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 § 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, 3-6, 9-12, and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0066291 (as cited in previous Office Action)
PNG
media_image1.png
618
859
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate including a first row region and a second row region, wherein a surface of the substrate is disposed in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (not shown in figure 3A-3C, but is shown as 106 in figure 1 with the directions being labeled in figure above);
a first nanosheet structure 302 on the first row region, the first nanosheet structure including a plurality of active segments (302a in portion a, 302a in portion b, 302b, as labeled above in figure 3C or 302a in figures 3A and 3B) disposed in the first direction, and the plurality of active segments having at least three different widths in the second direction; and
a second nanosheet structure 304 on the second row region, the second nanosheet structure spaced apart from the first nanosheet structure in the second direction, and wherein the second nanosheet structure is symmetrical with the first nanosheet structure in the first direction,
wherein, in a plan view, in each of the first nanosheet structure and the second nanosheet structure, each of a plurality of transition regions between adjacent ones of the active segments have one of a first angle and a second angle with respect to the first direction (figure 3C, with the first angle and second angle being right angles), wherein the active segments included in the first nanosheet structure have widths in the second direction that are multiples of a minimum width of the active segments in the second direction (figure 3C).
Lim fails to teach the multiples are integer numbers.
However, it has been held that the multiples being integer numbers will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicants have not established the criticality of the multiples being integer numbers claimed and the Prior Art shows the active segments being at least three different widths in a second direction, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable width for each active area in the dev
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the multiples being integer numbers or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the first row region has a width in the second direction equal to a maximum width of the active segments in the second direction (Note: since the width of the first row is equal to the width of the active segments, thereby meeting the limitation of this claim).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Lin teaches at least one of an upper side and a lower side of at least one of the active segments included in the first nanosheet structure protrudes from an adjacent one of the active segments, and a plurality of protruding portions of the first nanosheet have a same width in the second direction, wherein the same width in the second direction of the plurality of protruding portions of the first nanosheet structure is equal to a minimum width of the active segments in the second direction (figures 3A-3C)
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches at least one of the active segments included in the first nanosheet structure has a different width in the second direction than an adjacent one of the active segments, and the active segments protrudes from one of an upper side and a lower side of the adjacent one of the active segments in the second direction (figures 3A-3C)
Regarding claim 9, Lin teaches each of an upper side and a lower side of the first nanosheet structure includes at least a first protruding portion in the second direction, and each of an upper side and a lower side of the second nanosheet structure includes at least a second protruding portion in the second direction (figures 3A-3B)
Regarding claim 10, Lin teaches a maximum distance in the second direction between the first nanosheet structure and the second nanosheet structure is equal to or less than a sum of twice a difference between a maximum width and a minimum width of the active segments and a first distance between the first row region and the second row region (figures 3A-3B)
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches a diffusion break pattern (empty portions between 306a, 306b, 306c, 306d, 306e, 306f) extending in the second direction is formed at a contacting portion of the active segments included in the first nanosheet structure and the second nanosheet structure (figure 3C)
Regarding claim 12, Lin teaches a semiconductor system elements disposed in a plurality of block regions, wherein a standard cell included in at least one of the block regions includes the first nanosheet structure and the second nanosheet structure (figures 3A and 3B and [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, Lin teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a first active structure including a first plurality of nanosheets 302 having different widths in a second direction and first epitaxial patterns (which are source/drain regions 102/104, shown in figure 1) disposed between the first plurality of nanosheets in a first direction perpendicular to the second direction
a second active structure including a second plurality of nanosheets 304 having different widths in the second direction and second epitaxial patterns disposed between the second plurality of nanosheets, the second active structure being symmetrical with the first active structure in the first direction, and the first plurality of nanosheets and the second plurality of nanosheets being spaced apart from each other in the second direction; and
a gate structure 306a, 306b, 306c, 306d, 306e, 306f extending in the second direction on the first plurality of nanosheets and the second plurality of nanosheets included in the first active structure and the second active structure,
wherein a plurality of protruding portions (portions between 306a, 306b, 306c, 306d, 306e, 306f where the source/drain regions are located) of the first plurality of nanosheets protrude by a same width in the second direction (figures 3A and 3B).
Figures 3A-3B of Lin fail to teach the first plurality of nanosheets and the second plurality of nanosheets have at least three different widths.
However, the bottom figure of Figure 5A, shows an alternative embodiment, in which the first plurality of nanosheets 506 and the second plurality of nanosheets 208 have at least three different widths, wherein the second active structure being symmetrical with the first active structure in the first direction, and the first plurality of nanosheets and the second plurality of nanosheets being spaced apart from each other in the second direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine figure 5A with that of 3A/3B of Lin because it is generally-known in the art that different structure of nanosheets may be used for different cells due to the optimize the design of the semiconductor device formed
Regarding claim 19, Lin teaches a diffusion break pattern (area between 506 and 508) extending in the second direction is formed between the first plurality of nanosheets and between the second plurality of nanosheets (figure 3C).
Regarding claim 20, Lin teaches the same width of the plurality of protruding portions is equal to a minimum width of the first plurality of nanosheets in the second direction, and wherein all the plurality of protruding portions have the same width (figure 3A and 3B).
Regarding claim 21, Lin fails to teach at least two of the plurality of transition regions each have the same slope having the first angle with respect to the first direction, wherein the first angle is less than 90 degrees and greater than 0 degrees.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 22 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.
Claims 13-15 and 17 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...the diffusion break pattern is spaced apart from the gate structure...” in combination with the remaining limitations. Claims 14, 15, and 17 are dependent upon claim 13 and are therefore allowable.
With regards to claim 13, Lin teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate including a surface disposed in a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (not shown in figure 3A-3C, but is shown as 106 in figure 1 with the directions being labeled in figure above);
a first nanosheet structure 302 on the substrate, the first nanosheet structure including first active segments (302a in portion a, 302a in portion b, 302b, as labeled above in figure 3C or 302a in figures 3A and 3B) disposed in the first direction, and the first active segments having different widths in the second direction;
a second nanosheet structure 304 on the substrate, the second nanosheet structure including second active segments in the first direction and spaced apart from the first nanosheet structure in the second direction, and wherein the second nanosheet structure is symmetrical with the first nanosheet structure in the first direction;
a diffusion break pattern (empty portions between 306a, 306b, 306c, 306d, 306e, 306f) extending in the second direction, the diffusion break pattern on contacting portions between the first active segments and the second active segments; and
a gate structure 306a, 306b, 306c, 306d, 306e, 306f extending in the second direction, the gate structure in a region between the diffusion break patterns;
wherein a plurality of protruding portions of the active segments included in the first nanosheet structure have a same width in the second direction (figures 3A and 3B).
Lin fails to teach first transition regions disposed between adjacent ones of the first active segments, the first transition regions having a slope that is non-zero relative to the first direction and non-parallel with the second direction; the second nanosheet structure includes second transition regions; wherein the diffusion break pattern is spaced apart from the gate structure.
Snyder (et al, US Patent Application Publication 2020/0295002) discloses first transition regions disposed between adjacent ones of the first active segments, the first transition regions having a slope that is non-zero relative to the first direction and non-parallel with the second direction (see figure 3) as a known structure that is also used in nanosheet structure. However, neither reference teaches the limitation presented above. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Therefore, claims 13-15 and 17 have been found to be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM.
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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/qj/
/DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights