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 statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0029, line 6, “may cause the voids” should read “may cause voids”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) in view of Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971).
Regarding claim 1, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) teaches a manufacturing method of a semiconductor device (deep trench capacitor, Background, col 1, lines 19-20, teaches manufacturing method for a deep trench capacitor with a scalloped profile), comprising: performing a pulsing etching process to a substrate (semiconductor substrate 102, Figure 2A) to form a trench (first trench 110 and/or second trench 210 and/or third trench 310; Figures 2B and/or 3C and/or 4C; col 1 line 66 – col 2 line 2 + col 5 lines 60-63; teaches the first and second etchings may be conducted with a reactively ionized etching process and an isotropic etching process...a first trench may be formed in the semiconductor substrate. An isotropic etching or an anisotropic etching may be performed to form a first trench) in the substrate, wherein the pulsing etching process comprises a plurality of cycles (First cycle + second cycle, Figure 5, Abstract, lines 2-3, teaches performing a first cycle and a second cycle), each of the cycles comprises an etching period and a passivation period (passivation operation S110 & first etch S120 + second etch S130, Summary, col 1, lines 41-47, teaches performing a first cycle and a second cycle. Each comprising performing a passivation operation..., performing a first etching..., and performing a second etching); and forming an isolation structure in the trench (deep trench capacitor, col 10, lines 25-46, teaches a deep trench capacitor manufactured by a deep trench etching method of the disclosure...a conductive doping region may be formed in a substrate. By using an etching process of the disclosure for the conductive doping region, the deep trench may be formed having a plurality of balloon-shaped profiles. The deep trench may comprise a plurality of trenches, such as the first, second and third trenches, etc....A first dielectric layer is formed on at least the first, second and third trenches; a first conductive film is formed on the first dielectric layer; a second dielectric layer is formed on the first conductive film; a second conductive film is formed on the second dielectric layer; a third dielectric layer is formed on the second conductive film; and a third conductive film is formed on the third dielectric layer), as claimed.
Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) is silent to teach a source power of the passivation period is higher than a source power of the etching period.
In an analogous art, Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teaches a source power of the passivation period is higher than a source power of the etching period (plasma power, Figure 3 & Figure 4, col 4, lines 4-27, teaches this etch, using...a plasma power of 100 watts to approximately 5000 watts...The Bosch process continues ...In FIG. 4, a fluorocarbon-based plasma 400, ...is used to form a first polymer liner...on the sidewalls and bottom trench surface... gas can be used to form the first polymer liner, using...a plasma power of 100 watts to approximately 5000 watts).
MPEP 2144.05(I) states, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) also states, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and optimized the teachings of Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) such that the source power of the passivation period is larger than the source power of the etching period thereby increasing the amount of ionized process gas for passivation operations.
Regarding claim 2, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 1, as claimed. Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) further teaches wherein a bias power of the passivation period is lower than a bias power of the etching period (Figure 5), as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 2, as claimed. Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) further teaches wherein a bias power of the passivation period is zero (col 6, lines 17-35 + lines 44-46, teaches a first passivation operation or a first deposition operation is performed to form the first passivation film in the first trench. The first passivation film, such as a thin polymer layer, may be formed on the surface of the rounded first trench in a plasma condition...A uniform polymer layer deposition may depend on an RF bias power...an RF bias power may be maintained close to 0 to obtain a uniformly deposited polymer layer on the first trench), as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 1, as claimed. Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) further teaches wherein a duration of the etching period accounts for 15%-30% of a duration of each of the cycles (etch time + deposition time, col 4 lines 7-8 + line 28, teaches an etch time of 0.1 sec to 10 sec…a deposition time of 0.1 sec to 10 sec).
MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) whereby each cycle is between 0.2 sec and 20 sec, and the etching period is between 0.1 sec and 10 sec comprising 15%-30% of the cycle duration; thereby ensuring a passivation layer thickness on the trench sidewalls protecting the trench from excessive lateral etching.
Regarding claim 6, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 1, as claimed. Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) further teaches wherein the source power of the passivation period is between 850W and 1050W (plasma power, Figure 4, col 4, lines 24-27, teaches gas can be used to form the first polymer liner...a plasma power of 100 watts to approximately 5000 watts).
MPEM 2144.05(I) states, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) to have a large enough passivation source power thereby ensuring the amount of ionized process gas used for the passivation period is sufficient.
Regarding claim 7, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 6, as claimed. Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) further teaches wherein the source power of the passivation period is 250W-800W higher than the source power of the etching period (plasma power, Figure 3 & Figure 4, col 4, lines 4-27, teaches this etch, using...a plasma power of 100 watts to approximately 5000 watts...The Bosch process continues ...In FIG. 4, a fluorocarbon-based plasma 400, ...is used to form a first polymer liner...on the sidewalls and bottom trench surface... gas can be used to form the first polymer liner, using...a plasma power of 100 watts to approximately 5000 watts).
MPEM 2144.05(I) states, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also in re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) also states, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) to ensure the source power of the passivation period is larger than the etching period thereby ensuring the amount of ionized process gas used for the passivation period is sufficient.
Regarding claim 8, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 7, as claimed. Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) further teaches wherein the source power of the passivation period is 250W-650W higher than the source power of the etching period (plasma power, Figure 3 & Figure 4, col 4, lines 4-27, teaches this etch, using...a plasma power of 100 watts to approximately 5000 watts...The Bosch process continues ...In FIG. 4, a fluorocarbon-based plasma 400, ...is used to form a first polymer liner...on the sidewalls and bottom trench surface... gas can be used to form the first polymer liner, using...a plasma power of 100 watts to approximately 5000 watts).
MPEM 2144.05(I) states, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941). MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) also states, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) to optimize the source power of the passivation period thereby ensuring the amount of ionized process gas used for the passivation period is sufficient.
Regarding claim 10, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 1, as claimed. Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) further teaches wherein the pulsing etching process comprises a first cycle (Bosch process, col 3, lines 55-59, teaches the Bosch process results in a trench in the substrate, and includes series of etch operations and a deposition operation that generally alternate with one another for each etch cycle of the Bosch process), and performing the pulsing etching process comprises: introducing a process gas to recess the substrate during the etching period of the first cycle (plasma 300, Figure 3, col 3, lines 62-64, teaches a plasma…is used to etch a first recess into the substrate); and using the process gas to oxidize a sidewall of the recess during the passivation period of the first cycle (plasma 400, Figure 4, col 4, lines 11-14, teaches a plasma…is used to form a first polymer liner on sidewalls of the first recess), as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 10, as claimed. Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) further teaches wherein the process gas etches the substrate faster than oxidizes a surface of the substrate during the etching period of the first cycle (Figure 2B, col 7 line 67 - col 8 line 3, teaches the more a bias power is increased, the faster an acceleration of plasma ions toward a wafer becomes, making it possible to create more etching the substrate), as claimed. Meaning increasing the bias power increases the etch rate compared to the passivation rate.
Regarding claim 12, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 10, as claimed. Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) further teaches wherein the process gas oxidizes the substrate faster than etches the substrate during the passivation period of the first cycle (Figure 3A, col 6, lines 44-46, teaches an RF bias power may be maintained close to 0 to obtain a uniformly deposited polymer layer on the first trench), as claimed. Meaning an RF bias power is needed for etching, thus when the bias power is decreased and kept close to 0 during the passivation period of the first cycle, the rate of passivation increases compared to the rate of etching.
Regarding claim 13, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 10, as claimed. Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) further teaches wherein a bottom of the recess is oxidized during the passivation period of the first cycle (Figure 3A & 4C, col 6, lines 17-22 & 31-33, teaches a first passivation operation or a first deposition operation is performed to form the first passivation film in the first trench. The first passivation film, such as a thin polymer layer, may be formed on the surface of the rounded first trench in a plasma condition...a first passivation film may be uniformly deposited on the exposed surface of the first trench), as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 13, as claimed. Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) further teaches wherein the pulsing etching process further comprises a second cycle after the first cycle, and performing the pulsing etching process further comprises: etching a passivation layer (passivation film 120, Figure 3B, col 6, lines 49-57, teaches the first etching process may be performed with first RF bias power to remove the first passivation film on the bottom of the first trench. The first etching process may be reactively ionized etching process, such as SF6 gas may be used as a plasma source gas for the first etching process. A first RF bias power may be desired to be high in the first etching to remove the first passivation film on the bottom) at the bottom of the recess after the bottom of the recess is oxidized during the etching period of the second cycle, as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 14, as claimed. Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) further teaches wherein the process gas etches the passivation layer at the bottom of the recess faster than etches the passivation layer at the sidewall of the recess during the etching period of the second cycle (Figure 3B, col 6, lines 57-61, teaches compared to the bottom of the first trench, a sidewall of the first trench may be protected by the first passivation film during the first etching; however, the thickness of the first passivation film may be decreased after the first etching process), as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 14, as claimed. Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) further teaches wherein the process gas etches the substrate faster than etches the passivation layer at the sidewall of the recess during the etching period of the second cycle (Figure 3C, col 6 line 62 - col 7 line 3, teaches the second etching process may be performed with a second RF bias power to form a second trench disposed below the first trench. An isotropic etching process may be employed for the second etching process. SF6 plasma source gas may be provided to perform the isotropic etching process. A balloon-shaped profile is obtained after the second etching process. Therefore, silicon (Si), the main material of a semiconductor substrate, may be etched), as claimed.
Regarding claim 18, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 1, as claimed. Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) further teaches further comprising: forming a hard mask layer over the substrate before forming the trench in the substrate (mask pattern 104, Figure 2A, col 5, lines 54-55, teaches a mask pattern may be formed on a semiconductor substrate), wherein the trench is formed by etching the substrate through the hard mask layer (col 5, lines 55-58, teaches the mask pattern may use a photoresist or hard mask material…The hard mask material may be preferred for the disclosure to form a trench).
Claim(s) 4, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) in view of Fung (US Patent No 11,658,042).
Regarding claim 4, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 1, as claimed.
Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) are silent to teach wherein a bias power of the etching period is between 1100 and 1300 W.
In an analogous art, Fung (US Patent No 11,658,042) teaches wherein a bias power of the etching period is between 1100 and 1300 W (RF bias power, col 6 line 57 - col 7 line 2, teaches "the RF bias power applied when supplying the etching gas assists in forming the reactive etchants with desired directionality so as to travel down to surfaces of the multi-material layer that is exposed from the hard mask layer to predominately etch the multi-material layer...An RF bias power of between about 500 Watts and about 6000 Watts may be applied).
MPEM 2144.05(I) states, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941). Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) with the teachings of Fung (US Patent No 11,658,042) thereby ensuring the directionality of the ionized process gas is controlled to provide sufficient etching ability.
Regarding claim 9, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 1, as claimed.
Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) are silent to teach wherein a process gas used in the etching period and a process gas used in the passivation period is the same.
In an analogous art, Fung (US Patent No 11,658,042) teaches wherein a process gas used in the etching period and a process gas used in the passivation period is the same (etching gas + passivation gas/process gas sources 124, 126, 128, 130; col 3 lines 26-36, teaches process gases that may be provided by the gas panel include, but are not limited to, hydrocarbon containing gas including methane (CH4), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), silicon chloride (SiCl4), carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), hydrogen bromide (HBr), hydrocarbon containing gas, argon gas (Ar), chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen (N2), helium (He) and oxygen gas (O2). Additionally, process gases may include nitrogen, chlorine, fluorine, oxygen and hydrogen containing gases), as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) with the teachings of Fung (US Patent No 11,658,042) to use the same process gas mixture for both the etching and passivation periods.
Regarding claim 17, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 1, as claimed.
Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) are silent to teach wherein a process gas used in the pulsing etching process is a combination of chlorine, oxygen, helium.
In an analogous art, Fung (US Patent No 11,658,042) teaches wherein a process gas used in the pulsing etching process is a combination of chlorine, oxygen, helium (process gas sources 124, 126, 128, 130; col 3 lines 26-36, teaches process gases that may be provided by the gas panel include, but are not limited to, hydrocarbon containing gas including methane (CH4), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), silicon chloride (SiCl4), carbon tetrafluoride (CF4), hydrogen bromide (HBr), hydrocarbon containing gas, argon gas (Ar), chlorine (Cl2), nitrogen (N2), helium (He) and oxygen gas (O2). Additionally, process gases may include nitrogen, chlorine, fluorine, oxygen and hydrogen containing gases); as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) with the teachings of Fung (US Patent No 11,658,042) to have a process gas containing a combination chlorine, oxygen, and helium thereby controlling the speed of the etching and passivation periods.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) in view of Chiang (US Patent No 11,990,471).
Regarding claim 19, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) teach the manufacturing method of claim 18, as claimed.
Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) are silent to teach wherein forming the isolation structure in the trench comprises: forming a dielectric layer overfilling the trench; and performing a planarization process to remove an excess portion of the dielectric layer.
In an analogous art, Chiang (US Patent No 11,990,471) teaches wherein forming the isolation structure in the trench (isolation structure 235 & trenches 230A-230D, Figure 4, col 8, lines 32-33, teaches isolation features are formed in trenches) comprises: forming a dielectric layer (insulator material, Figure 4, col 8 lines 57-59 & col 9 lines 9-18, teaches Isolation features can be formed by depositing an insulator material (e.g., an oxide material) over substrate...isolation features include a multi-layer structure that fills trenches, such as a silicon nitride bulk layer disposed over an oxide liner layer. In some embodiments, isolation features include a dielectric bulk layer disposed over a doped liner layer (including, for example, boron silicate glass (BSG) or phosphosilicate glass (PSG)). In some embodiments, isolation features include a dielectric bulk layer disposed over a dielectric liner layer, where the dielectric bulk layer and the dielectric liner layer include materials depending on design requirements) overfilling the trench; and performing a planarization process to remove an excess portion of the dielectric layer (Figure 4, col 8, line 57 – 67, teaches Isolation features can be formed by depositing an insulator material (e.g., an oxide material) over substrate after forming fins, such that a thickness of the insulator material is greater than a height of fins (i.e., the insulator material overfills trenches); planarizing (for example, by a chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) process) the insulator material, thereby reducing the thickness of the insulator material, for example, until it is equal to a height of fins; and etching back (recessing) the insulator material to form isolation features), as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings of Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817) and Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971) with the teachings of Chiang (US Patent No 11,990,471) to fill the trench with a dielectric material and planarizing it to expose a top surface of the substrate thereby making the isolation structures.
Regarding claim 20, Jo (US Patent No 11,854,817), Chang (US Patent No 11,361,971), and Chiang (US Patent No 11,990,471) teach the manufacturing method of claim 19, as claimed. Chiang (US Patent No 11,990,471) further teaches wherein a top surface of the isolation structure is level with a top surface of the substrate (fin portions 202' + substrate 202, Figure 4, col 9, lines 29-30, teaches top surfaces of fin portions are substantially planar with top surfaces of isolation features), as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEM M MOHAMED-ALY whose telephone number is (571)270-0312. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday8am-5pm.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. 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.
/K.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/Leonard Chang/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights