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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 2/28/2025 has been fully considered and made of record in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/24/2024, 1/16/2025, 5/14/2025, and 7/14/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-final rejection on 9/19/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The formal drawings filed on 7/24/2024 have been approved by the examiner.
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.
Claims 21-23, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Yen et al. (US 2017/0186837).
With respect to Claim 21, Yen teaches a semiconductor substrate 102 including a trench 104 extending downward into an upper surface of the semiconductor substrate. The trench 104 having a depth and including a bottom surface and a plurality of scallops along sidewalls of the trench. An oxide layer 304 lining the bottom surface and the sidewalls of the trench, wherein the oxide layer 304 has varying thicknesses along the sidewalls of the trench at different depths. A first conductive layer 306 disposed along inner sidewalls of the oxide layer and disposed over a base portion of the oxide layer 304. The first conductive layer 306 has a substantially constant thickness along the sidewalls throughout the depth of the trench (see paragraphs 16-53; Figs 3, 4A-4C, 7, 12, and 13).
With respect to Claim 22, Yen teaches the varying thicknesses of
the oxide layer 304 include a first thickness that remains constant over multiple upper
scallops at a first range of depths on the sidewalls of the trench. Then changes to a
second thickness that remains constant over multiple middle scallops at a second range
of depths on the sidewalls of the trench (see Figs. 3, 4A-4C, 7, 12, and 13).
With respect to Claim 23, Yen teaches the varying thicknesses of
the oxide layer 304 include a third thickness that remains constant over multiple lower
scallops at a third range of depths on the sidewalls of the trench 104, the first thickness
being greater than the second thickness, and the second thickness being greater than
the third thickness (see Figs. 3, 4A-4C, 7, 12, and 13).
With respect to Claim 27, Yen teaches the base portion of the oxide layer 304 has a substantially constant thickness from a first sidewall of the trench 104 to a
second sidewall of the trench. The second sidewall of the trench being opposite the first
sidewall of the trench (see Figs. 3, 4A-4C, 7, 12, and 13).
With respect to Claim 28, Yen teaches the first conductive layer 306 has a substantially constant thickness over the base portion of the oxide layer from a first inner sidewall of the oxide layer to a second inner sidewall of the oxide layer(see Figs. 3, 4A-4C, 7, 12, and 13).
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.
Claims 21-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,851. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the application and the patent recite a semiconductor substrate including a trench extending downward into an upper surface of the semiconductor substrate. The trench having a depth and including a bottom surface and a plurality of scallops along sidewalls of the trench. An oxide layer lining the bottom surface and the sidewalls of the trench, wherein the oxide layer has varying thicknesses along the sidewalls of the trench at different depths. A first conductive layer disposed along inner sidewalls of the oxide layer and disposed over a base portion of the oxide layer. The first conductive layer has a substantially constant thickness along the sidewalls throughout the depth of the trench.
Claims 21-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,851. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the application and the patent recite a semiconductor substrate including a trench extending downward into an upper surface of the semiconductor substrate. The trench including a bottom surface and a plurality of scallops along sidewalls of the trench. An oxide layer lining the bottom surface and the sidewalls of the trench. A first conductive layer disposed along inner sidewalls of the oxide layer and disposed over a base portion of the oxide layer. The uppermost sidewall regions of the oxide layer in the trench have a first thickness, middle sidewall regions of the oxide layer in the trench have a second thickness, and lowermost sidewall regions in the trench have a third thickness. The first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and the second thickness is greater than the third thickness. The first conductive layer has a substantially constant thickness along the sidewalls throughout a depth of the trench.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 38-40 are allowed.
Claims 24-26, 29-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected
base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowance subject
matter: none of the prior art of record teaches or suggest the combination of a first difference between the first thickness and the second thickness is less than a second difference between the second thickness and the third thickness in claim 24.
A first difference between the first thickness and the second thickness is equal to a second difference between the second thickness and the third thickness in claim 25.
An insulating layer disposed along inner sidewalls of the first conductive layer
and disposed over a base portion of the first conductive layer. A second conductive layer disposed along inner sidewalls of the insulating layer and disposed over a base portion of the insulating layer in claim 29.
The uppermost sidewall regions of the oxide layer in the trench have a first
thickness, middle sidewall regions of the oxide layer in the trench have a second
thickness, and lowermost sidewall regions in the trench have a third thickness. The first thickness is greater than the second thickness, and the second thickness is
greater than the third thickness. The first conductive layer has a substantially constant thickness along the sidewalls throughout a depth of the trench in claim 30.
A first conductive layer disposed along inner sidewalls of the dielectric layer. A first thickness difference is defined between and the first thickness of the dielectric layer and a first thickness of the first conductive layer at the first trench depth. A second thickness difference is defined between and the second thickness of the dielectric layer and a second thickness of the first conductive layer at the second trench depth. The first thickness difference is greater than the second thickness difference in claim 38.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Alonzo Chambliss whose telephone number is (571)
272-1927.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Jacob Y. Choi can be reached on (469) 295-9060. 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 PMR or Public PMR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PMR
only. For more information about the PMR system see hittp://pair-dkect.usptol gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PMR system contact the
Electronic Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
AC/September 19, 2026 /Alonzo Chambliss/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights