DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Application filed on November 16, 2023.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because of the following reasons:
The structure of the claimed “dielectric isolation bar” is not shown in the current application, because while a dielectric isolation structure may have been shown in current application, Applicants do not show the top view of the claimed “dielectric isolation bar”, i.e. a dielectric isolation structure that is elongated along one direction only.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2 of claim 4, a typo of “that” instead of “than” should be corrected.
On line 4 of claim 8, “a” should be inserted before “second buried power rail”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9, 13, 15-16, 18, and 19 are rendered as indefinite because they include the term "dielectric isolation bar" which is not a term of art, is not clearly defined by the claims or the original disclosure, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, i.e. what kind of a structure can be referred to as a “dielectric isolation bar”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, the term is unclear because it is unclear what is necessary to be considered a "dielectric isolation bar" and what would not be considered a "dielectric isolation bar", especially when Applicants did not show the top view of the “dielectric isolation bar.”
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, claims 9-14 depend on claim 8, and claims 16-20 depend on claim 15, and therefore, claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are also indefinite.
For purposes of examination, the term “dielectric isolation bar” is interpreted by the Examiner as “dielectric layer”.
Claims 8-9, 11, and 14-16 are rendered as indefinite because they include the term “merged contact”. It is not clear what the "merged contact" refers to, because the "merged contact" appears to be directed to the merged contact 154 shown in Fig. 8 of current application, which is not present in the claimed semiconductor device shown in Fig. 11 of current application. This point is further substantiated by the limitations recited in claim 8 with which Applicants first claim “a merged contact” on line 3 of claim 8, and then the “merged contact” is cut into the first and second portion as recited on line 5-6 of claim 8, and therefore, “a merged contact” and “the merged contact” refer to different contacts, and they do not coexist in the claimed final structure of the semiconductor device. Please note that Applicants cannot claim a final product of a semiconductor device with a feature of an intermediate product that does not exist in the claimed final product of the semiconductor device.
Regarding claim 14, it is not clear how the first and second portion of the merged contact can each include a portion that extends into gouges in the n-type active region and the p-type active region in the claimed semiconductor device, because the merged contact 154 in Fig. 8 of current application appears to be present only in an intermediate product stage, while there is no merged contact in the final product shown in Fig. 11 of current application.
Claims 9-14 depend on claim 8, and claims 16-20 depend on claim 15, and therefore, claims 9-14 and 16-20 are also indefinite.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 20210202385 A1) hereinafter referred to as “Huang”.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Huang discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 1B), comprising: a dielectric isolation bar (element 122) disposed in a region between an n-type active region and a p-type active region (element 108/110), the dielectric isolation bar having: a first tapered portion (element 122) disposed within or within the boundary of a contact (element 152) where the contact (electrically) connects to one of the n-type active region and the p-type active region (element 108); and a second tapered portion (element 122) that cuts through portions of a buried power rail layer (elements 118 and 120), because Applicants do not specifically claim what the buried power rail layer is formed of, and what it looks like, wherein the dielectric isolation bar (element 122) electrically isolates a lateral portion of the contact (element 152) from surrounding structures and separates portions of the buried power rail layer (elements 118 and 120), because the limitation “cuts through portions” is a product-by-process limitation that does not structurally distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art, because Applicants do not specifically claim which portions are cut and how the cutting process is performed. Note that a product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product by process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product by process claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear. Also, the claim limitation “electrically isolates a lateral portion” specifies an intended use or field of use, and is treated as non-limiting since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses the semiconductor device (Fig. 1B) as recited in claim 1, wherein the first tapered portion and the second tapered portion have discontinuous sidewalls (element 122) through the contact (element 152) and the buried power rail layer (elements 118 and 120).
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses the semiconductor device (Fig. 1B) as recited in claim 1, wherein the first tapered portion (element 122) includes a sub-lithographic size, because the top right portion of element 122 is a sharp acute angle with outermost atoms that are sub-lithographic in size.
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses the semiconductor device (Fig. 1B) as recited in claim 4, wherein the top portion is disposed within portions of a dielectric liner, because Applicants do not specifically claim what the dielectric liner refers to, and therefore, "a dielectric liner" can be the not-shown interface layer of the backside contact features 120 and the dielectric layer 122, and when the device structure shown in Fig. 1B of Huang et al. is viewed from the top as in Fig. 1A of Huang et al., the top portion of the contact 152 is disposed within portions of the dielectric liner.
Regarding claim 6, Huang discloses the semiconductor device (Fig. 1B) as recited in claim 5, wherein the dielectric isolation bar (element 122) overlaps the portions of the dielectric liner to provide a continuous dielectric barrier, because Applicants do not specifically claim what the dielectric liner refers to, and therefore, "a dielectric liner" can be the not-shown interface layer of the backside contact features 120 and the dielectric layer 122, which overlaps with one another.
Regarding claim 7, Huang discloses the semiconductor device (Fig. 1B) as recited in claim 1, wherein the contact (element 152) extends into a gouged portion of an active region (element 108).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20210202385 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Huang et al. differ from the claimed invention by not explicitly showing that the contact includes a top portion that is narrower that its lower portion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the contact can include a top portion that is narrower than its lower portion, because the contact 152 is a silicide layer that can be formed by a reaction between the backside contact features 120 and the source feature 108, and therefore, the shape of the contact 152 would be similar to the source materials of the silicide layer, and therefore, the contact 152 would have a shape similar to the backside contact features 120 whose top portion is narrower than the lower portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA ROSE E. GALVAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 6:00pm 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/ANGELICA ROSE GALVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights