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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 07/07/26 has been acknowledged.
Applicant amended Claims 15, 20, 21, 24-26, 28, 30, cancelled Claim 23, and added a new Claim 35.
Status of Claims
Applicant earlier cancelled Claims 1-14.
Claims 15-22 and 24-35 are examined on merits herein.
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.
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mun et al. (US 2019/0259829) in view of Chang et al. (US 2009/0072312).
In re Claim 30, Mun teaches a method for forming a semiconductor structure (of Figs. 2, paragraph 0004), comprising (see Figs. 4 showing a method for a structure comprised more elements than exist in Figs. 2):
forming (Fig. 4d) a first lightly-doped region 238 (shown as 438, paragraphs 0038, 0067, 0070) and a second lightly-doped region 234/236 (shown in Fig. 4d as 434/436 (paragraphs 0036, 0068) in a substrate 210/211 (shown in Figs. 4 as 410/411, paragraphs 0015, 0017, 0056, 0057), wherein the second lightly-doped region 234/236 encircles the first lightly-doped region 238 (compare concentrations of lightly-doped regions with source and drain concentrations shown in paragraph 0030);
forming (Fig. 4d) an O-shaped isolation 246 (shown as 446 in Figs. 4, paragraphs 0027, 0066) overlapping a portion of the first lightly-doped region 238, a portion of the second lightly-doped region 234/236 and a portion of the substrate 210/211;
forming (Fig. 4e) an O-shaped gate structure comprised a semiconductor gate electrode 244 (shown as 444, paragraphs 0028, 0077) over the O-shaped isolation 246; and
forming (Fig. 4e) a first doped region 250 (shown as 450 in Figs. 4, paragraphs 0030, 0080) in the first lightly-doped region 238 and an O-shaped second doped region 252 (shown in Figs. 4 as 452, paragraphs 0080, 0030) in the O-shaped second lightly-doped region 234/236.
Mun does not teach that the O-shaped isolation is formed after the formation of the first lightly-doped region and the second lightly-doped region. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. IV.C and In re Gibson, 39F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930), selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. Correspondingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention forming the O-shaped isolation after the formation of the first and second lightly-doped regions, if the manufacturer prefers such order of forming the above elements.
Mun does not teach that the gate structure comprises a sacrificial gate electrode, and wherein the method further comprising replacing the O-shaped sacrificial gate electrode with an O-shaped metal gate electrode.
Chang teaches (Figs. 3A-3C-1F, paragraph) formation a sacrificial semiconductor gate electrode 54 (paragraphs 0060-0061), following formation of the metal gate electrode 74 (Figs. 3B-3E, paragraphs 0061-0063).
Mun and Chang teach analogous arts directed to MOSFETs, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Mun device and method in view of the Chang device and method, since the arts are from the same field of endeavor, and Chang created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Mun device and method (in the part related to a gate electrode material) and initially creating the O-shaped gate structure with a semiconductor (per Mun) – as a sacrificial gate electrode (per Chang), following formation of metal gate electrode (per Chang), where a metal material of the gate electrode is desirable. Please, be advised that in accordance with MPEP 2144.07 Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ...See also Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In re Claim 31, Mun/Chang teaches the method of Claim 30 as cited above, with Chang teaching a sacrificial gate electrode replaced with a metal gate electrode.
Mun/Chang further teaches (Chang, Figs. 3A-3B, paragraphs 0060-0062) forming a dielectric structure 62 over a substrate (comprised STI 27), wherein a top surface of the dielectric structure 62 is aligned with a top surface of the sacrificial gate electrode 54.
In re Claim 32, Mun/Chang teaches the method of Claim 30 as cited above.
Mun further teaches (Fig. 2b) that a depth of the O-shaped isolation 246 is less than a depth of the first lightly-doped region 238, and less than a depth of the second lightly-doped region 252.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mun/Chang in view of Duvvury et al. (US 5,221,635).
In re Claim 33, Mun/Chang teaches the method of Claim 30 as cited above and wherein (Mun, Fig. 2b) the first lightly-doped region 238, the first doped region 250 and the second doped region 252 comprise a same doping type (such as a first polarity dopants, paragraphs 0038, 0030).
Mun/Chang does not teach that the second lightly doped region also has dopants of the first polarity – in the Mun device – the second lightly doped region – being a so-called: “body region” (in which a source region 252 is disposed) - 234/236 comprises dopants of the second polarity (paragraph 0034). However, it has been known in the art before the effective filing date of the current application that body regions are used for those MOSFETs in which it is necessary to block high reverse currents (Wallace, Abstract, NPL – the reference to Wallace is made to show a common knowledge in the art).
Duvvury teaches (Fig. 2, column 2 lines 63-68 and column 3, lines 1-2) a MOSFET in which a second lightly doped region 22, a second doped region (source region) 12, and a first doped region (a drain region) 14 have dopants of a same polarity, where having the second lightly doped region 22 under the second doped region 12 is beneficial for those applications where transistors are subjected to electrostatic discharges (column 1 lines 54-56).
Mun/Chang and Duvvury teach analogous arts directed to MOSFETS, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Mun/Chang device and method in view of the Duvvury teaching, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Duvvury created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Mun/Chang device and method of Claim 30 by changing a polarity of the second lightly doped region, wherein the method creates a MOSFET not having a high reverse current but used in the structure in which the MOSFET is subjected to high electrostatic discharges, in order to protect the MOSFET.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Mun/Chang in view of Sekikawa et al. (US 2019/0326434)
In re Claim 34, Mun/Chang teaches the method of Claim 30 as cited above, including the metal gate electrode, but fails to teach the structure and the method further comprising forming a first connecting structure coupled to the first doped region, a second connecting structure coupled to the second doped region, and a third connecting structure coupled to the metal gate electrode.
Sekikawa teaches (a structure with a corresponding method of manufacture) comprised (Fig. 18) a first connecting structure CP (paragraph 0060) coupled to a first doped region DRA (paragraph 0048), a second connecting structure CP coupled to a second doped region SRa (paragraph 0049), and a third connecting structure CP coupled to a gate electrode GE (paragraph 0055).
Mun and Sekikawa teach analogous arts directed to a MOS transistor (Sekikawa, paragraph 0007) and to a method of its manufacturing, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modification the Mun method in view of the Sekikawa method, since they are from the same field of endeavor, and Sekikawa method created a successfully operated device.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Mun/Chang device and method of Claim 30 by forming the above-cited connecting structures (per Sekikawa), in order to enable creating external connections with internal structures of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-22 and 24-29 are allowed.
Claim 35 is objected to as being dependent on the rejected base claim, but would be allowed if amended to incorporate all limitations of Claim 30.
Reason for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claim 15: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 15 as: “the O-shaped gate structure exposes a first portion of the O-shaped isolation through a first sidewall and a second portion of the O-shaped isolation through a second sidewall, and the first sidewall is opposite to the second sidewall” – in combination with other limitations of the claim, since the prior arts of record teach exposing only one portion of the O-shaped isolation through one sidewall of the O-shaped gate.
Re Claim 21: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 21 as: “a first portion of the first lightly-doped region is exposed through a first bottom of the O-shaped recess, and a second portion of the first lightly-doped region is exposed through a first sidewall of the O-shaped recess”, in combination with other limitations of the claim.
Re Claims 16-20, 22, and 24-29: Claims 16-20, 22, and 24-19 are allowed due to dependency either on Claim 15 or on Claims 21.
Re Claim 35: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of Claim 35 as: “the O-shaped metal gate electrode exposes a first portion of the O-shaped isolation through a first sidewall and a second portion of the O-shaped isolation through a second sidewall”, in combination with all limitations of Claim 30, on which Claim 35 depends.
The prior arts of record, in addition to the prior arts cited by the current Office Action, also include: Wu et al. (US 2023/0275149), Roosendaal et al. (US 5,281,841), Yang et al. (US 2016/0225899), and Yoo et al. (US 2005/0199917).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’ arguments (REMARKS, filed 07/07/26) have been fully considered.
Agreeing with most comments and arguments made by the Applicant (REMARKS, pages 1-3), Examiner disagrees (as the current Office Action shows) that the new limitation for Claim 30 (REMARKS, page 4) is patentable.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 07/22/26
Prosecution Insights