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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II, species I, claims 13-20 and additionally claims 21-32, in the reply filed on 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because: objects labeled with question marks (see annotations below) in FIG. 2C are not labeled.
PNG
media_image1.png
638
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the text “concurrent” in line 13 is suggested to be changed to “concurrently” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the text “a doping of the first source/drain region” is suggested to be changed to “a doping type of the first source/drain region” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the text “inconstant” is suggested to be changed to “non-constant” for clarity. Note that Merriam-Webster defined inconstant as likely to change in feelings; likely to change frequently without apparent or cogent reason. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of line 2 after “and”, it is suggested to add the text “wherein the method further comprises” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: the text “after” in line 3 is suggested to be deleted for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: the text “after” in line 3 is suggested to be deleted for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 27-32 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.
The term “shallow” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “shallow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “a shallow-shallow trench isolation” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “shallow”.
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.
(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.
Claims 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2013/0146974).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses, in FIG. 3 and in related text, a method of forming an integrated device, the method comprising:
receiving a substrate (100) (see Kim, FIG. 3, [0063]);
forming a shallow-shallow trench isolation (SSTI) structure (140a) within the substrate, the SSTI structure having a first thickness;
forming a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure (140c) within the substrate and spaced from the SSTI structure, the STI structure having a second thickness greater than the first thickness;
forming a gate structure (160, 170) over the substrate between the STI structure and the SSTI structure, the gate structure having a first gate edge overlying the SSTI structure (see Kim, FIG. 7, [0033], [0078]);
forming a first source/drain region (150b) bordering the STI structure (140c), between the STI structure (140c) and the gate structure (160, 170); and
forming a second source/drain region (150c) bordering the SSTI structure (140a) concurrent with the forming of the first source/drain region (150b), the second source/drain region separated from the first source/drain region by the SSTI structure (140a) and the gate structure (160, 170) (see Kim, FIG. 8, [0085], [0087]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses the method of claim 13.
Kim discloses forming a doped region (150a) adjacent to the first source/drain region (150b), the doped region having a different doping type than a doping of the first source/drain region (see Kim, FIG. 8, [0085]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses the method of claim 13.
Kim discloses forming contacts (185b, 185c, 185d) coupled to the gate structure (160, 170), the first source/drain region (150b), and the second source/drain region (150c) ; and
forming a wire level (1393, 195, 197) coupled to the contacts (see Kim, FIG. 2, [0051]-[0054]).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2017 /0194490).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses, in FIG. 4m and in related text, a method of forming an integrated device, the method comprising:
receiving a substrate (401);
forming a shallow-shallow trench isolation (SSTI) structure (485) within the substrate, the SSTI structure having a first thickness;
forming a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure (480) within the substrate and spaced from the SSTI structure, the STI structure having a second thickness greater than the first thickness (see Li, FIG. 4m, [0007], [0047], [0064]);
forming a gate structure (450) over the substrate between the STI structure (480) and the SSTI structure (485), the gate structure having a first gate edge (right edge) overlying the SSTI structure (see Li, FIG. 4o, [0068]);
forming a first source/drain region (441) bordering the STI structure (480), between the STI structure (480) and the gate structure (450); and
forming a second source/drain region (442) bordering the SSTI structure (485) concurrent with the forming of the first source/drain region, the second source/drain region separated from the first source/drain region (441) by the SSTI structure (485) and the gate structure (450) (see Li, FIGS. 4q-4r, [0070]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 19, Li discloses the method of claim 13.
Li discloses forming contacts (492) coupled to the gate structure (450), the first source/drain region (441), and the second source/drain region (442); and forming a wire level coupled to the contacts (see Li, FIG. 4s, [0074]-[0075]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2017 /0194490).
Regarding claim 21, Li discloses, in FIG. 4e and in related text, a method of forming an integrated device, the method comprising:
receiving a substrate (401) having a top surface;
forming a pad oxide layer (432) over the top surface of the substrate;
etching a first opening (486) into the pad oxide layer and the substrate, the first opening extending to a first depth beneath the top surface;
forming a shallow-shallow trench isolation (SSTI) structure (485) within the first opening (see Li, FIGS. 4e and 4m, [0047], [0049], [0052], [0064]);
etching a second opening (481) into the pad oxide layer and the substrate that is spaced from the SSTI structure, the second opening extending to a second depth beneath the top surface that is greater than the first depth;
forming a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure (480) within the second opening (see Li, FIGS. 4k and 4m, [0060], [0064]);
doping the substrate to form a first high voltage well (426) in the substrate, wherein the first high voltage well extends from between the SSTI structure (485) and the STI structure (480) to a first (right) sidewall of the SSTI structure facing away from the STI structure; and
forming a gate structure (450) over the substrate between the STI structure (480) and the SSTI structure (485), the gate structure having a first gate edge (right edge) overlying the SSTI structure (485) and laterally spaced from the first (right) sidewall of the SSTI structure (see Li, FIG. 4o, [0062], [0068]).
Regarding claim 22, Li discloses the method of claim 21.
Li discloses forming a first source/drain region (441) between the STI structure (480) and the SSTI structure (485); and
forming a second source/drain region (442) concurrently with forming the first source/drain region and spaced from the gate structure (450) by the first (right) sidewall of the SSTI structure (485) (see Li, FIGS. 4q-4r, [0070]-[0072]).
Claim 27, as so far as understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2017 /0194490).
Regarding claim 27, Li discloses, in FIG. 4o and in related text, a method of forming an integrated device, the method comprising:
receiving a substrate (401) having a top surface;
forming a shallow-shallow trench isolation (SSTI) structure (485) within the substrate, the SSTI structure having a first thickness;
forming a gate structure (450) over the substrate, the gate structure having a first gate edge (right edge) on the SSTI structure and a second gate edge (left edge) opposite the first gate edge and on the top surface of the substrate (see Li, FIG. 4o, [0047], [0064], [0068]);
doping the substrate to form a first source/drain region (441), wherein the first source/drain region extends directly beneath the gate structure (450) and is spaced from the SSTI structure (485) by the gate structure; and
doping the substrate to form a second source/drain region (442) concurrently with forming the first source/drain region, wherein the second source/drain region is separated from the gate structure (450) by the SSTI structure (485) (see Li, FIGS. 4q-4r, [0070]-[0072]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the method of claim 13.
Li discloses wherein forming the SSTI structure further comprises:
forming a pad oxide layer (432) and a nitride layer (434) (see Li, FIG. 4b, [0049]);
etching a first trench (486) into the substrate, the first trench having sidewalls extending at an angle from a top surface of the substrate of less than 90 degrees (see Li, FIG. 4e, [0052]-[0053]: trench sidewall profile is non-vertical, thus the angle is less than 90 degrees);
filling the first trench with a conformal oxide layer (489) (see Li, FIG. 4l, [0062]-[0063]); and
removing portions of the conformal oxide layer and the nitride layer above the pad oxide layer, resulting in the SSTI structure (485) (see Li, FIG. 4m, [0064]).
Li does not explicitly disclose an angle from a top surface of the substrate of less than 70 degrees. Here, it is well known that coverage for filling a trench depends on sidewall angle of the trench (see, for example, Chang-Gyu Kim et al., Quantitative study on the enhancement of sidewall coverage of sputter-deposited film by partially tapering the sidewall of via holes, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 29, No. 2,, Mar/Apr 2011, III, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION). In other words, the angle is a result effective variable for varying.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have the claimed range/value through routine experimentation and optimization. Also, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or otherwise critical. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Jaeger (RICHARD C. JAEGER, Introduction to Microelectronic Fabrication, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., May 1993, pp. 49-53).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses the method of claim 13.
Li discloses forming a first source/drain extension (426) surrounding the second source/drain region (485) and extending beneath the gate structure (450) (see Li, FIG. 4r, [0071]-[0072]).
Li discloses that the first source/drain extension (426) is formed by high temperature diffusion of a dopant source (see Li, [0062]).
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the first source/drain extension has an inconstant doping profile.
Yaeger teaches that diffusion results in a Gaussian (non-constant) dopant concentration profile (see Yaeger, FIG. 4.3). Therefore, Yaeger teaches wherein the first source/drain extension has an inconstant doping profile.
Li and Yaeger are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor device manufacturing and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Li with the features of Yaeger because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li to include wherein the first source/drain extension has an inconstant doping profile, as taught by Yaeger, because of Fick’s first law of diffusion (see Yaeger, page 51).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lai (US 2013/0187231).
Regarding claim 18, Li discloses the method of claim 18.
Li dose not explicitly disclose forming a resistive protection oxide bordering a first sidewall of the gate structure and extending across an upper surface of the SSTI structure, wherein the resistive protection oxide has an "L" shaped profile when viewed from a cross-sectional view.
Lai teaches forming a resistive protection oxide (128) bordering a first sidewall of the gate structure (120) and extending across an upper surface of the SSTI structure (192), wherein the resistive protection oxide has an "L" shaped profile when viewed from a cross-sectional view (see Lai, FIG. 1, [0026]).
Li and Lai are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Li with the features of Lai because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li to include forming a resistive protection oxide bordering a first sidewall of the gate structure and extending across an upper surface of the SSTI structure, wherein the resistive protection oxide has an "L" shaped profile when viewed from a cross-sectional view, as taught by Lai, to increase the effective drift distance (see Lai, [0026]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Lai (US 2013/0187231).
Regarding claim 26, Li discloses the method of claim 21.
Li discloses forming a spacer (472) covering sidewalls of the gate structure (450) after forming the gate structure (see Li, FIG. 4p, [0069]); and
Li does not explicitly disclose forming a resistive protection oxide (RPO) layer, wherein the RPO layer has a bottom surface extending over the SSTI structure and a first sidewall contacting the spacer.
Lai teaches forming a resistive protection oxide (RPO) layer (128), wherein the RPO layer has a bottom surface extending over the SSTI structure (192) and a first sidewall contacting sidewall of the gate structure (120) (see Lai, FIG. 1, [0026]). Since Li discloses the spacer covering sidewalls of the gate structure, Lai together with Li teaches a first sidewall contacting the spacer.
Li and Lai are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Li with the features of Lai because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lai to include forming a resistive protection oxide (RPO) layer, wherein the RPO layer has a bottom surface extending over the SSTI structure and a first sidewall contacting the spacer, as taught by Lai, to increase the effective drift distance (see Lai, [0026]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is 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 23-25 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 28-32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s), and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Li and Yaeger, teaches wherein the first source/drain extension has a first maximum concentration of dopants in portions directly beneath the SSTI structure, and the first source/drain extension has a second maximum concentration of dopants in portions directly beneath the gate structure and extending past outer sidewalls of the SSTI structure. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “where the second maximum concentration of dopants is greater than the first maximum concentration of dopants” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 17.
The prior art of record, Kim, discloses forming a body region before forming the first source/drain region, wherein a contact of the contacts is coupled to the body region, and wherein a wire of the wire level electrically couples the body region to the first source/drain region. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “a body region separated from the first source/drain region by the STI structure” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 20.
The prior art of record, Kim, teaches doping the substrate to form a shallow well region between the first high voltage well and the STI structure. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “removing the pad oxide layer between forming the first high voltage well and the shallow well region” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 23.
The prior art of record, Kim, teaches doping the substrate to form a shallow well region before forming the gate structure, wherein the second gate edge of the gate structure overlies the shallow well region; doping the substrate to form a first body contact region in the shallow well region, wherein the shallow well region and the first source/drain region have a first doping type and the first body contact region has a second doping type different from the first doping type. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “doping the substrate to form a first body contact region in the shallow well region between forming the shallow well region and forming the first source/drain region” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 28.
The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “forming a shallow trench isolation (STI) structure in the top surface of the substrate between forming the SSTI structure and after forming the gate structure, wherein the STI structure surrounds the SSTI structure in a continuous loop, and wherein the SSTI structure has a rectangle profile from a top-down perspective” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 31.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona Time.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights