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 Invention I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed 04/13/2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that there is no appreciable search or examination burden because each independent claim allegedly encompasses a patterning method for a semiconductor structure and would require searching the same key method steps.
Claims 1-13 are found to contain allowable subject matter if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth below. Claims 14-15, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement among inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 02/13/2026, is hereby withdrawn and claims 14 and 15 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 70 on fig. 49.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a mandrel structure of the plurality of mandrel structures is formed with a first sub-portion and a second sub-portion,” thereby introducing “a first sub-portion” and “a second sub-portion” with respect to a singular mandrel structure. Claim 1 further recites forming “a first set of sidewalls” However, claim 1 later recites “located between adjacent ones of the first sub-portions” and “a second trench between two adjacent ones of the first sets of sidewalls.”
It is unclear what provides antecedent basis for the plural “the first sub-portions” and “the first sets of sidewalls,” because the claim previously recites only “a first sub-portion” and “a first set of sidewalls.” Accordingly, the scope of claim 1 is unclear.
Claims 2-13 are indefinite at least by virtue of their dependency from claim 1 because claims 2-13 depend from claim 1 and do not cure the indefiniteness discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 further recites “located between adjacent ones of the second sub-portion.” It is unclear how there can be “adjacent ones” of “the second sub-portion,” because “the second sub-portion” is recited in the singular. Claim 4 also recites “the second trench is also located between adjacent ones of the second sets of sidewalls,” but previously recites “a second set of sidewalls.” It is unclear what provides antecedent basis for the plural “the second sets of sidewalls.” Accordingly, the scope of claim 4 is unclear.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 further recites “located between the adjacent ones of the second sub-portions.” However, it is unclear what provides antecedent basis for the plural “the second sub-portions,” because the prior claim language recites “a second sub-portion,” and claim 4 recites the unclear phrase “adjacent ones of the second sub-portion.” Accordingly, the scope of claim 5 is unclear.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 further recites “a third set of sidewalls at two opposite sidewalls of the second sub-portion,” thereby introducing “a third set of sidewalls” in the singular. However, claim 9 later recites “the second trench is formed between two adjacent ones of the third sets of sidewalls” and “between adjacent ones of the third sets of sidewalls.” It is unclear what provides antecedent basis for the plural “the third sets of sidewalls.” Accordingly, the scope of claim 9 is unclear.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 further recites “wherein between adjacent ones of the third sets of sidewalls the second mask sidewall covers a side of the spacer portion away from the to-be-etched layer.”
However, it is unclear what provides antecedent basis for the plural “the third sets of sidewalls,” because claim 9 recites “a third set of sidewalls” in the singular. Accordingly, the scope of claim 10 is unclear.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 further recites “the second sub-portion is connected with a side of the first sub-portion, or the second sub-portion is connected with two opposite sides of the first sub-portion.” It is unclear whether the claim requires a single second sub-portion connected with two opposite sides of the first sub-portion, or whether the claim intends to recite two second sub-portions respectively connected with two opposite sides of the first sub-portion. It is also unclear how the “and” and “or” clauses in claim 12 relate to each other. Accordingly, the scope of claim 12 is unclear.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites “a mandrel structure of the plurality of mandrel structures is formed with a first sub-portion and a second sub-portion,” thereby introducing “a first sub-portion” and “a second sub-portion” with respect to a mandrel structure. However, claim 14 later recites “located between adjacent ones of the first sub-portions.” It is unclear what provides antecedent basis for the plural “the first sub-portions,” because claim 14 previously recites only “a first sub-portion.”
Claim 14 also recites “to form a first set of sidewalls at two opposite sidewalls of the first sub-portion,” thereby introducing “a first set of sidewalls” in the singular. However, claim 14 later recites “a second trench between two adjacent ones of the first sets of sidewalls.” It is unclear what provides antecedent basis for the plural “the first sets of sidewalls,” because claim 14 previously recites only “a first set of sidewalls.”
Claim 15 recites “a mandrel structure of the plurality of mandrel structures is formed with a first sub-portion and a second sub-portion,” thereby introducing “a first sub-portion” and “a second sub-portion” with respect to a mandrel structure. However, claim 15 later recites “located between adjacent ones of the first sub-portions.” It is unclear what provides antecedent basis for the plural “the first sub-portions,” because claim 15 previously recites only “a first sub-portion.”
Claim 15 also recites “to form a first set of sidewalls at two opposite sidewalls of the first sub-portion,” thereby introducing “a first set of sidewalls” in the singular. However, claim 15 later recites “a second trench between two adjacent ones of the first sets of sidewalls.” It is unclear what provides antecedent basis for the plural “the first sets of sidewalls,” because claim 15 previously recites only “a first set of sidewalls.”
Accordingly, claims 14 and 15 are unclear.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the references, whether alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “a mandrel structure of the plurality of mandrel structures is formed with a first sub-portion and a second sub-portion on at least one side of the first sub-portion along an extending direction of the mandrel structure,” “removing the first material layer on a side of the first sub-portion away from the to-be-etched layer and located between adjacent ones of the first sub-portions covering a side of the to-be-etched layer close to the first mask layer along a direction parallel to the to-be-etched layer to form a first set of sidewalls at two opposite sidewalls of the first sub-portion,” and “removing the first sub-portion to form a first trench between the two first sub-walls in the first set of sidewalls and a second trench between two adjacent ones of the first sets of sidewalls, wherein a length of the second trench is greater than a length of the first trench,” in combination with forming first and second mask patterns through the first and second trenches, respectively, and etching the to-be-etched layer using the first and second mask patterns to obtain first and second patterned structures, wherein a length of the second patterned structure is greater than a length of the first patterned structure.
Fan et al. (US 2019/0326127 A1) teaches a self-aligned multiple patterning method including a dummy layer having a cut, sacrificial layers, dummy mask lines, mask portions formed along sidewalls of the patterned dummy layer, and use of the mask portions during etching of an underlying layer (paragraphs [0020], [0033], [0043]-[0045]).Fan also teaches that one or more dummy mask lines may be discontinuous in a longitudinal direction due to the cut (paragraph [0033]).
However, Fan does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of forming a mandrel structure having first and second sub-portions, forming first sub-walls at sidewalls of the first sub-portion, removing the first sub-portion to form a first trench and a second trench having a greater length than the first trench, and using first and second mask patterns formed through the first and second trenches to etch the to-be-etched layer to obtain first and second patterned structures having different lengths.
Lazzarino et al. (US 2020/0075335 A1) teaches a patterning method involving memorization layers, block patterns, spacer layers, and first and second sets of target trenches (paragraphs [0011], [0020]-[0022], [0098], [0103]-[0104]). Lazzarino also teaches trenches having various widths, spacings, and directions, as well as interrupted or discontinuous trenches formed by trench portions separated by trench interruptions (paragraphs [0011], [0098], [0103]).
However, Lazzarino does not teach or suggest the claimed combination of forming mandrel structures having first and second sub-portions, forming sidewalls at two opposite sidewalls of the first sub-portion, removing the first sub-portion to form a first trench and a second trench having a greater length than the first trench, and using first and second mask patterns formed through the first and second trenches to etch the to-be-etched layer to obtain first and second patterned structures having different lengths.
Burns et al. (US 2018/0350599 A1) teaches a self-aligned double patterning process including forming a mandrel layer and mandrels, forming dielectric spacers on sidewalls of mandrel structures, forming non-mandrel structures between adjacent spacers, removing a connecting portion of a centralized spacer, removing mandrel and non-mandrel structures, and etching a hard mask layer using dielectric spacers as an etch mask (paragraphs [0037]-[0040], [0048]-[0049], [0052]-[0055]). Burns further teaches that the removed connecting portion provides an opening connecting a first trench corresponding to mandrel structures and a second trench corresponding to non-mandrel structures (abstract; paragraphs [0052]-[0055]).
However, Burns does not teach or suggest the claimed mandrel first sub-portion and second sub-portion arrangement, nor does Burns teach removing the first sub-portion to form a first trench between two first sub-walls and a second trench between adjacent first sets of sidewalls, wherein the second trench has a greater length than the first trench, followed by forming first and second mask patterns through the first and second trenches and etching the to-be-etched layer to obtain first and second patterned structures having different lengths.
Song et al. (US 2015/0076704 A1) teaches a reverse self-aligned double patterning process including mandrels, sidewall structures, removal of sidewall structures, etching to form trenches, and forming metal structures within the trenches (paragraphs [0037], [0043]-[0044], [0055]-[0056]). Song further teaches varying distances between metal structures and varying mandrel widths (paragraphs [0038], [0041], [0044]).
However, Song is directed to controlling widths of mandrels and distances or spacings between metal structures, rather than forming first and second trenches having different longitudinal lengths by removing a first sub-portion between first sub-walls and transferring those trench-defined mask patterns into first and second patterned structures having different longitudinal lengths.
Accordingly, the prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest the claimed patterning method of claim 1.
Claims 2-13 would be allowable over the prior art of record at least based on their dependency from claim 1 if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth above.
Claims 14 and 15 would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth above, because claims 14 and 15 recite semiconductor structures including first and second grooves or first and second routes having different lengths, formed using first and second patterned structures fabricated by the claimed patterning method. The patterning process would produce a semiconductor structure having a unique non-obvious structure which is not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-8176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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 L Allen can be reached at (571) 272-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/JONATHAN L CARTER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights