87865Notice 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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the first region". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the claim as depends upon Claim 25.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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.
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-AlA 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.
Claims 21, 22, 27, 30-32 and 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ching (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0028426).
Regarding Claim 21
FIG. 1 of Ching discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate (102); a pair of fins (104) on the substrate, the pair of fins being separated by a filled region (106) formed with a first material (dielectric [0016]), the first material having an etch rate that is different from an etch rate of a second material (semiconductor [0017]) used to form the pair of fins, the fin region comprising a first set of surfaces and a second set of surfaces; and a source region (114) and a drain region (114), the source region being adjacent to the first set of the surfaces, and the drain region being adjacent to the second set of the surfaces.
Regarding Claim 22
The limitation “the first material is epitaxially grown to form a filled region” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 27
FIG. 1 of Ching discloses an oxide, nitride, or oxynitride layer (108) in contact with the filled region [0018].
Regarding Claim 30
FIG. 1 of Ching discloses insulating spacing layers (112) contacting the first set of surfaces and the second set surfaces, wherein the source region and the drain region contact the insulating spacing layers.
Regarding Claim 31
FIG. 1 of Ching discloses a semiconductor structure, comprising: a plurality of fins (104) formed with a material (semiconductor [0017]) having a first etch rate, the plurality of fins being separated from each other by a filler material (106), the filler material (dielectric [0016]) having a second etch rate different than the first etch rate, a source region (114) adjacent to a first side of the plurality of fins; and a drain region (114) adjacent to a second side of the plurality of fins, the second side being on an opposite side from the first side relative to the fins
Regarding Claim 32
The limitation “the first material is epitaxially grown to form a filled region” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Regarding Claim 40
FIG. 1 of Ching discloses a device, comprising: a substrate (102); a pair of fins (104) on the substrate, wherein: the pair of fins are separated by a region (106) formed with a first material (dielectric [0016]), the first material having an etch rate that is different from an etch rate of a second material (semiconductor [0017]) forming the pair of fins, and the pair of fins comprise a first set of surfaces and a second set of surfaces; and a first insulating layer (108) and a second insulating layer (108), the first insulating layer being in contact with the first set of surfaces, the second insulating layer being in contact with the second set of surfaces.
The limitation “the first material is epitaxially grown to fill the region” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Claims 21, 27, 28, 31 and 40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0197457).
Regarding Claim 21
FIG. 3 of Wang discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate (210); a pair of fins (220) on the substrate, the pair of fins being separated by a filled region (235) formed with a first material (dielectric [0025]), the first material having an etch rate that is different from an etch rate of a second material (semiconductor [0021]) used to form the pair of fins, the fin region comprising a first set of surfaces and a second set of surfaces; and (FIG. 7) a source region (530) and a drain region (530), the source region being adjacent to the first set of the surfaces, and the drain region being adjacent to the second set of the surfaces.
Regarding Claim 27
FIG. 8 of Wang discloses an oxide, nitride, or oxynitride layer (612) in contact with the filled region [0032].
Regarding Claim 28
FIG. 9 of Wang discloses a top layer (730) above the source region and the drain region (720), the top layer comprising a plurality of sublayers [0037].
Regarding Claim 31
FIG. 3 of Wang discloses a semiconductor structure (210), comprising: a plurality of fins (220) formed with a material (semiconductor [0021]) having a first etch rate, the plurality of fins being separated from each other by a filler material (235), the filler material (dielectric [0025]) having a second etch rate different than the first etch rate, a source region (530) adjacent to a first side of the plurality of fins; and a drain region (530) adjacent to a second side of the plurality of fins, the second side being on an opposite side from the first side relative to the fins.
Regarding Claim 40
FIG. 3 of Wang discloses a device, comprising: a substrate (210); a pair of fins (220) on the substrate, wherein: the pair of fins are separated by a region (235) formed with a first material (dielectric [0025]), the first material having an etch rate that is different from an etch rate of a second material (semiconductor [0021]) forming the pair of fins, and the pair of fins comprise a first set of surfaces (410, FIG. 11) and a second set of surfaces (420); and a first insulating layer (815) and a second insulating layer (820), the first insulating layer being in contact with the first set of surfaces, the second insulating layer being in contact with the second set of surfaces.
The limitation “the first material is epitaxially grown to fill the region” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Claims 21, 28-31 and 38-40 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ando (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0165850).
Regarding Claim 21
FIG. 10 of Ando discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate (102); a pair of fins (104-108) on the substrate, the pair of fins being separated by a filled region (122) formed with a first material (low-k [0037]), the first material having an etch rate that is different from an etch rate of a second material (semiconductor [0031]) used to form the pair of fins, the fin region comprising a first set of surfaces and a second set of surfaces; and a source region (144/146) and a drain region (116/118), the source region being adjacent to the first set of the surfaces, and the drain region being adjacent to the second set of the surfaces [0049].
