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 .
Drawings
Figure 1A-1C should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: para [0015], [0041], [0043], [0062], [0072], [0074] define “gate contact structure CT” which should be “gate-cut structure CT as defined previously. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, 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 1, 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “a substrate” and “an isolation structure”.
Claims 4, 18 define ““to a level of a bottom surface of the substrate” which is indefinite. As shown in Fig. 2B-2C, it should be ““toward a bottom surface of the substrate” as it does not extend to the bottom of the substrate.
Claim 10 defines “the gate contact structure” has antecedent issues which should be “the gate-cut structure.
Claims 2-8, 10-13, 15-20 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claims 1, 9, 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha et al (US 2016/0111524 A1).
Regarding claim 14: Ha teaches in Fig. 1 about a semiconductor device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
611
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of gate structures 40/50/60 arranged in a 1st direction and extended in a 2nd direction crossing the 2nd direction; and
a gate-cut structure CZ2 continuously extended in the 1st direction and dividing each of the plurality of gate structures into a 1st gate structure (upper portion of 40/50/60) and a 2nd gate structure (lower portion of 40/50/60).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ha et al (US 2016/0111524 A1) in view of Vega et al (US 2023/0422461 A1) and further in view of Xie et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0252268 A1)
Regarding claim 15: Ha teaches in Fig. 2A-2B 110 further comprising an isolation structure below the plurality of gate structures,
wherein a width of the gate-cut structure in the 2nd direction increases in a 3rd direction, crossing the 1st direction and the 2nd direction, from a level of a top surface of one of the plurality of gate structures to a level of a bottom surface of the isolation structure.
Ha does not teach to a level of a bottom surface of the isolation structure.
Vega teaches in 1B, the gate cu-structure 133/135 extends to a level of a bottom surface of the isolation structure 112.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Ha’s device according to Vega’s teachings to extend the gat-cut structure to a level of a bottom surface of the isolation structure and thereby improve electrical performance (Vega, [0025]).
Ha in view of Vega still does not teach wherein a width of the gate-cut structure in the 2nd direction increases in a 3rd direction.
Xie teaches in Fig. 16A, [0115] wherein a width of the gate-cut structure in the 2nd direction increases in a 3rd direction.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Ha’s device according to Xie’s teachings to have wherein a width of the gate-cut structure in the 2nd direction increases in a 3rd direction depending on short channel device (Xie, [0115] – [0117]).
Regarding claims 16, 2: Vega teaches in Fig. 1B wherein the gate-cut structure penetrates through the isolation structure to reach a level below the bottom surface of the isolation structure.
Regarding claims 17, 3: Vega teaches in Fig. 1B further comprising a substrate on which the isolation structure is formed, wherein the gate-cut structure penetrates through the isolation structure into the substrate.
Regarding claim 1: As explained in claims 14-15, Ha in view of Vega and Xie teaches all the limitations.
Claims 5-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ha et al (US 2016/0111524 A1) in view of Vega et al (US 2023/0422461 A1) and further in view of Xie et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0252268 A1) and further in view of AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art)
Regarding claims 19, 6: Ha in view of Vega and Xie teaches all the limitations further comprising:
a substrate 100/102;
a 1st active pattern and a 2nd active pattern on the substrate; and
a 1st channel structure on the 1st active pattern, the 1st gate structure on the 1st channel structure; and
a 2nd channel structure on the 2nd active pattern, the 2nd fin structure on the 2nd channel structure Vega, Fig. 12),
Ha in view of Vega and Xie teaches doe not explicitly talk about wherein a width of each of the 1st channel structure and the 2nd channel structure in the 1st direction increases in the 2nd direction from a top surface to a bottom surface of the 1st channel structure or the 2nd channel structure.
AAPA teaches in Fig. 1B wherein a width of each of the 1st channel structure and the 2nd channel structure in the 1st direction increases in the 2nd direction from a top surface to a bottom surface of the 1st channel structure or the 2nd channel structure.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Ha’s device according to AAPA’s teachings to have the feature as claimed depending on etching and doping process during forming the active patterns and the channel structures.
Regarding claims 20, 7: AAPA teaches in Fig. 1B wherein the width of the gate-cut structure is the same as a width of the 1st channel structure or the 2nd channel structure in the 2nd direction, at a same level in the 3rd direction.
Regarding claim 5: AAPA teaches in Fig. 1B wherein each of the 1st gate structure and the 2nd gate structure comprises a gate dielectric layer, and wherein the gate dielectric layer is formed on a side surface of the gate-cut structure.
Regarding claim 8: AAPA teaches in Fig. 1B wherein the isolation structure is formed between the 1st active pattern and the 2nd active pattern.
Regarding claims 9-10: As explained in claims 6-7, Ha in view of Vega, Xie and AAPA teaches all the limitations.
Regarding claim 11: Vega teaches in Fig. 1B wherein the gate-cut structure penetrates through the isolation structure to reach a level below the bottom surface of the isolation structure.
Regarding claim 12: Vega teaches in Fig. 1B further comprising a substrate on which the isolation structure is formed, wherein the gate-cut structure penetrates through the isolation structure into the substrate.
Regarding claim 13: AAPA teaches in Fig. 1B wherein a top surface of the isolation structure is at a level below or at a level of a top surface of the 1st active pattern.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 4 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 limitation allowable is “wherein the width of the gate-cut structure in the 2nd direction decreases in the 3rd direction from a level of a top surface of the substrate to a level of a bottom surface of the substrate” in combination with other limitations as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm EST.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights