DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to Applicant’s terminal disclaimer filed on 05/22/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Amendment Status
The present Office action is made with all previously suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-20.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Specification Objection
The specification has been checked to the extend necessary to determine the presence of possible minor errors. However, the Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first and second dummy fins tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of the first and second dummy fins recited in the claim 13 must be shown in the drawings or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ching (US 2020/0105903) in view of Xie (US 2015/0340238).
Regarding claim 1, Ching shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device 100 (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and par. [0015]) comprising:
A semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0015])
An isolation region 110 disposed on the semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0019])
A plurality of dummy fins 117 disposed over the isolation region 110 and partially extending into the isolation region 110
However, Ching fails (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S) to show a dielectric material disposed between the plurality of dummy fins 117, partially extending through the isolation region 110 and partially into the semiconductor substrate 102. Xie, in a similar device to Ching, shows (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) a dielectric material 114 disposed between the plurality of fins 107, partially extending through the isolation region 109 (see, e.g., Xie: par. [0039]) and partially into the semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., Xie: par. [0035]). Xie also shows (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) that the dielectric material that filled the recess between the fins is formed in the semiconducting substrate around the device to electrically isolate the semiconductor devices (see, e.g., Xie: [0008]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the dielectric material disposed between the plurality of fins, partially extending through the isolation region and partially into the semiconductor substrate of Xie in the device of Ching, to form regions for electrically isolating the semiconductor devices.
Regarding claim 2, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) that a dielectric refill material 104 disposed above and contacting the plurality of dummy fins 107.
PNG
media_image1.png
825
1430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and 1U) that the semiconductor device 100 comprises at least one semiconductor fin 103.
Regarding claim 5, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and 1U) a metal gate 122 disposed over at least one semiconductor fin 103 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 6, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and 1U) that source and drain structures 124 disposed in the at least one semiconductor fin 103 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0026]).
Regarding claim 8, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and 1I) that the plurality of dummy fins 117 are formed of a dielectric material 112 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Ching shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device 100 (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and par. [0015]) comprising:
A semiconductor fin 103 in a first region on a substrate 102 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0015] and [0026])
An isolation region 110 around the semiconductor fin 103
A top surface of the semiconductor fin 103 being above a top surface of the isolation region 110
A first and second dummy fins 117 respectively extending above the isolation region 110
However, Ching fails (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S) to show a dielectric material disposed between the first and second dummy fins 117, partially extending through the isolation region 110 and partially into the semiconductor substrate 102. Xie, in a similar device to Ching, shows (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) a dielectric material 114 disposed between the plurality of fins 107, partially extending through the isolation region 109 (see, e.g., Xie: par. [0039]) and partially into the semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., Xie: par. [0035]). Xie also shows (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) that the dielectric material that filled the recess between the fins is formed in the semiconducting substrate around the device to electrically isolate the semiconductor devices (see, e.g., Xie: [0008]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the dielectric material disposed between the plurality of fins, partially extending through the isolation region and partially into the semiconductor substrate of Xie in the device of Ching, to form regions for electrically isolating the semiconductor devices.
Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and also see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) that the first dummy fin 117 being disposed laterally adjacent the semiconductor fin 103, and laterally between the semiconductor fin 103 and the second dummy fin 117.
Regarding claim 10, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S) that a dielectric refill material disposed above and contacting the plurality of dummy fins
Regarding claim 12, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and 1I) that the first and second dummy fins 117 are formed of a dielectric material 112 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0019]).
Regarding claim 13, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 107) that the first and second dummy fins 107 are tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of the first and second dummy fins 107.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the first and second dummy fins 107 tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of the first and second dummy fins 107, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the first and second dummy fins, disclosed by Ching in view of Xie as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular tapered claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed the dielectric refill material tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof is known in the art: Xie, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) that the first and second dummy fins 107 tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of the first and second dummy fins 107.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have tapered first and second fins of Xie, because first and second fins are known in the semiconductor art to be tapered for its use as fins similarly used for in instant invention and Ching in view of Xie, as suggested by Xie, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common-sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and 1U) a metal gate 122 disposed over at least one semiconductor fin 103 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0025]).
Regarding claim 15, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and 1U) that source and drain structures 124 disposed in the at least one semiconductor fin 103 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0026]).
Claims 3, 11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ching in view of Xie in further view of Nowak (US 2012/0235233).
Regarding claim 3, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) most aspect of the semiconductor device 100 including a dielectric refill material 104.
Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) to show that the dielectric refill material 104 is tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof. Thus, Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) the dielectric refill material 104 has a tapered shape. Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) shows that the dielectric refill material 104 is untampered.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the dielectric refill material 104 tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of dielectric refill material 104, disclosed by Ching in view of Xie as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular tapered claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed the dielectric refill material tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof is known in the art: Nowak, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, e.g., Nowak: figs. 20-21) that the dielectric refill material 29 is tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof (see, e.g., Nowak: par. [0068]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have tapered dielectric refill material of Nowak, because dielectric refill material is known in the semiconductor art to be tapered for its use as a dielectric refill material similarly used for in instant invention and Ching in view of Xie, as suggested by Nowak, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common-sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 11, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) most aspect of the semiconductor device 100 including a dielectric refill material 104.
Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) to show that the dielectric refill material 104 is tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof. Thus, Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) the dielectric refill material 104 has a tapered shape. Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) shows that the dielectric refill material 104 is untampered.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the dielectric refill material 104 tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of dielectric refill material 104, disclosed by Ching in view of Xie as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular tapered claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed the dielectric refill material tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof is known in the art: Nowak, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, e.g., Nowak: figs. 20-21) that the dielectric refill material 29 is tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof (see, e.g., Nowak: par. [0068]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have tapered dielectric refill material of Nowak, because dielectric refill material is known in the semiconductor art to be tapered for its use as a dielectric refill material similarly used for in instant invention and Ching in view of Xie, as suggested by Nowak, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common-sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 17, Ching shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S) most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device 100 (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and par. [0015]) comprising:
A semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0015])
An isolation region 110 disposed on the semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0019])
A plurality of dummy fins 117 disposed over the isolation region 110 and partially extending into the isolation region 110
However, Ching fails (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S) to show a dielectric material disposed between the plurality of dummy fins 117, partially extending through the isolation region 110 and partially into the semiconductor substrate 102. Xie, in a similar device to Ching, shows (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) a dielectric material 114 disposed between the plurality of fins 107, partially extending through the isolation region 109 (see, e.g., Xie: par. [0039]) and partially into the semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., Xie: par. [0035]). Xie also shows (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) that the dielectric material that filled the recess between the fins is formed in the semiconducting substrate around the device to electrically isolate the semiconductor devices (see, e.g., Xie: [0008]).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the dielectric material disposed between the plurality of fins, partially extending through the isolation region and partially into the semiconductor substrate of Xie in the device of Ching, to form regions for electrically isolating the semiconductor devices.
Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) a dielectric refill material 104 disposed above and contacting the plurality of dummy fins 107.
However, Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) to show that the dielectric refill material 104 is tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof. Thus, Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) the dielectric refill material 104 has a tapered shape. Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) shows that the dielectric refill material 104 is untampered.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having the dielectric refill material 104 tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of dielectric refill material 104, disclosed by Ching in view of Xie as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular tapered claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous contour shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, the claimed the dielectric refill material tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof is known in the art: Nowak, in the same field of endeavor, teaches (see, e.g., Nowak: figs. 20-21) that the dielectric refill material 29 is tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof (see, e.g., Nowak: par. [0068]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have tapered dielectric refill material of Nowak, because dielectric refill material is known in the semiconductor art to be tapered for its use as a dielectric refill material similarly used for in instant invention and Ching in view of Xie, as suggested by Nowak, and implementing a known structure shape for its conventional use/purpose would have been a common-sense choice by the skilled artisan. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 18, Ching in view of Xie in view of Nowak (see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) to show a dielectric material 114 disposed between the plurality of fins 107, partially extending through the isolation region 109 (see, e.g., Xie: par. [0039]) and partially into the semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., Xie: par. [0035]).
Regarding claim 19, Ching in view of Xie in view of Nowak (see, e.g., Nowak: figs. 20-21) that the dielectric refill material 29 is tapered with a width increasing from a bottom to a top of thereof.
Regarding claim 20, Ching in view of Xie in view of Nowak shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and 1I) that the plurality of dummy fins 117 are formed of a dielectric material 112 (see, e.g., Ching: par. [0019]).
Claims 7, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ching in view of Xie in further view of Tsao (US 2021/0313317).
Regarding claim 7, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) most aspects of the semiconductor device 100 the S/D structures 124.
However, Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) to show an interlevel dielectric disposed above the S/D structures 124. Tsao, in a similar device to Ching in view of Xie, shows (see, e.g., Tsao: figs. 6 and 14) an interlevel dielectric 25 disposed above the S/D structures 235/236 (see, e.g., Tsao: par. [0043]). Tsao also shows (see, e.g., Tsao: figs. 6 and 14) that interlevel dielectric 25 covers the entire substrate 10 in order to protect the S/D structures 235/236
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the interlevel dielectric of Tsao in the device of Ching in view of Xie, in order to cover the entire substrate and to protect the S/D structures.
Regarding claim 16, Ching in view of Xie shows (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M, element 104) most aspects of the semiconductor device 100 the S/D structures 124.
However, Ching in view of Xie fails (see, e.g., Ching: fig. 1S, and see, e.g., Xie: fig. 2M) to show an interlevel dielectric disposed above the S/D structures 124. Tsao, in a similar device to Ching in view of Xie, shows (see, e.g., Tsao: figs. 6 and 14) an interlevel dielectric 25 disposed above the S/D structures 235/236 (see, e.g., Tsao: par. [0043]). Tsao also shows (see, e.g., Tsao: figs. 6 and 14) that interlevel dielectric 25 covers the entire substrate 10 in order to protect the S/D structures 235/236.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the interlevel dielectric of Tsao in the device of Ching in view of Xie, in order to cover the entire substrate and to protect the S/D structures.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIBERIU DAN ONUTA whose telephone number is (571) 270-0074 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday or by e-mail via Tiberiu.Onuta@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/TIBERIU DAN ONUTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights