Attorney’s Docket Number: 2513677140
Filing Date: 11/06/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 11/30/2022 (PRO 63/385,445)
Applicants: Chiu et al.
Examiner: Aneesa Baig
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
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.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al (US 20210175370 A1, Hereinafter Singh-5370).
Regarding Claim 1, Singh-5370 (Figs 1-11) shows most aspects of the invention including, a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a P-type semiconductor substrate (102 [0018]);
an N-type well region formed over the P-type semiconductor substrate (114 [0018]);
a first P-type well region formed over the P-type semiconductor substrate (112 to the left of 200);
a first active region (400) formed over the first P-type well region, comprising a plurality of first fins extending in a first direction and a plurality of first source/drain features epitaxially grown on the first fins (112, as show in Fig 9 including 140 S/D features with diamond shaped regions on fins 104 that are epitaxial [0027]-[0028]);
a second active region formed over the N-type well region (300 to the left of 200), comprising a plurality of second fins extending in the first direction and a plurality of second source/drain features epitaxially grown on the second fins (active region with fins 104Y to the left of region 200 as show in Fig 9 including 140 S/D features with diamond shaped regions on fins 104 that are epitaxial [0027]-[0028]); and
a third active region (region 200) formed over the N-type well region, comprising a plurality of third fins extending in the first direction; and
a plurality of electrodes (140C) formed over the third active region, each extending in a second direction to contact the third fins, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (See Fig 10),
wherein the electrodes, the first source/drain features and the second source/drain features are formed in the same level (See Fig 10 [0030]),
However, while Singh-5370 does not explicitly show an emitter, base, collector regions, note that a limitation in a claim with respect to a material property in a claimed device does not differentiate the claimed device from prior-art device if the prior-art device teaches all the structural limitations in the claims.
As stated in Best, Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F. 2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
Note that the applicant has a burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed, Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the structural arrangement of doped regions, S/D regions and electrodes and along with the material properties are the same as the instant application, resulting in an arrangement as similar to Fig 2 of the instant application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have an emitter region of a Schottky bipolar junction transistor (BJT) is formed by the electrodes, a base region of the Schottky BJT is formed by the N-type well region, and a collector region of the Schottky BJT is formed by the P-type semiconductor substrate in the device of Singh-5370.
Regarding Claim 2, Singh-5370 shows no diamond shaped S/D features in the third region (200).
Regarding Claim 3, Singh-5370 shows the electrodes may include W ([0030]).
Regarding Claim 4, Singh-5370 shows wherein the first source/drain features comprise epitaxially-grown materials with P-type conductivity (diamond-shaped region of P+ doped epitaxial semiconductor material 130 was formed on the fins 104X [0027]), and the second source/drain features comprise epitaxially-grown materials with N-type conductivity (N+ doped epitaxial semiconductor material 136 in the regions 300 on fins 104Y [0028]).
Regarding Claim 5, Singh-5370 shows wherein in the first direction, the first active region, the second active region and the third active region appear to have the same width (See Fig 3).
Additionally, with regards to the particular width of active regions claimed, it is also noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the width of each active region to be the same, and the courts have held that differences in (widths) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such widths are 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 applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the width and since Singh teaches an arrangement of (widths) known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these (width ratio values) in the device of Singh.
CRITICALITY: The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions ratios or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions ratios or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen ratios are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 6, Singh-5370 shows wherein in the second direction, the first active region and the second active region are shorter than the third active region (Fig2, Area under 200 seems to be larger than the areas under 300 and 400).
See Comments regarding criticality of widths in Par 11-13 of claim 5, as they would be considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 7, the number of fins in the third active region is three and the number of fins in the first and second active region is two (Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 8, While Singh-5370 does not show the number of third fins equal to a sum of the first and second fins, however, note that absent any criticality (See Paragraph 13) the number and ratio of fins is dependent on a design and any number of possibilities exist to a PHOSITA and would be obvious to try. MPEP 2143 Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. (2007).
Regarding Claim 9, Singh-5370 shows
a fourth active region (300 to the right of 200) formed over the N-type well region, comprising a plurality of fourth fins (104Y) extending in the first direction and a plurality of third source/drain features epitaxially grown on the fourth fins (active region with fins 104Y to the right of region 200 as show in Fig 9 including 140 S/D features with diamond shaped regions on fins 104 that are epitaxial [0027]-[0028]);
wherein the third active region is disposed between the second and fourth active regions (Fig 10).
Regarding Claim 10, Singh-5370 shows
wherein the number of the fourth fins is equal to the number of the second fins (2 fins 104Y on region 300 on both sides of 200), and the third source/drain features comprise epitaxially-grown materials with N-type conductivity and are electrically connected to the second source/drain features (See claim 4 rejection).
Regarding Claim 11, Singh-5370 (Fig 10) shows
a second P-type well region (112 to the right of 200, and nwell region 11) formed over the P-type semiconductor substrate;
a fifth active region formed over the second P-type well region, comprising a plurality of fifth fins (104X to the right of region 200) extending in the first direction and a plurality of fourth source/drain features epitaxially grown on the fifth fins,
wherein the N-type well region is disposed between the first and second P-type well regions (Fig 10)
Regarding Claim 12, Singh-5370 (Fig 10) shows wherein the number of the fifth fins is equal to the number of the first fins (number of 104X to the left and right are the same), and the fourth source/drain features comprise epitaxially-grown materials with P-type conductivity and are electrically connected to the first source/drain features (See claim 4 rejection)
Regarding Claim 13, Singh-5370 (e.g., 1-11 and corresponding Par.) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including, a semiconductor structure comprising
a semiconductor substrate (102 [0018)])
a well region (114) formed over the semiconductor substrate;
a first active region formed over the well region (over 114), comprising a plurality of first fins extending in a first direction and a plurality of first source/drain features epitaxially grown on the first fins (e.g., fins 104 over 114 on the left of 200 with S/D features with 136 doped epitaxial semiconductor material);
a second active region (over 114, comprising many fins104Z) formed over the well region, comprising a plurality of second fins extending in the first direction; and
a plurality of electrodes formed over the second active region, each extending in a second direction to contact the second fins, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (e.g., 140C),
wherein the electrodes and the first source/drain features are formed in the same level (Fig 10), wherein when the first source/drain features and the well region have N-type conductivity, an anode region of a Schottky diode is formed by the electrodes and a cathode region of the Schottky diode is formed by the well region ([0018] the n-type and p-type regions can be changed as per design)
wherein when the first source/drain features and the well region have P-type conductivity (([0018] the n-type and p-type regions can be changed as per design]),
However, while Singh-5370 does not explicitly show the anode and cathode regions, note that a limitation in a claim with respect to a material property in a claimed device does not differentiate the claimed device from prior-art device if the prior-art device teaches all the structural limitations in the claims.
As stated in Best, Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F. 2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
Note that the applicant has a burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed, Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, Singh-5370 shows electrode 140 over the above the second active region (above 114 well) and the doping of the well region 114 and the S/d features to be of a second type, or to be opposite of the substrate, resulting in an arrangement as similar to Fig 5 and [0040 ]of the instant application. Since the doping of the well region, S/D and a placement of the anode region of Singh-5370 is the same as the instant application, it would have been obvious the anode region of the Schottky diode is formed by the well region and the cathode region of the Schottky diode is formed by the electrodes
Regarding Claim 19, Singh-5370 shows
a third active region formed over the well region (fins to the right of area 200), each comprising a plurality of third fins (104Y) extending in the first direction and a plurality of second source/drain features epitaxially grown on the third fins (e.g., fins 104Y over 114 on the right of 200 with S/D features with 136 doped epitaxial semiconductor material)),
wherein the second active region is disposed between the first and third active regions (Fig 10).
Regarding Claim 20, Singh-5370 shows the number of fins to the right and left of area 200 are the same, and the fins are doped the same conductivity ([0028])
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al (US 20160118473 A1, Hereinafter Singh-8473).
Regarding Claim 13, Singh-8473 (e.g., 1-9, [0015]-[0021][0047]) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including, a semiconductor structure comprising
a semiconductor substrate (102 a first type (n-type or p-type));
a well region (first well 108) formed over the semiconductor substrate;
a first active region formed over the well region (left of 110), comprising a plurality of first fins extending in a first direction and a plurality of first source/drain features epitaxially grown on the first fins (e.g., Fig 5, epitaxial material 136 with [0033] and claim 1- “at least one other group of at least two fins comprises a FinFET.”);
a second active region (Fig 5-7, 110, comprising many fins) formed over the well region, comprising a plurality of second fins extending in the first direction; and
a plurality of electrodes formed over the second active region, each extending in a second direction to contact the second fins, wherein the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction (e.g., 140 and 142),
wherein the electrodes and the first source/drain features are formed in the same level (Fig 7), wherein when the first source/drain features and the well region have N-type conductivity, an anode region of a Schottky diode is formed by the electrodes and a cathode region of the Schottky diode is formed by the well region ([0035] “adding additional impurities 138 (e.g., by implantation) of the second type to the epitaxial material”),
wherein when the first source/drain features and the well region have P-type conductivity (second type [0035]),
However, while Singh-8473 does not explicitly show the anode and cathode regions, note that a limitation in a claim with respect to a material property in a claimed device does not differentiate the claimed device from prior-art device if the prior-art device teaches all the structural limitations in the claims.
As stated in Best, Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F. 2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
Note that the applicant has a burden of proof once the examiner establishes a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed, Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, Singh-8473 shows electrode 142 over the above the second active region 110 and the doping of the well region 108 and the S/d features to be of a second type, or to be opposite of the substrate, resulting in an arrangement as similar to Fig 5 and [0040 ]of the instant application. Since the doping of the well region, S/D and a placement of the anode region of Singh-8473 is the same as the instant application, it would have been obvious the anode region of the Schottky diode is formed by the well region and the cathode region of the Schottky diode is formed by the electrodes.
Regarding Claim 14, Singh-8473 (Fig 7) shows the second active region (under 142) is free of S/D regions.
Regarding Claim 15, Singh-8473 shows the electrode 142 contain Ti, Co, W or Ni (paragraph [0036 – 0037})
Regarding Claim 16, Singh-8473 (Fig 7 and 8 ) shows the first active region and the second active region have the same width.
Regarding Claim 17, Singh-8473 (Fig 7 and 8 ) shows in the second direction the first active region is shorter than the second active region (Fig. 7),
Regarding Claim 18, Singh-8473 (Fig 7 and 8 ) shows the number of second fins (under electrode 142) is greater than the number of first fins.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEESA RIAZ BAIG whose telephone number is (571)272-0249. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm EST.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/ANEESA RIAZ BAIG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814