups and the plurality of second dummy fin groups, wherein each of the plurality of first fin groups includes a first fin and a second fin adjacent to each other and arranged at a first fin pitch in the first direction, wherein the first fin and the second fin extend in a third direction that crosses the first direction, each of the plurality of first dummy fin groups includes a first dummy fin and a second dummy fin adjacent to each other and arranged at the first fin pitch in the first direction, wherein the first dummy fin and the second dummy fin extending in the third direction, the second fin and the first dummy fin, which is adjacent to the second fin, are arranged at a second fin pitch that is greater than the first fin pitch, each of the plurality of second fin groups includes a third fin and a fourth fin adjacent to each other and arranged at a third fin pitch in the second direction, wherein the third fin and the fourth fin extend in a fourth direction that crosses the second direction, each of the plurality of second dummy fin groups includes a third dummy fin and a fourth dummy fin adjacent to each other and arranged at the third fin pitch in the second direction, wherein the third dummy fin and the fourth dummy fin extend in the fourth direction, the fourth fin and the third dummy fin, which is adjacent to the fourth fin, are arranged at the third fin pitch, the first fin pitch is less than the third fin pitch, and the second fin pitch is greater than the third fin pitch in combination with the remaining limitations in claim 15.
None of the prior art on record contains such a limitation, nor given the prior art on record is it obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to add said limitations as recited in claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is allowed as it is not anticipated by or obvious over the teachings of the prior art on record. Furthermore, claims 16-20 are also allowed as they depend from an allowed base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 11,670,636 B2, US 2017/0140997 A1 disclose a similar method of manufacturing a semiconductor device with mandrels, fin groups and dummy fins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 March 18, 2026