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 .
Status of the Claims
Amendment filed 16 March 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 have been canceled. Claims 12 and 15 have been amended. Claims 21-30 have been added. Claims 11-30 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, species a, claims 11-15 and 18-20 in the reply filed on 16 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 would have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. However, claims 1-10 were canceled in the election made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 March 2026.
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 16 March 2026.
Specification
The amendments to the title were received on 16 March 2026. These amendments to the title are acceptable.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE COMPRISING REINFORCED FINS.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 recites the limitation, “wherein the reinforcing member comprising a first reinforcing member.” This appears to contain a typographical error and may be corrected as, “wherein the reinforcing member comprises a first reinforcing member.”
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 15, 18-20, and 22-27 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 15 recites the limitation, “the mask layer covering the edge fin or the center fin.” It is unclear how the mask layer covers the edge fin or the center fin. As best understood by Examiner, the mask layer covers both the edge fin and the center fin.
Claim 15 recites the limitation, “the edge fin that is not covered by the mask layer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation, “a substrate.” It is unclear whether the aforementioned substrate is the same as, or distinct from, the previously-recited, “a substrate,” of claim 21 off which the claim depends.
Claims 18-20 and 23-27 are rejected for merely containing the flaws of the parent claim.
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.
Claims 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 21, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0212195, hereinafter Wang ‘195) in view of Yang et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication 113972136, hereinafter Yang ‘136).
With respect to claim 11, Wang ‘195 teaches (FIGs. 6-14) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device substantially as claimed, comprising:
forming (FIG. 7) a plurality of fin structures (110 and 111) on a substrate (100) ([0053, 0064]);
forming (FIG. 9) a mask layer (123) on the substrate (100), and the mask layer covering the fin structures (110 and 111) ([0082]);
forming (FIG. 11) a protective layer on the fin structures so that a reinforcing member (112) is formed on a sidewall portion of at least one edge fin (111) of the fin structures (110 and 111) ([0069]); and
removing (FIGs. 10 and 12) the mask layer (123) to expose the fin structures (110 and 111) ([0082, 0102]).
Thus, Wang ‘195 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
forming a gate oxide layer on the fin structures and the reinforcing member; and
forming a gate electrode layer on the gate oxide layer, and the gate oxide layer is isolated between the gate electrode layer and the fin structures.
However, Yang ‘136 teaches (FIGs. 12 and 13) forming a gate oxide layer (250) on fin structures (203) and a reinforcing member (240); and forming a gate electrode (260) layer on the gate oxide layer, and the gate oxide layer is isolated between the gate electrode layer and the fin structures to control the flow of current through said fin structures ([0059-0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Wang ‘195 further comprising forming a gate oxide layer on the fin structures and the reinforcing member; and forming a gate electrode layer on the gate oxide layer, and the gate oxide layer is isolated between the gate electrode layer and the fin structures as taught by Yang ‘136 to control the flow of current through said fin structures.
With respect to claim 12, Wang ‘195 teaches wherein a material of the reinforcing member (112) comprises oxide, carbide, nitrogen oxide or metal oxide ([0072]).
With respect to claim 15, Wang ‘195 teaches (FIGs. 6-14) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device substantially as claimed, comprising:
forming (FIG. 7) a plurality of fin structures (110 and 111) on a substrate (100), wherein the fin structures comprise at least one edge fin (111) and at least one center fin (110) ([0053, 0064]);
forming (FIG. 9) a mask layer (123) on the substrate (100), and the mask layer covering the edge fin (111) or the center fin (110) ([0082]);
performing (FIG. 11) a modification process on the edge fin (111) that is not covered by the mask layer (123) ([0069]); and
removing (FIG. 10) the mask layer (123) to expose the edge fin (111) ([0082]).
Thus, Wang ‘195 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of forming a gate structure on the edge fin and the center fin.
However, Yang ‘136 teaches (FIGs. 12 and 13) forming a gate structure (250 and 260) on all fins to control the flow of current through said fins ([0059-0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Wang ‘195 further comprising forming a gate structure on the edge fin and the center fin as taught by Yang ‘136 to control the flow of current through said fins.
With respect to claim 18, Wang ‘195 teaches wherein the modifying process comprises forming a reinforcing member (112) on a sidewall portion of the edge fin (111) ([0069]).
With respect to claim 19, Wang ‘195 teaches wherein a material of the reinforcing member (112) comprises oxide, carbide, nitrogen oxide or metal oxide ([0072]).
With respect to claim 21, Wang ‘195 teaches (FIGs. 6-14) a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device substantially as claimed, comprising:
forming (FIG. 7) a first type of fin (111) on a substrate (100) ([0053, 0064]); and
forming (FIG. 11) a reinforcing member (112) on a sidewall portion of the first type of fin (111) ([0069]).
Thus, Wang ‘195 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
forming a gate oxide layer on the first type of fin and the reinforcing member; and
forming a gate electrode layer covering the gate oxide layer.
However, Yang ‘136 teaches (FIGs. 12 and 13) forming a gate oxide layer (250) on all fins (203) and a reinforcing member (240); and forming a gate electrode layer (260) covering the gate oxide layer to control the flow of current through said fin ([0059-0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have practiced the method of Wang ‘195 further comprising forming a gate oxide layer on the first type of fin and the reinforcing member; and forming a gate electrode layer covering the gate oxide layer as taught by Yang ‘136 to control the flow of current through said fin.
With respect to claim 28, Wang ‘195 teaches wherein the reinforcing member (112) has a height less than or equal to a height of the first type of fin (111) ([0114]).
With respect to claim 29, Wang ‘195 teaches wherein a material of the reinforcing member (112) comprises oxide, carbide, oxynitride or metal oxide ([0072]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zhou (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0133486, hereinafter Zhou ‘486).
With respect to claim 13, Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 teach the method as described in claim 11 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein the mask layer is a photoresist layer or a plasma enhanced oxide.
However, Zhou ‘486 teaches (FIG. 6) using a photoresist mask layer (210) as an art-recognized material suitable for the intended use of performing processing to selected fins ([0066]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the mask layer of Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 as a photoresist layer or a plasma enhanced oxide as taught by Zhou ‘486 as an art-recognized material suitable for the intended use of performing processing to selected fins.
Claims 14 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 as applied to claim 11 and 21 above, and further in view of Li (Chinese Patent Application Publication 107039272, hereinafter Li ‘272).
With respect to claims 14 and 30, Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 teach the method as described in claims 11 and 21 above with the exception of the additional limitations wherein a width of the reinforcing member is greater than 2 nm; and wherein a width of the reinforcing member is between 3 nm and 10 nm.
However, Li ‘272 teaches (FIG. 8) a reinforcing member (212) having a width between 2 nm and 5 nm as an ideal thickness so that fin uniformity may maintained in subsequent processing while avoiding completely oxidizing said reinforcing member ([0075]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a width of the reinforcing member of Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 greater than 2 nm and between 3 nm and 10 nm as taught by Li ‘272 as an ideal thickness so that fin uniformity may maintained in subsequent processing while avoiding completely oxidizing said reinforcing member.
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed width or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen distance or upon another variable recited in the claim, Applicant must show that the chosen variable is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 20, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 as applied to claims 15 and 21 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication 104752218, hereinafter Chen ‘218).
With respect to claim 20, Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 teach the method as described in claim 15 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein the edge fin has a width smaller than a width of the center fin.
However, Chen ‘218 teaches (FIG. 10) a first, edge type of fin (104 in peripheral area II) having a width (W2) smaller than a width (W1) of a second, center type of fin (104 in center area I) to ensure high carrier mobility in the center area, the center area typically having a higher signal transmission speed ([0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the edge fin of Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 having a width smaller than a width of the center fin as taught by Chen ‘218 to ensure high carrier mobility in the center area, the center area typically having a higher signal transmission speed.
With respect to claim 22, Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 teach the method as described in claim 21 above, with primary reference Wang ‘195 teaching the additional limitation further comprising forming a second type of fin (110) on a substrate (100) ([0053]).
Thus, Wang ‘195 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of wherein the first type of fin has a width smaller than a width of the second type of fin.
However, Chen ‘218 teaches (FIG. 10) a first, edge type of fin (104 in peripheral area II) having a width (W2) smaller than a width (W1) of a second, center type of fin (104 in center area I) to ensure high carrier mobility in the center area, the center area typically having a higher signal transmission speed ([0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first type of fin of Wang ‘195 and Yang ‘136 having a width smaller than a width of the second type of fin as taught by Chen ‘218 to ensure high carrier mobility in the center area, the center area typically having a higher signal transmission speed.
With respect to claim 26, Wang ‘195 teaches wherein the first type of fin (111) comprising a first edge fin (leftmost 111) and a second edge fin (rightmost 111), and the second type of fin (110) is located between the first edge fin and the second edge fin ([0053, 0064]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, and Chen ‘218 as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Zhou (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0161470, hereinafter Zhou ‘470).
With respect to claim 23, Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, and Chen ‘218 teach the method as described in claim 22 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein a difference between the width of the second type of fin and the width of the first type of fin is between 3 nm and 10 nm.
However, Zhou ‘470 teaches (FIG. 22) a difference between the width (W3) of a second type of fin and the width (W2) of a first type of fin is between 3 nm and 10 nm as an ideal width difference to ensure that the improvements in the self-heating effect of the device are maintained and to avoid adversely affecting the forming of subsequent isolation structures ([0106]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a difference between the width of the second type of fin and the width of the first type of fin of Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, and Chen ‘218 between 3 nm and 10 nm as taught by Zhou ‘470 as an ideal width difference to ensure that the improvements in the self-heating effect of the device are maintained and to avoid adversely affecting the forming of subsequent isolation structures.
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed width or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen distance or upon another variable recited in the claim, Applicant must show that the chosen variable is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, and Chen ‘218 as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0157812, hereinafter Liu ‘812).
With respect to claim 25, Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, and Chen ‘218 teach the method as described in claim 22 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein the first and second type of fins extend parallel to each other along a first direction, and the gate electrode layer extends along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and covers the first and second type of fins.
However, Liu ‘812 teaches (FIG. 1C) fins (120) extending parallel to each other along a first direction, and a gate electrode layer (140) extending along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and covering the fins in an arrangement that allows for controlling the flow of current through said fins ([0020, 0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first and second type of fins of Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, and Chen ‘218 extending parallel to each other along a first direction, and the gate electrode layer extending along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and covering the first and second type of fins as taught by Liu ‘812 in an arrangement that allows for controlling the flow of current through said fins.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, and Chen ‘218 as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Siprak (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0054361, hereinafter Siprak ‘361).
With respect to claim 27, Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, and Chen ‘218 teach the method as described in claim 26 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein the reinforcing member comprising a first reinforcing member covering an outer sidewall portion of the first edge fin and a second reinforcing member covering an outer sidewall portion of the second edge fin.
However, Siprak ‘361 teaches (FIG. 3) reinforcing members (302) covering outer sidewall portions of fins (102) to provide support to said fins ([0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the reinforcing members of Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, and Chen ‘218 comprising a first reinforcing member covering an outer sidewall portion of the first edge fin and a second reinforcing member covering an outer sidewall portion of the second edge fin as taught by Siprak ‘361 to provide support to said fins.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach the method of claim 24 in the combination of limitations as claimed, noting particularly the limitation, “wherein a width of the reinforcing member on the sidewall portion is equal to the difference.”
Wang ‘195, Yang ‘136, Chen ‘218, and Zhou ‘470 represent the closest prior art of record as set forth in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 23 above. However, these references are silent to the relationship between the difference in width of the first and second types of fins with respect to the reinforcing member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern.
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 Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights