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
Claims 10-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/08/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Manning US 7,655,968.
PNG
media_image1.png
787
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
525
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Manning US 7,655,968
Regarding claim 15, Manning at Figs. 17-20 and col. 5, line 55-col. 7, line 17 disclose a capacitor structure comprising a moat capacitor (i.e. within dielectric 204), the moat capacitor includes:
a bottom electrode plate 40 formed in an encircling shape in a top view (annotated above) thereof Fig. 17, col. 6 lines 48-50;
a dielectric layer 200, col. 6, line 54-56 directly above and formed along the bottom electrode plate 40; and
a top electrode plate 202, col. 6, line 54-56 directly above and formed along the dielectric layer 200.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalnitsky et al. US 9,178,080 in view of Manning US 7,655,968.
Regarding claim 1, Kalnitsky et al. at col. 2, line 4-col. 5, line 58 and Figs. 1-11 disclose a capacitor structure comprising a moat capacitor embedded in a substrate 300, the moat capacitor includes:
a bottom electrode plate 400;
a dielectric layer 600 directly above and lining the bottom electrode plate 400; and
a top electrode plate 700 directly above and lining the dielectric layer 600,
Kalnitsky et al. at Figs. 1C and 12B, in top view, appear to disclose wherein the bottom electrode plate 400, the dielectric layer 600, and the top electrode plate 700 have square shapes but do not expressly disclose encircling shapes and are arranged to be concentric with one another in a top view thereof.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the bottom electrode plate, the dielectric layer, and the top electrode plate have encircling shapes and are arranged to be concentric with one another in a top view thereof” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the bottom electrode plate, the dielectric layer, and the top electrode plate have encircling shapes and arranged to be concentric with one another in a top view). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the bottom electrode plate, the dielectric layer, and the top electrode plate have encircling shapes and are arranged to be concentric with one another in a top view thereof” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Manning describes in Figs. 17 and 20 and col. 6, lines 48-50 encircling capacitor plates and further suggests that the bottom plates may not be circular but may be oval, ovoid, square, rectangular, etc. in shape.
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the bottom electrode plate, the dielectric layer, and the top electrode plate have encircling shapes and are arranged to be concentric with one another in a top view thereof” is significant, and Manning’s suggestion that there are various shapes of the capacitor plates; the claimed limitation of “wherein the bottom electrode plate, the dielectric layer, and the top electrode plate have encircling shapes and are arranged to be concentric with one another in a top view thereof” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the bottom electrode plate, the dielectric layer, and the top electrode plate have encircling shapes and are arranged to be concentric with one another in a top view thereof” is not patentable over Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning.
Regarding claim 2, Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning teach the capacitor structure of claim 1. Kalnitsky et al. teach in Fig. 11 and at col. 2, line 4-col. 5, line 58 wherein the top electrode plate 700 has a U-shaped cross-section; the dielectric layer 600 surrounds a bottom and sides of the top electrode plate 700; and the bottom electrode plate 400 surrounds a bottom and sides of the dielectric layer 600.
Regarding claim 3, Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning teach the capacitor structure of claim 2. Kalnitsky et al. teach in Fig. 9 and col. 5, lines 28-41 wherein the moat capacitor further includes a filler layer 900 on top of the top electrode plate 700, the filler layer 900 filling a space between an inner edge and an outer edge of the top electrode plate 700.
Regarding claim 5, Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning teach the capacitor structure of claim 1 but do not expressly teach wherein the encircling shape of the dielectric layer is a square shape and the moat capacitor has a length and a width, wherein the length is at least 10 times larger than the width.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the encircling shape of the dielectric layer is a square shape” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the encircling shape of the dielectric layer is a square shape). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the encircling shape of the dielectric layer is a square shape” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Manning describes in Figs. 17 and 20 and col. 6, lines 48-50 encircling capacitor plates and further suggests that the bottom plates may not be circular but may be oval, ovoid, square, rectangular, etc. in shape.
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the encircling shape of the dielectric layer is a square shape” is significant, and Manning’s suggestion that there are various shapes of the capacitor plates; the claimed limitation of “wherein the encircling shape of the dielectric layer is a square shape” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the encircling shape of the dielectric layer is a square shape” is not patentable over Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions (i.e. the moat capacitor has a length and a width, wherein the length is at least 10 times larger than the width) through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative 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, Jn 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). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 6, Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning teach the capacitor structure of claim 1. Kalnitsky et al. teach in Fig. 11 wherein the dielectric layer 600 has a U-shaped cross-section and the moat capacitor has a depth and a width, col. 4, lines 8-24 wherein the depth is at least 25 times larger than the width.
Regarding claim 7, Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning teach the capacitor structure of claim 1. Kalnitsky et al. teach in Fig. 11 and at col. 2, line 4-col. 5, line 58 wherein the moat capacitor is a first moat capacitor, further comprising a second moat capacitor nested inside the first moat capacitor, wherein the second moat capacitor has a bottom electrode plate 400 that merges with the bottom electrode plate 400 of the first moat capacitor.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chuang et al. US 9,679,909.
Regarding claim 8, Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning teach the capacitor structure of claim 1. Kalnitsky et al. in Fig. 11 and at col. 2, line 4-col. 5, line 58 do not expressly teach the capacitor structure of claim 1 further comprising an isolation trench embedded in the substrate, wherein the isolation trench encircles the moat capacitor.
Chuang et al. at col. 3, lines 14-33 and Fig. 1A teach a semiconductor substrate including a memory cell region 106, a logic region 114 and a capacitor region 108. The semiconductor substrate further includes isolation trenches 116 that encircles a trench capacitor to isolate the regions 106, 114 and 108 from each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chuang et al. in the device of Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning for the purpose of isolating and integrating different semiconductor components of a semiconductor device into a common semiconductor structure and allowing for increased operational speed.
Regarding claim 9, Kalnitsky et al. in view of Manning and further in view of Chuang et al. teach the capacitor structure of claim 8, but does not expressly teach wherein the isolation trench has a depth that is larger than a depth of the moat capacitor. Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions (i.e. isolation trench has a depth that is larger than a depth of the moat capacitor) through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative 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, Jn 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). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 18, Manning at Figs. 17-20 and col. 5, line 55-col. 7, line 17 disclose a capacitor structure of claim 15 but does not expressly disclose wherein the moat capacitor has a square shape and a length, a width, and a depth, wherein the length is at least 10 times larger than the width and the depth is at least 25 times larger than the width.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “the moat capacitor has a square shape and a length, a width, and a depth” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without the moat capacitor has a square shape and a length, a width, and a depth). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the moat capacitor has a square shape and a length, a width, and a depth” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Manning describes in Figs. 17 and 20 and col. 6, lines 48-50 encircling capacitor plates and further suggests that the bottom plates may not be circular but may be oval, ovoid, square, rectangular, etc. in shape.
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the moat capacitor has a square shape and a length, a width, and a depth” is significant, and Manning’s suggestion that there are various shapes of the capacitor plates; the claimed limitation of “wherein the moat capacitor has a square shape and a length, a width, and a depth” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the moat capacitor has a square shape and a length, a width, and a depth” is not patentable over Manning.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions (i.e. wherein the length is at least 10 times larger than the width and the depth is at least 25 times larger than the width) through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative 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, Jn 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). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kalnitsky et al.
Regarding claim 19, Manning at Figs. 17-20 and col. 5, line 55-col. 7, line 17 disclose a capacitor structure of claim 15 but does not expressly disclose wherein the moat capacitor is a first moat capacitor, further comprising a second moat capacitor nested inside the first moat capacitor, wherein the second moat capacitor has a bottom electrode plate that merges with the bottom electrode plate of the first moat capacitor.
Kalnitsky et al. teach a high density capacitor that is easily integrated into circuits. Kalnitsky et al. further teach in Fig. 11 and at col. 2, line 4-col. 5, line 58 a moat capacitor is a first moat capacitor, further comprising a second moat capacitor nested inside the first moat capacitor, wherein the second moat capacitor has a bottom electrode plate 400 that merges with the bottom electrode plate 400 of the first moat capacitor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kalnitsky et al. in the device of Manning for the purpose of having an integrated circuit including a high density capacitor formed thereon.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning in view of Kalnitsky et al., and further in view of Chuang et al. US 9,679,909.
Regarding claim 20, Manning at Figs. 17-20 and col. 5, line 55-col. 7, line 17 disclose a capacitor structure of claim 15 but does not expressly disclose wherein the capacitor structure of claim 15 further comprising an isolation trench embedded in a substrate, wherein the isolation trench encircles the moat capacitor.
Kalnitsky et al. in Fig. 11 and at col. 2, line 4-col. 5, line 58, teach a high density trench capacitor (i.e. moat capacitor) that is placed close to circuits to eliminate parasitic inductances and resistances within the interconnect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kalnitsky et al. in the device of Manning for the purpose of having an integrated circuit including a high density capacitor formed thereon.
Manning in view of Kalnitsky et al. do not expressly teach an isolation trench in a substrate encircling the moat capacitor.
Chuang et al. at col. 3, lines 14-33 and Fig. 1A teach a semiconductor substrate including a memory cell region 106, a logic region 114 and a capacitor region 108. The semiconductor substrate further includes isolation trenches 116 that encircles a trench capacitor to isolate the regions 106, 114 and 108 from each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chuang et al. in the device of Manning in view of Kalnitsky et al. for the purpose of isolating and integrating different semiconductor components of a semiconductor device into a common semiconductor structure and allowing for increased operational speed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 16 and 17 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.
The following are statements of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
4. (Original) The capacitor structure of claim 1, further comprising a capping layer above the substrate and the moat capacitor, a first set of contacts embedded in the capping layer in contact with the top electrode plate and a second and a third set of contacts embedded in the capping layer in contact with an inner edge and an outer edge respectively of the bottom electrode plate.
16. (Original) The capacitor structure of claim 15, wherein the moat capacitor further includes a filler layer on top of the top electrode plate, filling a space between an inner edge and an outer edge of the top electrode plate, and a landing pad above the filler layer and in contact with the inner edge and the outer edge of the top electrode plate.
17. (Original) The capacitor structure of claim 16, further comprising a first set of contacts in contact with the top electrode plate via the landing pad, and a second and a third set of contacts in contact with an inner edge and an outer edge respectively of the bottom electrode plate.
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 SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights