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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 9, lines 1-2, recites “a top surface of the corrugated channel structure is at or below a top surface of the semiconductor substrate,” which is not illustrated by the drawings. For example, Fig. 1B-1 illustrates the top surface of the semiconductor substrate (108) being disposed below a top surface (116) of the corrugated channel structure (104).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 11-21 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.
Claim 6, line 3, recites “angle with respect to the surface normal,” which is indefinite due to the lack of clarity as to what is meant by “the surface normal.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the other claims and the original application, this subject matter will be interpreted as “angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate.”
Claim 7, line 3, recites “angle with respect to the surface normal,” which is indefinite due to the lack of clarity as to what is meant by “the surface normal.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the other claims and the original application, this subject matter will be interpreted as “angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate.”
Claim 11, lines 2 and 3, recites “a corrugated channel structure over a semiconductor substrate having a top major surface with a surface normal,” which is indefinite due to the lack of clarity as to what is meant by “a top major surface with a surface normal.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the other claims and the original application, this subject matter will be interpreted as “a corrugated channel structure over a semiconductor substrate having a top major surface, a top surface of the corrugated channel structure having a vertical height that is normal to the top major surface.” Claims 12-20 are rejected due to their dependency from base claim 11.
Claim 14, lines 2 and 3, recites “angle with respect to the surface normal,” which is indefinite due to the lack of clarity as to what is meant by “the surface normal.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the other claims and the original application, this subject matter will be interpreted as “angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate.”
Claim 15, lines 2 and 3, recites “angles with respect to the surface normal,” which is indefinite due to the lack of clarity as to what is meant by “the surface normal.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the other claims and the original application, this subject matter will be interpreted as “angles to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate.”
Claim 17, lines 2 and 3, recites “angle with respect to the surface normal,” which is indefinite due to the lack of clarity as to what is meant by “the surface normal.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the other claims and the original application, this subject matter will be interpreted as “angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate.” Claims 20 and 21 are rejected due to their dependency from intermediate claim 17.
Claim 18, lines 2 and 3, recites “angles with respect to the surface normal,” which is indefinite due to the lack of clarity as to what is meant by “the surface normal.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the other claims and the original application, this subject matter will be interpreted as “angles to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate.”
Claim 21, lines 1 and 2, recites “the corrugated channel structures of the proper subset,” which is indefinite because it lacks a proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the other claims and the original application, this subject matter will be interpreted as “corrugated channel structures of the proper subset.”
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haynie et al. (US20220037468A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haynie teaches in Figs. [1H, 1I]/{2F-2H] a method of fabricating an integrated circuit (IC), comprising:
forming a corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) over a semiconductor substrate (102/202) comprising a substrate material (implicit), the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) having a vertical height along a surface normal relative to a top major surface of the semiconductor substrate (102/202) {[0010, 0014]/[0030, 0035]}; and
forming a first contact region (contact region of [108/208]/[138/238]) having a first conductivity type extending into a sidewall surface of the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) and a second contact region (contact region of [138/238]/[108/208]) having an opposite second conductivity type extending into a horizontal surface adjacent (degree of adjacency is unspecified) to the sidewall surface {[0011, 0022]/[0043, 0051]}.
Regarding claim 2, Haynie teaches the method as recited in claim 1, and Haynie further teaches wherein the first contact region (contact region of 108/208) is a body contact region (body region of 108/208) and the second contact region (contact region of 138/238) is a source contact region (source region of 138/238) {[0011, 0022]/[0043, 0051]}.
Regarding claim 3, Haynie teaches the method as recited in claim 1, and Haynie further teaches wherein the first contact region (contact region of 138/238) is a source contact region (source region of 138/238) and the second contact region (contact region of 108/208) is a body contact region (body region of 108/208) {[0011, 0022]/[0043, 0051]}.
Regarding claim 4, Haynie teaches the method as recited in claim 1, and Haynie further teaches wherein the horizontal surface is a bottom of a trench between the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) and an adjacent corrugated channel structure (adjacent corrugation of 116/216) {e.g., Figs. 1H, 2F – horizontal surface of 138/238 in bottom of trench}.
Regarding claim 5, Haynie teaches the method as recited in claim 1, and Haynie further teaches wherein the horizontal surface is a top surface of the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) {e.g., Figs. 1H, 2F – horizontal surface of 108/208/238 at top surface of corrugated structure}.
Regarding claim 6, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Haynie teaches the method as recited in claim 1, and Haynie further teaches wherein the first contact region (contact region of [108/208]/[138/238]) is formed by implanting a dopant species of the first conductivity type at a beamline tilt angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate (102/202) {[0039]}.
Regarding claim 8, Haynie teaches the method as recited in claim 1, and Haynie further teaches wherein the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) extends above a top surface of the semiconductor substrate (102/202).
Regarding claim 9, Haynie teaches the method as recited in claim 1, and Haynie further teaches wherein a top surface of the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) is at or below a top surface of the semiconductor substrate (102/202) {the orientation of Haynie’s drawing may be rotated to achieve this feature}.
Regarding claim 10, Haynie teaches the method as recited in claim 1, and Haynie further teaches wherein the corrugated channel structure (116/216) has a p-type body region (region of 108/208) and the second contact region is p-type (contact region of 108/208) {[0043]}.
Regarding claim 11, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Haynie teaches in Figs. [1H, 1I]/{2F-2H] an integrated circuit (IC), comprising:
a corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) over a semiconductor substrate (102/202) having a top major surface, a top surface of the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) having a vertical height that is normal to the top major surface {[0010, 0014]/[0030, 0035]}; and
a first contact region (contact region of [108/208]/[138/238]) having a first conductivity type extending into a sidewall surface of the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) and a second contact region (contact region of [138/238]/[108/208]) having an opposite second conductivity type extending into a horizontal surface adjacent (degree of adjacency is unspecified) to the sidewall surface {[0011, 0022]/[0043, 0051]}.
Regarding claim 12, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 11, and Haynie further teaches wherein the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) is one of a plurality of corrugated channel structures (corrugations of 116/216) separated by respective trenches (trenches between corrugations 116/216) formed between adjacent corrugated channel structures (adjacent corrugations of 116/216), the horizontal surface being a bottom of a respective trench (trench between corrugations 116/216) {e.g., Figs. 1H, 2F – horizontal surface of 138/238 in bottom of trench}.
Regarding claim 13, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 11, and Haynie further teaches wherein the first contact region (contact region of 138/238) is a source contact region (source region of 138/238) formed in the sidewall surface of the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216), and the second contact region (contact region of 108/208) is a body contact region (body region of 108/208) formed in a top surface of the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) or in a bottom of a trench (unselected alternative) between the corrugated channel structure and an adjacent corrugated channel structure {e.g., Figs. 1H, 2F – horizontal surface of 108/208 at top surface of corrugated structure; [0011, 0022]/[0043, 0051]}.
Regarding claim 15, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 13, and Haynie further teaches wherein the source contact region (source region of 138/238) contains a dopant species implanted at one or more beamline tilt angles to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate (102)/(202) {[0039]}.
Regarding claim 16, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 11, and Haynie further teaches wherein the first contact region (contact region of 108/208) is a body contact region (body region of 108/208) formed in the sidewall surface the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216), and the second contact region (contact region of 138/238) is a source contact region (source region of 138/238) formed in a top surface of the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) or in a bottom of a trench between the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) and an adjacent corrugated channel structure (adjacent corrugation of 116/216) {e.g., Figs. 1H, 2F – horizontal surface of 138/238 in bottom of trench; horizontal surface of 238 at top surface of corrugated structure}.
Regarding claim 18, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 16, and Haynie further teaches wherein the body contact region (body region of 108/208) contains a dopant species implanted at one or more beamline tilt angles to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate (102/202) {[0039]}.
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) 7, 14, 17, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynie et al. (US20220037468A1).
Regarding claim 7, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Haynie teaches the method as recited in claim 1, but Haynie does not expressly teach wherein the second contact region is formed by implanting a dopant species of the second conductivity type at a substantially 0° tilt angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate.
However, Haynie teaches in paragraph [0039] implanting a dopant species of a second conductivity type (contact region of [138/238]/[108/208]) at multiple angles, which may include a substantially 0° tilt angle with respect to a normal of the top major surface of a semiconductor substrate (102/202). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynie’s method based on the further teachings of Haynie – such that the second contact region is formed by implanting a dopant species of the second conductivity type at a substantially 0° tilt angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate – to attain more uniform distributions of the dopants. Haynie [0039]. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP ¶2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 14, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 13, but Haynie does not expressly teach wherein the body contact region contains a dopant species implanted at a substantially 0° tilt angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate.
However, Haynie teaches in paragraph [0039] implanting a dopant species in a body contact region (body region of 108/208) at multiple angles, which may include a substantially 0° tilt angle with respect to a normal of the top major surface of a semiconductor substrate (102/202). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynie’s method based on the further teachings of Haynie – such that the body contact region contains a dopant species implanted at a substantially 0° tilt angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate – to attain more uniform distributions of the dopants. Haynie [0039]. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP ¶2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 17, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 16, but Haynie does not expressly teach wherein the source contact region contains a dopant species implanted at a substantially 0° tilt angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate.
However, Haynie teaches in paragraph [0039] implanting a dopant species in a source contact region (source region of 138/238) at multiple angles, which may include a substantially 0° tilt angle with respect to a normal of the top major surface of a semiconductor substrate (102/202). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynie’s method based on the further teachings of Haynie – such that the source contact region contains a dopant species implanted at a substantially 0° tilt angle to the normal of the top major surface of the semiconductor substrate – to attain more uniform distributions of the dopants. Haynie [0039]. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP ¶2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 19, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 11, and Haynie further teaches wherein the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216) is one of a plurality of corrugated channel structures (corrugations of 116/216) separated by respective trenches (trenches between corrugations 116/216) formed between adjacent corrugated channel structures (adjacent corrugations of 116/216).
Haynie does not expressly teach the first contact region is one of a plurality of first contact regions each formed in the sidewall surface of a respective one of the corrugated channel structures, and the second contact region is one of a plurality of second contact regions each formed in a top surface of a respective one of the corrugated channel structures and in a bottom of a trench adjacent to a corresponding one of the corrugated channel structures.
However, each of Haynie’s Figs. [1H, 1I]/{2F-2H] includes wavy lines of side edges of the respective drawings to indicate a continuity of structure that is not illustrated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynie’s IC – to include a plurality of the illustrated transistor arranged sequentially in an Nx1 array – so as to have … more metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) transistors with extended drains. Haynie [0003]. Moreover, the instant application does not identify a new or unexpected result occurring from the claimed duplication of parts and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B). A consequence of this modification is that the first contact region is one of a plurality of first contact regions each formed in the sidewall surface of a respective one of the corrugated channel structures, and the second contact region is one of a plurality of second contact regions each formed in a top surface of a respective one of the corrugated channel structures and in a bottom of a trench adjacent to a corresponding one of the corrugated channel structures.
Regarding claim 20, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 17, but Haynie does not teach wherein the corrugated channel structure is one of a proper subset of a plurality of corrugated channel structures, and the first contact region is one of a plurality of first contact regions each formed in the sidewall surface of a respective one of the proper subset of corrugated channel structures.
However, each of Haynie’s Figs. [1H, 1I]/{2F-2H] includes wavy lines of side edges of the respective drawings to indicate a continuity of structure that is not illustrated. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Haynie’s IC – to include a plurality of the illustrated transistor arranged sequentially in an Nx1 array – so as to have … more metal oxide semiconductor (MOS) transistors with extended drains. Haynie [0003]. Moreover, the instant application does not identify a new or unexpected result occurring from the claimed duplication of parts and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B). A consequence of this modification is that the corrugated channel structure (corrugation of 116/216 within a single transistor having 108/208 within its sidewall) is one of a proper subset (subset of all corrugations, within multiple transistors, that each have 108/208 disposed within its sidewall) of a plurality of corrugated channel structures (all corrugations of 116/216 within multiple transistors), and the first contact region (contact region of 108/208 of a single transistor) is one of a plurality of first contact regions (contact regions of 108/208 of multiple transistors) each formed in the sidewall surface of a respective one of the proper subset of corrugated channel structures (subset of all corrugations, within multiple transistors, that each have 108/208 disposed within its sidewall).
Regarding claim 21, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Haynie teaches the IC as recited in claim 20, but Haynie does not teach wherein corrugated channel structures of the proper subset are separated by a same number of corrugated channel structures not in the proper subset.
However, the modification discussed with respect to intermediate claim 20 produces the consequence whereby corrugated channel structures of the proper subset (subset of all corrugations, within multiple transistors, that each have 108/208 disposed within its sidewall) are separated by a same number of corrugated channel structures not in the proper subset (subset of all corrugations, within multiple transistors, that each have 108/208 disposed within its sidewall) because each of the multiple transistors is sequentially arranged in the Nx1 array and has the same number of corrugations without 108/208 disposed in the sidewall thereof. The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to intermediate claim 20.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haynie et al. (US20230352580A1) teaches a semiconductor device includes a semiconductor substrate including a corrugated surface. A body has a first conductivity type and includes a portion extending continuously along the corrugated surface. A gate dielectric layer is on the body and extends continuously along the corrugated surface. A gate is on the gate dielectric layer, the gate extending continuously along the corrugated surface. A corrugated conformal drift region has a second conductivity type opposite from the first conductivity type, and is on and conformal with the corrugated surface of the semiconductor substrate, and extends continuously along the corrugated surface. A source has the second conductivity type and includes a portion extending continuously along the corrugated surface, the source being in contact with the body. A drain contact region electrically coupled to the drift region and having the second conductivity type.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891