Regarding Claim 28
FIG. 10 of Ando discloses a top layer (140-142) above the source region (116) and the drain region (118), the top layer comprising a plurality of sublayers.
Regarding Claim 29
FIG. 10 of Ando discloses the plurality of sublayers comprise an oxide layer and a nitride layer [0044].
Regarding Claim 30
FIG. 10 of Ando discloses insulating spacing layers contacting the first set of surfaces and the second set surfaces, wherein the source region and the drain region contact the insulating spacing layers
Regarding Claim 31
FIG. 10 of Ando discloses a semiconductor structure, comprising: a plurality of fins (104-108) formed with a material (semiconductor [0031]) having a first etch rate, the plurality of fins being separated from each other by a filler material (low-k [0037]), the filler material having a second etch rate different than the first etch rate, a source region (144/146) adjacent to a first side of the plurality of fins; and a drain region (116/118) adjacent to a second side of the plurality of fins, the second side being on an opposite side from the first side relative to the fins
Regarding Claim 38
FIG. 10 of Ando discloses a top layer (140-142) over at least one of the plurality of fins, the top layer comprising a plurality of sublayers, the plurality of sublayers comprising an oxide layer and a nitride layer [0044].
Regarding Claim 39
FIG. 10 of Ando discloses a liner (140) on a portion of the source region or the drain region, the liner comprising a nitride [0044].
Regarding Claim 40
FIG. 10 of Ando discloses a device, comprising: a substrate (102); a pair of fins (104-108) on the substrate, wherein: the pair of fins are separated by a region (122) formed with a first material (low-k [0037]), the first material having an etch rate that is different from an etch rate of a second material (semiconductor [0031]) forming the pair of fins, and the pair of fins comprise a first set of surfaces (104) and a second set of surfaces (108); and a first insulating layer (124) and a second insulating layer (147), the first insulating layer being in contact with the first set of surfaces, the second insulating layer being in contact with the second set of surfaces
The limitation “the first material is epitaxially grown to fill the region” is considered to be a process or functional limitation. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), MPEP 2113.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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 23, 24, 33 and 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching, in view of Cheng (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0228653).
Regarding Claim 23
Ching discloses Claim 21.
Ching is silent with respect to “the first material comprises SiGe”.
FIG. 2 of Cheng discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a pair of fins (15) on the substrate (10), the pair of fins being separated by a filled region (20) formed with a first material (20), wherein the first material the first material comprises SiGe [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Cheng. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of increasing the on-current per unit area ([0005] of Cheng).
Regarding Claim 24
With respect to “the first material has an etch rate that is higher than the etch rate of the second material used to form the pair of fins”, said etch rate depends heavily on the etch chemistry and process condition. In general, the etch rate of SiGe is higher than the etch rate of silicon.
Regarding Claim 33
Ching discloses Claim 31.
Ching is silent with respect to “the first material comprises SiGe”.
FIG. 2 of Cheng discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a pair of fins (15) on the substrate (10), the pair of fins being separated by a filled region (20) formed with a first material (20), wherein the first material the first material comprises SiGe [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Cheng. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of increasing the on-current per unit area ([0005] of Cheng).
Regarding Claim 34
With respect to “the first material has an etch rate that is higher than the etch rate of the second material used to form the pair of fins”, said etch rate depends heavily on the etch chemistry and process condition. In general, the etch rate of SiGe is higher than the etch rate of silicon.
Claims 23, 24, 33 and 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching, in view of Wu (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0411388).
Regarding Claim 23
Ching discloses Claim 21.
Ching is silent with respect to “the first material comprises SiGe”.
FIG. 21 of Wu discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a pair of fins (21) on the substrate (14), the pair of fins being separated by a filled region (16) formed with a first material, wherein the first material the first material comprises SiGe [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Wu. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of achieving a reduced FET device footprint while maintaining FET device performance ([0003] of Wu).
Regarding Claim 33
Ching discloses Claim 31.
Ching is silent with respect to “the first material comprises SiGe”.
FIG. 21 of Wu discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a pair of fins (21) on the substrate (14), the pair of fins being separated by a filled region (16) formed with a first material, wherein the first material the first material comprises SiGe [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Wu. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of achieving a reduced FET device footprint while maintaining FET device performance ([0003] of Wu).
Regarding Claim 34
With respect to “the first material has an etch rate that is higher than the etch rate of the second material used to form the pair of fins”, said etch rate depends heavily on the etch chemistry and process condition. In general, the etch rate of SiGe is higher than the etch rate of silicon.
Claims 23-25 and 33-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching, in view of Shen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0161315).
Regarding Claim 23
Ching discloses Claim 21.
Ching is silent with respect to “the first material comprises SiGe”.
FIG. 9 of Shen discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a pair of fins (110) on the substrate (150), the pair of fins being separated by a filled region (192) formed with a first material, wherein the first material the first material comprises SiGe [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Shen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of forming different transistor types close together on a device structure ([0003] of Shen).
Regarding Claim 24
With respect to “the first material has an etch rate that is higher than the etch rate of the second material used to form the pair of fins”, said etch rate depends heavily on the etch chemistry and process condition. In general, the etch rate of SiGe is higher than the etch rate of silicon.
Regarding Claim 25
FIG. 9 of Shen the first material comprises a first region (192A) with a first molar fraction of germanium, and a second region (192B) with a second molar fraction of germanium, the first molar fraction being higher than the second molar fraction [0032].
Regarding Claim 33
Ching discloses Claim 31.
Ching is silent with respect to “the first material comprises SiGe”.
FIG. 9 of Shen discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a pair of fins (110) on the substrate (150), the pair of fins being separated by a filled region (192) formed with a first material, wherein the first material the first material comprises SiGe [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Shen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of forming different transistor types close together on a device structure ([0003] of Shen).
Regarding Claim 34
With respect to “the first material has an etch rate that is higher than the etch rate of the second material used to form the pair of fins”, said etch rate depends heavily on the etch chemistry and process condition. In general, the etch rate of SiGe is higher than the etch rate of silicon.
Regarding Claim 35
FIG. 9 of Shen the first material comprises a first region (192A) with a first molar fraction of germanium, and a second region (192B) with a second molar fraction of germanium, the first molar fraction being higher than the second molar fraction [0032].
Claims 25 and 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching, in view of Lin (CN 104576391, machine-translation provided).
Regarding Claim 25
Ching discloses Claim 21.
Ching is silent with respect to “the first material comprises a first region with a first molar fraction of germanium, and a second region with a second molar fraction of germanium, the first molar fraction being higher than the second molar fraction”.
FIG. 7 of Lin discloses a similar semiconductor device, the first material comprises a first region with a first molar fraction of germanium, and a second region with a second molar fraction of germanium, the first molar fraction being higher than the second molar fraction [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Lin. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of effectively improving hole mobility ([0006] of Lin).
Regarding Claim 26
FIG. 7 of Lin discloses the first region is adjacent to the first set of the surfaces.
Ching is silent with respect to “the first material comprises a first region with a first molar fraction of germanium, and a second region with a second molar fraction of germanium, the first molar fraction being higher than the second molar fraction”.
FIG. 7 of Lin discloses a similar semiconductor device, the first material comprises a first region with a first molar fraction of germanium, and a second region with a second molar fraction of germanium, the first molar fraction being higher than the second molar fraction [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Lin. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of effectively improving hole mobility ([0006] of Lin).
Claims 28 and 29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching, in view of Hwang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0104520).
Regarding Claim 28
Ching discloses Claim 21.
Ching is silent with respect to “a top layer above the source region and the drain region, the top layer comprising a plurality of sublayers”.
FIG. 1 of Hwang discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a top layer (120) above the source region and the drain region, wherein the top layer comprising a plurality of sublayers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Hwang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of obtaining optimized or desired performance ([0004] of Hwang).
Regarding Claim 29
FIG. 1 of Hwang discloses the plurality of sublayers comprise an oxide layer and a nitride layer [0034].
Claims 28, 29, 38 and 39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching, in view of Chen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0098646).
Regarding Claim 28
Ching discloses Claim 21.
Ching is silent with respect to “a top layer above the source region and the drain region, the top layer comprising a plurality of sublayers”.
FIG. 12 of Chen discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a top layer (410) above the source region and the drain region, wherein the top layer comprising a plurality of sublayers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of improving device performance ([0003] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 29
FIG. 12 of Chen discloses the plurality of sublayers comprise an oxide layer (212) [0021] and a nitride layer (404) [0042].
Regarding Claim 38
Ching discloses Claim 31.
Ching is silent with respect to “a top layer above the source region and the drain region, the top layer comprising a plurality of sublayers, the plurality of sublayers comprising an oxide layer and a nitride layer”.
FIG. 12 of Chen discloses a similar semiconductor device, comprising a top layer (410) above the source region and the drain region, wherein the top layer comprising a plurality of sublayers, the plurality of sublayers comprising an oxide layer (212) [0021] and a nitride layer (404) [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ching, as taught by Chen. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ching in the above manner for purpose of improving device performance ([0003] of Chen).
Regarding Claim 39
FIG. 12 of Chen discloses a liner on a portion of the source region or the drain region, the liner comprising a nitride [0042].
Pertinent Art
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 20200091320, 20200075421, 20180175032.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. 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 PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights