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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/03/2024 and 02/02/2026 were filed before the first action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 2 of the instant application.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 3 of the instant application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 4 of the instant application. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 7 of the instant application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 9 of the instant application.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 10 of the instant application.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 11 of the instant application.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 12 of the instant application. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 13 of the instant application.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 14 of the instant application.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 15 of the instant application.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 16 of the instant application.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 17 of the instant application.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 18 of the instant application.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 19 of the instant application.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,978,676 includes all of the limitations in claim 20 of the instant application.
Prior art of record
Re claim 1, Ching et al. (2020/0058649) teaches a device (Figs. 15A-C) comprising: a first semiconductor fin (110, "2nd from left side", Fig. 15B) extending from a substrate (100); a dielectric fin (145) over the substrate (100); a first isolation region (120) between the first semiconductor fin (110, "2nd from
left side") and the dielectric fin (145), wherein the first isolation region (120); a second semiconductor fin (110, far left side", Fig. 15B) extending from the substrate (100), wherein the first semiconductor fin (110, "2nd from left side") is disposed between the second semiconductor fin (110, far left side") and the dielectric fin (145); and a second isolation region (120) between the first semiconductor fin (110, "2nd
from left side", Fig. 15B) and the second semiconductor fin (120),
yet remains explicitly silent to wherein the first isolation region has a first concentration of an impurity; wherein the second isolation region has a second concentration of the impurity, and wherein the second concentration is smaller than the first concentration. Re claim 8, Ching et al. (2020/0058649) teaches a device (Figs. 15A-C) comprising: a first shallow trench isolation (STI) region (120) over a substrate (100), a second STI region (120) over the substrate (100), a first semiconductor fin (110, "2nd from left side", Fig. 15B) extending from the substrate (100), wherein the first semiconductor fin is between the first STI region (120) and the second STI region (120), yet remains explicitly silent to wherein the first STI region has a first concentration of nitrogen; wherein the second STI region has a second concentration of nitrogen, and wherein the second concentration is greater than the first concentration. Re claim 13, Ching et al. (2020/0058649) teaches a method (Figs. 1A-15C) comprising: forming a first semiconductor fin (110, "2nd from left side", Fig. 1A) and a second semiconductor fin (110, far left side", Fig. 1A) extending from a substrate (100); forming a first insulating region (120, "between the first semiconductor fin and the
second semiconductor fin") and a second insulating region 120, "between the first insulating region and the second insulating region"), wherein the first insulating region is between the first semiconductor fin and the second semiconductor fin, wherein the second semiconductor fin is between the first insulating region and the second insulating region (Figs. 8A-B); recessing the first insulating region and the second insulating region by an etching process (Fig. 9A),
yet remains explicitly silent to modifying the second insulating region by increasing a concentration of an impurity in the second insulating region, wherein after modifying the second insulating region, the concentration of the impurity in the second insulating region is greater than a concentration of the impurity in the first insulating region; and wherein an etch rate of the second insulating region is less than an etch rate of the first insulating region.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the device of claim 1, including each of the limitations and specifically wherein the first isolation region has a first concentration of an impurity; wherein the second isolation region has a second concentration of the impurity, and wherein the second concentration is smaller than the first concentration, for the same reasons as mentioned for claim 1 in the prior art of record above. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the device of claim 8, including each of the limitations and specifically wherein the first STI region has a first concentration of nitrogen; wherein the second STI region has a second concentration of nitrogen, and wherein the second concentration is greater than the first concentration, for the same reasons as mentioned for claim 8 in the prior art of record above. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the method of claim 13, including each of the limitations and specifically modifying the second insulating region by increasing a concentration of an impurity in the second insulating region, wherein after modifying the second insulating region, the concentration of the impurity in the second insulating region is greater than a concentration of the impurity in the first insulating region; and wherein an etch rate of the second insulating region is less than an etch rate of the first insulating region, for the same reasons as mentioned for claim 13 in the prior art of record above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM S BOWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3984. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5. 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/ADAM S BOWEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights