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Claims 16-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/17/2026.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 20200105605 A1) and Hautala (US 20200027733 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Teng et al. teaches a method, comprising:
providing a semiconductor layer (50) including a plurality of trenches (62), wherein a first trench of the plurality of trenches has a first trench width extending in a first direction (as seen in attached Fig. 7C), wherein a second trench of the plurality of trenches has a second trench width extending in the first direction (as seen in attached Fig. 7C), wherein the first trench width and the second trench width are different, and wherein the first and second trenches each include a first sidewall opposite a second sidewall, and a bottom surface extending between the first and second sidewalls [Fig. 7C, ¶0029, talks about the different trench widths and gives a range of an example trench width and the width of the first and second trenches can be seen to be different];
depositing a film atop the semiconductor layer, and wherein an amount of the film formed along the bottom surface of the first trench is greater than an amount of the film formed along the bottom surface of the second trench [Fig. 7C, ¶0023, has uneven deposition so the first trench can have a greater amount of film deposited in the first trench]; and
delivering ions into the semiconductor layer in a reactive ion etching process to remove material from at least one of: the first sidewall of the first trench, the bottom surface of the second trench, and the film [¶0028].
Teng et al. doesn’t teach a non-zero angle deposition.
Hautala teaches the film is delivered at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from a top surface of the semiconductor layer [Fig. 1, ¶0024]
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the angled deposition of Hautala and the method of device patterning as described by Teng et al. because it would allow for selective deposition on features depending on which surfaces would be more desirable to have a greater amount deposited [Hautala, ¶0024].
PNG
media_image1.png
489
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Teng et al. in view of Hautala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ions of the reactive ion etching process are delivered at a second non-zero angle relative to the perpendicular extending from the top surface of the semiconductor layer [Hautala, ¶0028, the angle of incidence for the ions varies from 0-85°], wherein the second non-zero angle is different than the non-zero angle [Hautala, ¶0024, states deposition and removal can be at multiple different angles], and wherein the ions remove material from the first sidewall of the first trench without removing material from the first sidewall of the second trench [Hautala, ¶0033, areas of the film are etched depending on multiple factors and specific areas can be etched based on different conditions].
Regarding claim 6, Teng et al. in view of Hautala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein depositing the film atop the semiconductor layer comprises:
depositing the film over the top surface of the semiconductor layer and along the second sidewall of the first and second trenches in a first deposition process [Teng et al., ¶0038, said to fill in space between dummy gates and between fins, so would be in the trenches]; and
depositing the film over the top surface of the semiconductor layer and along the first sidewall of the first and second trenches in a second deposition process, wherein the second deposition process is performed after a first etch process to remove the film from the top surface of the semiconductor layer [Teng et al, ¶0046, discusses a second etch step and a second patterned mask that is over the source/drain regions which showcase the second deposition can be done after a first etch].
Regarding claim 7, Teng et al. in view of Hautala teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising performing a second etch process to remove the film from the top surface of the semiconductor layer [Teng et al., ¶0046, since there was a second etch, there has to be a first etch].
Regarding claim 8, Teng et al. in view of Hautala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the semiconductor layer comprises a line feature, and wherein the film is deposited along a first side of the line feature [Teng et al., ¶0033, continuous lines].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 20200105605 A1) in view of Hautala (US 20200027733 A1) and Kallaher (US10629798B1).
Regarding claim 2, Teng et al. in view of Hautala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein depositing the film atop the semiconductor layer comprises forming the film along an entire height of the second sidewall of the first trench [Teng et al., ¶0050]
Teng et al. in view of Hautala doesn’t teach forming the film only along a portion of the second sidewall of the second trench.
Kallaher et al. teaches forming the film only along a portion of the second sidewall of the second trench [Fig. 2, ¶0062, shows that a portion of a sidewall is covered].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the patterning method taught by Kallaher et al. with the patterning method taught by Teng et al. in view of Hautala because there are areas which can be desired to be exposed to create a device that functions as desired.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 20200105605 A1) in view of Hautala (US 20200027733 A1), Kallaher (US10629798B1) and Sung et al. (US 20190341315 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Teng et al. in view of Hautala and Kallaher et al. teaches the method of claim 2, forming the film only along the portion of the second sidewall of the second trench comprises [Kallaher, Fig. 2, ¶0062, shows that a portion of a sidewall is covered].
Teng et al. in view of Hautala and Kallaher et al. doesn’t teach forming the film over the second trench to enclose a cavity within the second trench.
Sung et al. teaches forming the film over the second trench to enclose a cavity within the second trench [Fig. 4A, ¶0045, layer seen to close off trench].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of closing off a trench as taught by Sung et al. with the method of patterning as taught by Teng et al. in view of Hautala and Kallaher et al. because enclosing the trench can be part of the process needed for removal and patterning of the trench [Sung et al., ¶0046].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 20200105605 A1) in view of Hautala (US 20200027733 A1) and Zhu (US 20230135187 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Teng et al. in view of Hautala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the ions remove material from the bottom surface of the second trench without removing material from the bottom surface of the first trench [Hautala, ¶0033, depending on the specifications or pattern that is desired, the bottom of one trench can be removed from while the other is not].
Teng et al. in view of Hautala doesn’t teach perpendicular etching.
Zhu teaches wherein the ions of the reactive ion etching process are delivered parallel to the perpendicular extending from the top surface of the semiconductor layer [¶0044].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the patterning method taught by Teng et al. in view of Hautala with the perpendicular reaction ion etching taught by Zhu because the sidewall that is etched could be desired to be straight, so having a perpendicular etching would be beneficial.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 20200105605 A1) in view of Hautala (US 20200027733 A1) and Li (US 20220238781 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Teng et al. in view of Hautala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a first aspect ratio of the first trench is different than a second aspect ratio of the second trench [Teng et al., ¶0029].
Teng et al. in view of Hautala doesn’t teach the first trench width is greater than the second trench width.
Li et al. teaches the first trench width is greater than the second trench width [¶0040].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combines the method of patterning as taught by Teng et al. with the trench size as taught by Li et al. because the difference in trench widths can be used for greater separation between components in the semiconductor.
Claim(s) 10, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 20200105605 A1) in view of Li (US 20220238781 A1) and Hautala (US 20200027733 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Teng et al. teaches a method, comprising:
providing a substrate including a plurality of trenches, wherein a first trench of the plurality of trenches has a first trench width extending in a first direction, wherein a second trench of the plurality of trenches has a second trench width extending in the first direction [Fig. 7C, ¶0029], and wherein the first and second trenches each include a first sidewall opposite a second sidewall, and a bottom surface extending between the first and second sidewalls [Fig. 7C];
depositing a film atop the substrate, and wherein an amount of the film formed along the bottom surface of the first trench is greater than an amount of the film formed along the bottom surface of the second trench [Fig. 7C, ¶0023, has uneven deposition so the first trench can have a greater amount of film deposited in the first trench]; and
delivering ions into the substrate in a reactive ion etching process to remove material from at least one of: the first sidewall of the first trench, the bottom surface of the second trench, and the film [¶0028].
Teng et al. doesn’t teach the first trench width is greater than the second trench width [¶0040].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combines the method of patterning as taught by Teng et al. with the trench size as taught by Li et al. because the difference in trench widths can be used for greater separation between components in the semiconductor.
Teng et al. in view of Li doesn’t teach the film deposited at a non-zero angle.
Hautala teaches the film is delivered at a non-zero angle relative to a perpendicular extending from a top surface of the substrate [Fig. 1, ¶0024].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the angled deposition of Hautala and the method of device patterning as described by Teng et al. in view of Li because it would allow for selective deposition on features depending on which surfaces would be more desirable to have a greater amount deposited [Hautala, ¶0024].
Regarding claim 13, Teng et al. in view of Li and Hautala teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the ions of the reactive ion etching process are delivered at a second non-zero angle relative to the perpendicular extending from the top surface of the substrate [Hautala, ¶0028, the angle of incidence for the ions varies from 0-85°], wherein the second non-zero angle is different than the non-zero angle [Hautala, ¶0024, states deposition and removal can be at multiple different angles], and wherein the ions remove material from the first sidewall of the first trench without removing material from the first sidewall of the second trench [Hautala, ¶0033, areas of the film are etched depending on multiple factors and specific areas can be etched based on different conditions].
Regarding claim 15, Teng et al. in view of Li and Hautala teaches the method of claim 10, wherein depositing the film atop the substrate comprises:
depositing the film over the top surface of the substrate and along the second sidewall of the first and second trenches in a first deposition process [Teng et al., ¶0038, said to fill in space between dummy gates and between fins, so would be in the trenches]; and
depositing the film over the top surface of the substrate and along the first sidewall of the first and second trenches in a second deposition process, wherein the second deposition process is performed after a first etch process, wherein the first etch process removes the film from the top surface of the substrate, and wherein a second etch process is performed after the second deposition process to remove the film from the top surface of the substrate [Teng et al, ¶0046, discusses a second etch step and a second patterned mask that is over the source/drain regions which showcase the second deposition can be done after a first etch and since there was a second etch, there has to be a first etch, both etches are done to remove film on the top surface].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 20200105605 A1) in view of Li (US 20220238781 A1), Hautala (US 20200027733 A1), and Kallaher (US10629798B1).
Regarding claim 11, Teng et al. in view of Li and Hautala teaches the method of claim 10, wherein depositing the film atop the substrate comprises forming the film along an entire height of the second sidewall of the first trench [Teng et al., ¶0050].
Teng et al. in view of Li and Hautala doesn’t teach forming the film only along a portion of the second sidewall of the second trench.
Kallaher et al. teaches forming the film only along a portion of the second sidewall of the second trench [Fig. 2, ¶0062, shows that a portion of a sidewall is covered].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the patterning method taught by Kallaher et al. with the patterning method taught by Teng et al. in view of Li and Hautala because there are areas which can be desired to be exposed to create a device that functions as desired.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 20200105605 A1) in view of Li (US 20220238781 A1), Hautala (US 20200027733 A1), Kallaher (US10629798B1), and Sung et al. (US 20190341315 A1) .
Regarding claim 12, Teng et al. in view of Li, Hautala, and Kallaher et al. teaches the method of claim 11.
Teng et al. in view of Li, Hautala, and Kallaher et al. doesn’t teach wherein forming the film only along the portion of the second sidewall of the second trench comprises forming the film over the second trench to enclose a cavity within the second trench.
Sung et al. teaches wherein forming the film only along the portion of the second sidewall of the second trench comprises forming the film over the second trench to enclose a cavity within the second trench [Fig. 4A, ¶0045, layer closes off trench].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the method of closing off a trench as taught by Sung et al. with the method of patterning as taught by Teng et al. in view of Li, Hautala, and Kallaher et al. because enclosing the trench can be part of the process needed for removal and patterning of the trench [Sung et al., ¶0046].
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teng et al. (US 20200105605 A1) in view of Li (US 20220238781 A1), Hautala (US 20200027733 A1), and Zhu (US 20230135187 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Teng et al. in view of Li and Hautala teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the ions remove material from the bottom surface of the second trench without removing material from the bottom surface of the first trench [Hautala, ¶0033, depending on the specifications or pattern that is desired, the bottom of one trench can be removed form while the other is not].
Teng et al. in view of Li and Hautala doesn’t teach perpendicular etching.
Zhu teaches the ions of the reactive ion etching process are delivered parallel to the perpendicular extending from the top surface of the substrate [¶0044].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the patterning method taught by Teng et al. in view of Li and Hautala with the perpendicular reaction ion etching taught by Zhu because the sidewall that is etched could be desired to be straight, so having a perpendicular etching would be beneficial.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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.
/NOOR MOHAMMAD ISMAIL TAHIR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights