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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A, figures 2-5, claims 1-16 and 21-24 in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of August 19, 2026, no information disclosure statement has been made of record. It has come to Examiner’s attention that there are references contained in the related Taiwanese application, TW 113123735, that have -not been made of record. Examiner reminds Applicant of their duty under 37 CFR 1.56. In addition, Examiner is requiring that any office actions in the above Taiwanese application also be made of record, and any English translations as to any office action in regards to the above Taiwanese application.
Drawing Objections
The numerous drawings have not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the drawings.
Specification Objections
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-5, 10-14, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (US 2023/0290783 A1) (“Kong”).
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches at least in figures 5-6D:
a channel structure (MCH) on a substrate (100) and extending along a first direction (D2);
a gate structure (MGE) on the channel structure (MCH) and extending along a second direction different from the first direction (D1);
a dielectric frame structure (GCP) on the substrate (100) and parallel to the channel structure (MCH),
wherein the dielectric frame structure comprises (GCP) a dielectric material (¶ 0090) extending through the gate structure (MGE) to separate the gate structure into two portions (this is shown in figure 5); and
an isolation structure (DB) adjacent to the gate structure (MGE) and extending through the channel structure (MCH) into the substrate (100) (this is shown in figure 6B),
wherein an end portion of the isolation structure (DB) is in contact with the dielectric frame structure (GCP) (this is shown in figure 5).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 22, Kong teaches at least in figures 5-6D:
wherein the dielectric material (GCP) has a Young's modulus greater than about 75 GPa (¶ 0090 where a silicon based insulating material may be used. A non-limiting example is SiN; According to Applicant’s specification at ¶ 0036, SiN meets this requirement).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 23, Kong teaches at least in figures 5-6D:
wherein the dielectric frame structure (GCP) is between the gate structure (MGE) and the isolation structure (DB) (where there is a portion of MGE between GCP and DB).
Regarding claims 4, 13 Kong teaches at least in figures 5-6D:
wherein top surface (top of the following elements) of the gate structure (GC element of MGE), the dielectric frame structure (GCP), and the isolation structure (DB) are substantially coplanar (they are shown in the drawings as being substantially coplanar).
Regarding claims 5, and 14 Kong teaches at least in figures 5-6D:
wherein a bottom surface of the dielectric frame structure (bottom of GCP shown in figure 6C) is above a bottom surface of the isolation structure (bottom of DB shown in figure 6B) (Where DB is lower than MGE in figure 6B, but GCP is about coplanar with MGE in figure 6C).
Regarding claim 10,
Claim 10 requires a plurality of structures of claim 1. The figures of Kong teach said plurality of structures in the required manner. Therefore, Kong teaches the limitations of claim 10 based upon the figures of Kong and the analysis of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21,
Claim 21 requires a plurality of channel structures and a plurality of dielectric frame structures. The figures of Kong teach said plurality of structures in the required manner. Therefore, Kong teaches the limitations of claim 10 based upon the figures of Kong and the analysis of claim 1.
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) 6-8, 15-16, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kong.
Regarding claim 6, 15, and 24, Kong teaches at least in figures 5-6D:
further comprising a shallow trench isolation (STI) region (ST) on the substrate (100) and surrounding the channel structure (MCH),
wherein the dielectric frame structure (GCP) extends through the gate structure (MG)and into the STI region (ST). Alternatively, in the case the prior art does not teach the above limitation it would have been obvious that the prior art teaches the above limitation as it would have been obvious that both ST and GCP could have been made out of the same material, i.e. an insulating material. Since it would have been obvious that both elements would be made of out the same material in the final product one would not know where GCP ended and ST began. Therefore, GCP would extend into ST as there would be no difference between GCP and ST in the final product.
Regarding claim 7, and 16, Kong does not explicity show:
wherein the isolation structure (DB) extends through the STI region (ST) into the substrate (100).
However, based upon figure 5, and Examiner figure 1 below
PNG
media_image1.png
242
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious that the isolation structure (DB) extends through the STI region (ST) into the substrate (100). The cross-sectional view of Examiner figure 1 is not shown. However, based upon the other views shown it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that at this intersection DB, ST, and GCP would all intersect to meet the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Kong teaches at least in figures 5-6D:
wherein a portion of the STI region is surrounded by the isolation structure and the substrate (based upon the figures of Kong it ST would be surrounded by portions of DB on 100).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kong, in view of Shieh et al. (US 2013/0140639 A1) (“Shieh”).
Regarding claim 9, Kong does not teach:
wherein the isolation structure (DB) comprises a liner in contact with the dielectric frame (GCP) structure and a dielectric fill on the liner.
Shieh teaches at least in figures 5-6:
wherein the isolation structure (275) comprises a liner (¶ 0030, where a linear is not shown) and a dielectric fill (270) on the liner (not shown).
Shieh teaches that forming a multi-layer isolation structure, i.e. one with a liner, is a known optional feature in the art. Shieh teaches that a multi-layer isolation structure is not necessary for the isolation structure to function as intended, but can be used. Therefore, Shieh reconizes that a multi-layered isolation structure is equivalent for the same purpose as a single layered isolation structure as taught by Kong. MPEP 2144.06. And, Shieh teaches that both a single layer isolation structure, as taught by Kong, and a multi-layered isolation structure, as taught by Shieh, are equally suitable for the intended purpose of being a said isolation structure. MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, the substation of one form of isolation structure for another is an obvious substitution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights