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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment to the claims, filed on March 2nd, 2026, is acknowledged. Entry of amendment is accepted and made of record.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Invention II (Claims 7-20) in the reply filed on March 2nd, 2026, is acknowledged.
In regarding to Applicants’ comments on typo, the Examiner respectfully agreed that claims 15-20 drawn to a semiconductor device and claims 1-6 and 7-20 of Invention II will be examined.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the plasma precursor” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0038872 A1), hereinafter as Lin.
The applied reference has a common Applicant (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device in Figs. 3A-9C, the method comprising: forming a fin (channel layer 110) from a plurality of semiconductor materials (layers 115/120) over a substrate (fin portion 105’/substrate 105) (see Fig. 3C and [0022]); depositing a dummy gate (dummy gate electrode 135) over the fin (see Fig. 3B and [0028]); depositing a plurality of spacers (inner spacers 124 and gate spacers 140) adjacent to the dummy gate (see Fig. 3A-3C and [0022]); removing the dummy gate (remove dummy gate 135) to form an opening (gate opening 155) adjacent to the plurality of spacers (see Fig. 4A and [0032]]); after the removing the dummy gate, widening the opening adjacent to a top surface of the plurality of spacers, wherein the widening the opening comprises: oxidizing a first portion of a sidewall (portion 165) of the plurality of spacers (using treatment process 160 to oxidized upper portion of gate spacers 140) (see Figs. 5A-5C and [0034-0035]); and removing the first portion (remove treated portion 165) (see Fig. 6C and [0036]); after the widening, removing one of the plurality of semiconductor materials (remove plurality of layers 115) to form nanowires (layers 120) (see Figs. 6A-6C and [0052]); and depositing a gate electrode (gate electrode 184) around the nanowires (see Figs. 9A-9C and [0053-0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein after the widening one of the plurality of spacers has a larger oxygen concentration in a first portion (treated portions 165B) than a second portion (lower portion of gate spacers 140 closed to substrate isolation feature 122), the first portion being further from the substrate than the second portion (see Fig. 11 and [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the oxidizing the first portion is performed with a treatment precursor (oxygen plasma treatment), the treatment precursor comprising: an oxidizing precursor (oxygen-containing precursor gas) (see [0035]); and a noble gas precursor (carrier gas) (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising igniting the treatment precursor into a plasma (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device in Figs. 3A-9C, the method comprising: removing a dummy gate electrode (remove dummy gate 135) to from between a first spacer (left spacer 140) and a second spacer (right spacer 140) over a semiconductor fin (channel layer 110), the semiconductor fin comprising a first semiconductor material (semiconductor layer 115) and a second semiconductor material (semiconductor layer 120) different from the first semiconductor material (see Figs. 3A-4C, [0022] and [0024]); oxidizing a portion of a sidewall of the first spacer (treated portion 165) with a plasma precursor (see Figs. 5A-5C); removing the portion of the sidewall to form a first opening (remove treated portion 165 to widen opening 155), the first opening having a first width (Wmax) adjacent to a top of the first spacer and a second width (W3) less than the first width (see Figs. 6A-6C and [0036]); removing one of the plurality of semiconductor materials (remove plurality of layers 115) to form nanowires (layers 120) (see Figs. 6A-6C and [0052]); and depositing a gate electrode (gate electrode 184) within the first opening (see Figs. 9A-9C and [0053-0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising generating the plasma precursor from a treatment precursor (oxygen plasma treatment), (see [0035]); wherein the treatment precursor comprises a noble gas (carrier gas) (see [0035]).
Regarding claim 9, Lin discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the treatment precursor comprises an oxidizing gas (O2) (see [0035] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the oxidizing gas is diatomic oxygen (see [0035] and [0038]).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6, 11-14 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0038872 A1), hereinafter as Lin, as applied to claims 4 and 10 above.
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses the method of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the treatment precursor has an oxygen percentage of about 20%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the treatment precursor has an oxygen percentage of about 20% because the amount of oxygen needed to be adequate for forming oxide later on the gate spacer. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the method of claim 4, but fails to disclose wherein the treatment precursor has an oxygen percentage of about 40%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the treatment precursor has an oxygen percentage of about 40% because the amount of oxygen needed to be adequate for forming oxide later on the gate spacer. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses the method of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the treatment precursor has an oxygen percentage of about 60%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the treatment precursor has an oxygen percentage of about 60% because the amount of oxygen needed to be adequate for forming oxide later on the gate spacer. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses the method of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the gate electrode has a sidewall with a first angle to a top surface of the first spacer of about 880.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the gate electrode has a sidewall with a first angle to a top surface of the first spacer of about 880 because the angle can be controlled for controlling the size of the gate opening for forming the gate electrode effectively. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 13, Lin discloses the method of claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the treatment precursor has an oxygen percentage of about 40%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the treatment precursor has an oxygen percentage of about 40% because the amount of oxygen needed to be adequate for forming oxide later on the gate spacer. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses the method of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the gate electrode has a sidewall with a first angle to a top surface of the first spacer of about 860.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the gate electrode has a sidewall with a first angle to a top surface of the first spacer of about 860 because the angle can be controlled for controlling the size of the gate opening for forming the gate electrode effectively. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 21, Lin discloses a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device in Figs. 3A-9C, the method comprising: providing a plurality of nanowires (semiconductor layers 120’) (see Fig. 7A-7C and [0052]); forming a gate stack (gate stack 190) overlying the plurality of nanowires (see Fig. 9C); and forming a first spacer (gate spacer 140) on a sidewall of the gate stack, wherein after the forming the first spacer the sidewall extends away from a top surface of the first spacer at a first angle (angle θ) of between about 30° and about 70° (see Figs. 6A-6C and 9C and [0048-0049) and wherein the first spacer has a higher oxygen concentration at a top of the first spacer (upper portion of gate spacer 164 including treated portion 165B) than at a bottom of the first spacer (the lower portion of gate spacer 164 without treated portion 165B) (see Figs. 5A-5C, 12 and [0035], [0038], [0051]).
Lin fails to disclose wherein the first angle to the top surface of the first spacer of about 840 and about 880.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the gate electrode has a sidewall with a first angle to a top surface of the first spacer of about 840 and about 880 because the angle can be controlled for controlling the size of the gate opening for forming the gate electrode effectively. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 22, Lin discloses the method of claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first angle is about 840.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the gate electrode has a sidewall with a first angle to a top surface of the first spacer of about 840 because the angle can be controlled for controlling the size of the gate opening for forming the gate electrode effectively. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 23, Lin discloses the method of claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first angle is about 860.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the gate electrode has a sidewall with a first angle to a top surface of the first spacer of about 860 because the angle can be controlled for controlling the size of the gate opening for forming the gate electrode effectively. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 24, Lin discloses the method of claim 21, but fails to disclose wherein the first angle is about 880.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have wherein the gate electrode has a sidewall with a first angle to a top surface of the first spacer of about 880 because the angle can be controlled for controlling the size of the gate opening for forming the gate electrode effectively. Since it has been held that wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 25, Lin discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the forming the first spacer froms SiONC (see [0029] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 26, Lin discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the gate stack has funnel profile (see Figs. 9A-9C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CUONG B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1509 (Email: CuongB.Nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Standard 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, Steven H. Loke can be reached on (571) 272-1657. 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.
/CUONG B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818