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 claims 5-6 and 13-14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
Claim 5-6 and 13-14 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. .
As to claim 5 applicant does not have support for the inner sidewall have only two sides applicant has taught the active region is rectangular in shape thus it requires at least four sides to enclose the active layer in the plan view.
Further applicant does not teach that recess or protrusion overlaps the side figure 1A depicts 114-1 is offset from the side and does not overlap the side at all.
It appears applicant may be referring to a projection would overlap however the claim requires overlapping which is not supported.
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.
Claim 1-8, 15-17 21 24-25 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.
As to claim 1 and 21 applicant has not set forth how to define a distance it is unclear if it is center to center nearest edge to nearest edge, edge to center … It appears applicant means in the plan view that the distance are true otherwise the center of the contact would be above the substrate and applicant has not set for the figures are to scale. Further there are infinite number of distances one can define. It appears applicant means a shortest distance.
As to claim 5-6, 13-14, Recitation of a top view is unclear what constitutes a top view. While the top view refers to a layout, a top view appears to be broader since a fixed top has not been established. The office will interpret the recitation to mean the top view implying the plan view or the layout view which would inherently be possessed by a device layout. However, a generic “top view” is not well established and there are multiple ways to define a top relative to the other direction and elements (e.g. perpendicular to both the first and second directions.
Further claims 5 and 13 recites enclosing it is unclear the scope it appears applicant mean in plan view encloses since the isolation does not enclose the active layer on the top and bottom.
As to claim 7-8 and 15-17 applicant has not structurally linked the body to the source and drain regions it appears applicant is double including the body as the body and the source drains
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.
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) 1-4, and 9-12, 21, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (20090026547) in view of Hirota (20080050886) in view of Huang.
As to claim 1, 9 , and 21 Lee teaches a substrate comprising an active region (figures 11 and 12 item 100 and 101b) a plurality of gate stack structures disposed on the active region of the substrate (items 110 figure 11 act as two gates and applicant does not preclude the gates being tied together ); an isolation structure embedded within the substrate and surrounding the active region (item 102); Lee teaches a plurality of gates items 110a one for each ger ( item 110 in figure 12 and corresponding to items 110 in figure 11) Lee further teaches one is an “outermost” this is arbitrary one of the 110 can be labeled outermost it is merely a label. Lee teaches source drains on either side of the “outermost gate” item 112b and electrical contacts on the source drain item 116)
Lee does not teach and an interlayer dielectric (ILD) covering the plurality of gate stack structures, and the ILD comprises a first protruding portion protruding toward the isolation structure.
Hirota teaches due to the filling of STI it was known for dents to form in STI (paragraphs 16-19 and figure 2C).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have formed the isolation structures of Lee using conventional technique in the art at the time. To provide the expected outcome of filled isolation structure which would have inherently provided the dents due to the seams when filling the isolation.
Huang teaches passivating the surface of the active layer with a ILD (item 22 figure 10) to passivate the surface and to provide support for metallizations.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have formed a ILD over the structure of Lee in view of Hirota to have passivated the surface and to provide structural support for interconnects to form integrated circuit device.
Thus, the dents would be filled with the ILD. And the ILD would have protruding portions at the dent regions the dents would be recesses in the isolation structures.
These dents would inherently be further away than the contacts and source drain since the source drains are closer to the gate than the STIs see figure is further away.
b. As to claim 2 and 10, Lee in view of Hirota and Huang would teach wherein each of the plurality of gate stack structures extends along a first direction, and the first protruding/recess/dents portion of the ILD extends along the first direction figure 8 Lee suggests the dents extend along the active regions or a first direction.
c. As to claim 3 and 11, Lee in view of Hirota and Huang suggests herein a length of the active region is less than a length of the first protruding portion of the ILD along the first direction ( the dent extends along the entire length of the isolation due to the seams the isolation is larger than the active region in the center and thus the protrusions).
d. As to claim 4 and 12, Applicant does not the term substantially.
Applicant states: Also, as used herein, the terms "substantially," "approximately" and “about” generally mean within a value or range that can be contemplated by people having ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively, the terms "substantially," "approximately" and “about” mean within an acceptable standard error of the mean when considered by one of ordinary skill in the art. People having ordinary skill in the art can understand that the acceptable standard error may vary according to different technologies. Other than in the operating/working examples, or unless otherwise expressly specified, all of the numerical ranges, amounts, values and percentages such as those for quantities of materials, durations of times, temperatures, operating conditions, ratios of amounts, and the likes thereof disclosed herein should be understood as modified in all instances by the terms "substantially," "approximately" or “about.”
Both definitions cannot be true the office will interpret it to mean within a value or range that can be contemplated by people having ordinary skill in the art.
However, this is largely arbitrary since even reasonable people can disagree on “substantially.”
Lee in view of Hirota and Huang can be considered to teach wherein the length of the first protruding portion of the ILD is substantially equal to a length of one of the plurality of gate stack structures along the first direction, since there is some gate length to which it is equal the protrusion or recess or in the alternative it would be nearly the same length as the gate since substantially is arbitrary.
e. As to claim 24, Lee in view of Hirota and Huang suggest the interlayer fills the recess.
f. As to claim 25, Lee in view of Hirota and Huang suggest the protruding portion is spaced apparat from the contact.
Claim(s) 7-8, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Lee (20090026547) in view of Hirota (20080050886) in view of Huang (Lee/Hirota/Huang) in view of Brown (6144086).
a. As to claims 7 and 15, Lee/Hirota/Huang does not teach the semiconductor device further comprises a doped region with the first conductive type situated under the isolation structure.
Brown teaches the semiconductor device further comprises a doped region with the first conductive type situated under the isolation structure (item 18 under the STI figure 17) with the 18 being the same conductivity as 28 the body.
N-type dopants are implanted to form the n-well 26. The resist 25 for the n-well 26 is then stripped and a resist 27 is applied and patterned to form the p-well 28. P-type dopants are then implanted to form the p-well 28 as shown in FIG. 7.
and
As the highly doped region 18 in this embodiment is a p+ region, the n-well 26 should not be implanted over the entire p+ region 18. Preferably, the n-well 26 is slightly shifted off-center, to the right as shown in FIG. 6, so that the n-well 26 does not overlap and counter-dope the p+ region 18.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to Lee to include a P-type region 18 and N-type region 30 under with the dual depth STI as suggested by Brown to reduce latchup between neighboring devices (see Title).
b. As to claims 8 and 16, Lee/Hirota/Huang in view of Brown would teach wherein the doped region overlaps the first protruding portion of the ILD (the protruding portion is STI) along a second direction different from the first direction (it overlaps in a direction perpendicular to the principal surface of the substrate).
Allowable Subject Matter
No determination of the allowability of claims 5-6 and 13-14 can be provided since the claims are not fully supported.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior art fails to teach and or suggest the dopant concentration of the Body (source/rain) is substantially equal to the dopant concentration of the impurity region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants merely attack Lee individually, asserting Lee fails to teach or suggest an ILD this is merely an assertion and does not consider the entire scope of the rejection. With respect to claim 5-6 and 13-14 these claims are not fully support and plain meaning of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Peidous 6027982 appears to suggest a concave region in the center of a STI (item 40) fill by a ILD 56. Pedious does not actually mention that the STI has a concave portion it is just depicted. Lam 6713780 also teaches the concave section was known in forming STI was normal item 28 figure 1D.
Liu 20150137206 teaches teaches a recess STI figures 6 to 7 region 228 filled with an STI on either side is an active region (items 300 100 and 400).
Peidous nor Lam nor Liu explicitly teach the STI surrounds four sides of a rectangular shaped active region.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm 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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights