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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al., US 2015/0179613 (corresponding to US 10,956,353).
In re Claim 1, Tsai discloses a method comprising: forming a layer (106, 228) (Fig. 2) including carbon (silicon carbide, [0015], [0026]) over a substrate 202 including semiconductor material ([0012]); forming a first layer 330 over the layer including carbon (106, 228) (Fig.3); forming a first opening 226 in the first layer 330 (Fig. 3), the first opening 226 having a first lateral dimension 1LD (Fig. A) in a first (horizontal) lateral direction; removing material of the layer 106, 228 including carbon through the first opening 226 to form a cavity 514 in the layer (106, 228) including carbon; forming a sidewall spacer structure 622 (Figs. 5 and 6), wherein the forming a sidewall spacer structure 622 includes performing a material forming process that forms sidewall spacer material on sidewalls of the layer (106, 228) including carbon of the cavity 514, wherein the sidewall spacer material 622 [0035]) is inhibited from forming on a bottom surface portion 212a of the cavity 514 during the material forming process, wherein the sidewall spacer structure 622 defines a second opening (a portion of 514, marked as 2D in Fig. B) exposing the bottom surface portion 212a, the second opening 2D having a second lateral dimension 2LD in the first (horizontal) lateral direction that is less than the first lateral dimension 1LD. (Figs. 1-7, A and B; [0011 – 0043])
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A. Tsai’s Fig. 2 annotated to show the details cited
In re Claim 3, Tsai disclose the method of claim 1 wherein the sidewall spacer material 622 includes at least one of the group consisting of TiN, TiO2, HfO2, Ru, Pt, Al2O3 ([0035]).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. B. Tsai’s Fig. 5 annotated to show the details cited
In re Claim 5, Tsai discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: after the performing the material forming process, forming a second material 620 in the second opening 514 (Fig. 6).
In re Claim 6, Tsai discloses the method of claim 5 wherein the second material 620 is characterized as a conductive material ([0035]).
In re Claim 8, Tsai discloses the method of claim 5 wherein the second material 620 is inherently characterized as a transistor control electrode material. It is inherently because 620 being a conductive material, such as tungsten, titanium, aluminum, copper, any combinations thereof ([0035]) is nothing else than the transistor control electrode material.
In re Claim 11, Tsai discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the bottom surface portion 212a is made of a material different than the layer containing carbon (106, 228) ([0032]).
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.
Claims 2, 4, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai as applied to claim 1 above.
In re Claim 2, Tsai discloses all limitations of Claim 2 except for that the layer 228 including carbon includes amorphous carbon. The difference between the Applicant’s Claim 2 and Tsai’s reference is in the specified material used in the layer 228. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to substitute the layer made of silicon carbide with amorphous carbon, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 4, Tsai discloses all limitations of Claim 4 except for that Tsai does not explicitly indicate that the material forming process is characterized as an atomic layer deposition process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the atomic layer deposition process as the material forming process since it was known in the art that it is well-known and routine practice to use the atomic layer deposition process. (MPEP2144.I.)
In re Claim 19, Tsai discloses a method comprising: forming a layer 106 including carbon over a wafer substrate 200 including semiconductor material ([0012]); forming a first layer 330 over the layer 106 including carbon (silicon carbide, [0015], [0026]); forming a first opening 226 in the first layer using a photolithographic process, the first opening 226 having a first lateral dimension 1LD (Fig. A) in a first (horizontal) lateral direction; removing material of the layer 106 including carbon through the first opening 226 to form a cavity 514 (Fig. 5) in the layer 106 including carbon; forming a sidewall spacer structure 622 using a material forming process that forms sidewall spacer material 622 on sidewalls of the cavity 514 of the material including carbon, wherein sidewall spacer material 622 is inhibited from forming on a bottom surface portion 212a of the cavity 514, wherein the sidewall spacer structure 622 defines a second opening 516 exposing the bottom surface portion 212a, the second opening 516 having a second lateral dimension 2LD in the first (horizontal) lateral direction that is less than the first lateral dimension 1LD;
Tsai does not explicitly indicate that after the forming the sidewall spacer structure 622, singulating the wafer 200 into a plurality of integrated circuits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to singulate the wafer into a plurality of integrated circuits since it was known in the art that it is a well-known and routine procedure in semiconductor technology (MPEP2144.I.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9-10, 12-18 and 20 stand 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.
Reason for indicating allowable subject matter
In re Claim 7: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 7 as: “the second material is characterized as a semiconductor material”, in combination with limitations of Claims 1 and 5 on which it depends.
In re Claim 9: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 9 as: “the bottom surface portion is a portion of the layer including carbon that was treated with hydrogen after the forming the cavity”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
In re Claim 12: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 12 as: “the bottom surface portion is treated with an inhibitor to inhibit formation of the spacer material during the material forming process”, in combination with limitations of Claims 1 and 11 on which it depends.
In re Claim 14: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 14 as: “using the sidewall spacer structure to form at least one fin including semiconductor material”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
In re Claim 17: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 17 as: “implanting dopants into the substrate through the second opening wherein the sidewall spacer structure inhibits dopants from being implanted into the substrate”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
In re Claim 18: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 18 as: “after the performing the material forming process, removing the layer including carbon”, in combination with limitations of Claim 1 on which it depends.
In re Claim 20: The prior art of record cited by the current office action, alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious such limitation of claim 20 as: “after performing the material forming process but prior to the singulating, removing at least a portion of the layer including carbon and the sidewall spacer material formed”, in combination with limitations of Claim 19 on which it depends.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is argued, at page 1-4 of the remarks, that “Tsai does not disclose or suggest forming a sidewall spacer structure, wherein the forming a sidewall spacer structure includes performing a material forming process that forms sidewall spacer material on sidewalls of the layer including carbon of the cavity, wherein the sidewall spacer material is inhibited from forming on a bottom surface portion of the cavity during the material forming process, all as recited by claim 1. (emphasis added). The Office Action states that Tsai teaches forming a sidewall spacer structure 622 that includes performing a material forming process that forms sidewall spacer material 622 on sidewalls of the layer (106, 228) including carbon of the cavity 514, wherein the sidewall spacer material 622 (citing paragraph 0035) is inhibited from forming on a bottom surface portion 212a of the cavity 514 during the material forming process.
Applicant respectfully submits that the identified sidewall spacer material (the material of layer 622) is not inhibited from forming on a bottom surface portion of the identified cavity (opening 514) during the material forming process that forms barrier layer 622 of Tsai..”
However, according to MPEP2112. II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). Therefore, Tsai’s sidewall spacer material being made of TiN ([0035]) that is the same material as Applicant’s (see Claim 3) inherently possesses the claimed property to be inhibited from forming on a bottom surface portion of the cavity during the material forming process.
Therefore Claims 1 stands rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights