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 with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 2/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 12 is generic. This is not found persuasive because the prior art does not anticipate claim 12- a second and burdensome search would be required to address the separate and distinct species which includes claims 12-14; more specifically, the species which would read upon newly amended claim 12 requires that the second insulating material be formed in the trench- this is not required in the Applicant’s elected species and not taught by Ching. A second burdensome search would need to be conducted to find the best applicable prior art. In order to be generic to the elected species- the same prior art would apply to the more generic claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Newly submitted claims 19-24 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the newly added claims require the etch stop to be formed on the sidewalls of the trench- this would require a second and burdensome search to address this new species- the elected species does not include this feature and a second burdensome search would be required to address the newly added species- Ching does not anticipate the limitations of claims 19-21 and another search would be burdensome upon the office to address these various distinct embodiments.
Applicant has received a restriction requirement and has made an election. Accordingly, claims 19-24 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Applicant should note that should future prosecution determine allowable subject matter and such allowable subject matter be properly incorporated into the withdrawn claims rejoinder and allowance of the withdrawn claims may be possible.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1 and 10 (and via their dependency- claims 2-9, and 11) 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.
Claim 1 recites “forming a third layer of a third, trench sealing material.” The Examiner cannot understand the meets and bounds of the claim. There is no prior recitation of a “second trench”. This is missing an essential element if Applicant intends to claim a third trench?
The amendment added a comma “,” in the phrase which adds to the Examiner’s confusion- forming a third layer of a third, trench sealing material- suggesting the claim refers to a third layer of a third? Is the third layer a third insulating material? This must be corrected. The Examiner took her best guess as to the meaning of the claims for purposes of examination- a third trench is inferred.
Claim 10 is also unclear; or renders claim 1 unclear. Claim 10 recites:
10. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the second layer has a thickness greater than or equal to half a diameter of a still empty portion of the trench after the filling.
Claim 1 requires “filling a first trench in the substrate with a first layer of a first insulating material”. Filling a first trench usually implies the trench is full; the “still empty portion” limitation of claim 10 conflicts with this commonly understood interpretation. The Applicant should amend claim 1 to be “partially filling a first trench”? but “filling” implies no empty portion- or an essential step is missing from the claim- that the first insulating material is removed- it’s confusing. Appropriate correction is requested.
Applicant should note that the claims are so broad they are confusing- as a method claim- it is arguable that essential etch steps and structural elements are missing from the claim which would make it clearer. The Examiner recommends a substantial amendment be made to the claims in order to clarify the meets and bounds of the claims and expedite prosecution forward.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ching et al (US 2016/0365426).
(Currently Amended) A method, comprising:
forming an insulating trench (Fig.3B/14B (44) and [0020]) in a substrate (Fig. 3B/14B (40) and [0021]), for an electronic device [0002] including:
filling a first trench (Fig.3B/14B (44) and [0020]) in the substrate (Fig.3B/14B (40) and [0021]) with a first layer of a first insulating material (Fig.3B/14B (44) and [0020]);
forming a first etch stop layer (Fig.5B/15B (58/54) and [0031/0025]) on the first insulating material (Fig.3B/14B (44) and [0020]);
forming a second layer of a second insulating material (Fig.5B/15B (60) and [0031]) on the first etch stop layer (Fig.5B (58/54)/Fig.15B (58/90) and [0031/0025/0052]);
etching down to the first etch stop layer (Fig.6B/16B and [0032]); and
forming a third layer (Fig.10B (74- is one of 3 layers including 58/64 of gate sidewall spacers) and [0043]/Fig.14B (94- also a third layer including 92 and 96) and [0052]) of a third trench (Fig.9B-10B (trench is considered to be a “third trench” whcn 54 is removed) and [0042])/Fig.20B (100) and [0054]) sealing material (Fig.10B (74- seals the void 76) and [0043])/ Fig.20B (98- seals the void 100) and [0054]).
2. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the third material is waterproof (Fig.14B (94) and [0052- aluminum oxide- aluminum oxide is waterproof]).
3. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, comprising polishing a surface of the substrate before forming the first etch stop layer [0016].
4. (Original) The method according to claim 3, wherein polishing the surface includes chemical-mechanical polishing [0016].
5. (Original) The method according to claim 3, comprising wet etching before polishing the surface of the substrate [0015/0020].
6. (Original) The method according to claim 5, wherein the wet etching includes using a hydrofluoric acid solution [0020].
7. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the etching includes anisotropic etching [0015].
8. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the first etch stop layer is a layer of aluminum oxide (Fig.5B (54)/Fig.15B (90/94) and [0031/0025/0052]).
10. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the second layer (Fig.21 (60) and [0031]) has a thickness greater than or equal to half a diameter of a still empty portion of the trench (Fig.21 (100) after the filling (Fig.21(98)).
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, 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) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching et al (US 2016/0365426).
Ching teaches the first etch stop layer has a width (thickness of 5nm (Fig.5B (54) and [0041]. However fails to explicitly teach the range of 5-20 nm as required by claim 9 below:
9. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the first etch stop layer has a thickness in a range from of 5 to 20 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ching to include the higher range of thicknesses because doing so would allow for a thicker gate spacer material and more isolation; the paradox of creating the thinnest layer possible to accomplish the desired electrical outcome exists within the semiconductor art- there are always space constraints (smaller is better) however bigger (in this case thicker) usually renders performance benefits.
Ching teaches the limitation of claim 11 as cited below:
11. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the second insulating material is silicon oxide [0031-BPSG is a type of silicon oxide) and the third trench sealing material is aluminum oxide.
However fails to teach the third trench sealing material is aluminum oxide.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ching’s teachings to include a sealing material of aluminum oxide as recited in claim 9; because Ching teaches the sealing material 74 is SiCON which impervious to gas [0043]; SiCON is also waterproof; one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that aluminum oxide is a well known waterproof material which would also be a suitable substitution for SiCON.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Benoit et al (US 2013/0288450); Lin (US 2017/0140979); and Temmler (US 2005/0250290) teach similar trench forming and filling steps utilizing seals and etch stops.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M MENZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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 Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
/LAURA M MENZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
4/28/26
Prosecution Insights