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 .
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 9-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levesque et al., US Pub. No. 2015/0349068 A1.
Re claim 1. Levesque et al. disclose a structure comprising: a substrate 101 (e.g., fig. 3); a gate structure 102 (e.g., fig. 3) on the substrate; and faceted, raised source/drain regions 105/107 (fig. 3) adjacent to the gate structure, the faceted, raised source/drain regions 105/107 (fig. 3) comprising a tapered profile (fig. 3) of at least two different semiconductor materials (e.g., paragraph 25, having at least different compositions etc), see figs. 1-5 and pages 1-4 for more details.
Re claim 2. The structure of claim 1, wherein the at least two different semiconductor materials 105/107 comprise epitaxial Si and epitaxial SiGe (paragraph 24).
Re claim 9. The structure of claim 1, wherein the tapered profile of the raised source/drain regions 105/107 comprise a sloped surface with an upper portion of the faceted (fig. 3), raised source/drain regions are remote from sidewalls of the gate structure 102 (fig. 3).
Re claim 10. The structure of claim 1, wherein the tapered profile of the faceted, raised source/drain regions 105/107 (fig. 3) comprise two semiconductor materials with different silicide diffusion rates (e.g., fig. 4, paragraph 28) and the faceted profile comprises a sloped surface which extends away from gate structure 102 (fig. 4).
Re claim 11. The structure of claim 10, wherein the two semiconductor materials comprise an upper semiconductor material comprising SiGe 107 (eg., fig. 4, paragraph 24) and a lower semiconductor material comprising one of Si, SiC, SiP and SiCP 105 (e.g., fig. 4, paragraph 24).
Re claim 12. Levesque et al. disclose a structure comprising: a gate structure 102 comprising a silicided region (e.g., the top surface of the gate; fig. 4); and a faceted, raised source/drain regions 105/107 adjacent to the gate structure 102 (fig. 3), the faceted, raised source/drain regions 105/107 comprising a stack of epitaxial semiconductor materials and a silicided region partially 109 into the faceted raised source/drain regions (fig. 4), the faceted, raised source/drain regions comprises a tapered profile (e.g., fig. 4), see figs. 1-5 and pages 1-4 for more details.
Re claim 19. The structure of claim 12, wherein the tapered profiled comprises an upper semiconductor material of the stack of epitaxial semiconductor material are with a sloped surface that is remote from sidewalls of the gate structure (e.g., fig. 3).
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.
Claims 3-8 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levesque et al., US Pub. No. 2015/0349068 A1 in view of Mulfinger et al., US Pub. No. 2020/0411666 A1.
Levesque et al. disclosed above; however, Levesque et al. does note explicitly show that the at least two different semiconductor materials comprise an upper semiconductor material, a middle semiconductor material and a lower semiconductor material, and the middle semiconductor material comprises a slower growth rate than the upper semiconductor material and the lower semiconductor material (e.g., Re claim 3).
Mulfinger et al. teach a structure comprising: a substrate 110-130 (fig. 1A); a gate structure 150/155/160 or 140 (fig. 1A) on the substrate; and faceted, raised source/drain regions 190 adjacent to the gate structure and comprising at least two different semiconductor materials 210/220/230 (i.e., silicon and SiGe, fig. 1B, paragraphs 21-22), see figs. 1A-3 and pages 1-5 for more details. And wherein the at least two different semiconductor materials comprise an upper semiconductor material 230, a middle semiconductor material 220 and a lower semiconductor material 210 (fig. 1B), and the middle semiconductor material (same material, i.e., SiGe, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7) comprises a slower growth rate in a <111> plane than the upper semiconductor material 230 (same material, i.e., Si, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7) and the lower semiconductor material 210 (same material, i.e., Si, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7). Furthermore, it should be noted that a recitation of the intended use and/or function of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use and/or function, then it meets the claim. Further in this regard, the process limitation of how the film (e.g., slower growth rate in a <111> plane) is formed has no patentable weight in claim drawn to structure. Note that a product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product by process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product by process claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. Therefore, the process limitation of the instant claim is thus non-limiting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention to make to use the S/D epitaxial stack as taught by Mulfinger et al. in the device of Levesque et al. in order to improve device performance (e.g., paragraphs 11, 14, 30-31 etc.).
Re claim 4. The structure of claim 3, wherein the middle semiconductor material 220 (fig. 1b, same material, i.e., SiGe, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7) comprises a different silicide diffusion rate than the upper semiconductor material 230 (same material, i.e., Si, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7).
Re claim 5. The structure of claim 3, wherein a junction between the middle semiconductor material 220 (fig. 1B) and the lower semiconductor material 210 (fig. 1B) prevents diffusion of silicide completely within the lower semiconductor material 210 (fig. 1D).
Re claim 6. The structure of claim 3, wherein the upper semiconductor material 230 and the lower semiconductor material 210 comprise a same semiconductor material (i.e., silicon, fig. 1b and paragraphs 21-22) and the middle semiconductor material 220 comprises a different semiconductor material (i.e., SiGe, fig. 1b and paragraphs 21-22).
Re claim 7. The structure of claim 6, wherein the upper semiconductor material 230 and the lower semiconductor material 210 comprise one of Si, SiC, SiP and SiCP (fig. 1b and paragraphs 21-22), and the middle semiconductor material 220 comprises SiGe (fig. 1b and paragraphs 21-22).
Re claims 8 & 17. Levesque et al. disclose forming silicide 109 on the faceted, raised source/drain regions 105/107 (figs. 3-4), wherein the silicide on the faceted, raised source/drain regions comprises a concave profile such that the silicide at a center is farther away from the substrate than at edges (fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention to make to use the S/D epitaxial stack as taught by Mulfinger et al. and/or select any suitable shape (i.e., concave profile) in the device of Levesque et al. in order to improve device performance (e.g., paragraphs 11, 14, 30-31 etc.). Furth in this regard, with respect to a particular configuration/shape: In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). Furthermore, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement (i.e. – concave profile) or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen limitations or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen limitations are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 13, Mulfinger et al. disclose a structure comprising: a gate structure 150/240a or 140a comprising a silicided region 240a (fig. 1d); and a faceted, raised source/drain regions 190 adjacent to the gate structure (fig. 1d), the faceted, raised source/drain regions comprising a stack of epitaxial semiconductor materials 210/220 and a silicided region 240 partially into the faceted raised source/drain regions (fig. 1D), wherein the stack of epitaxial semiconductor material comprises a first semiconductor material 210, a second semiconductor material 220 and a third semiconductor material 230, the second semiconductor material 220 being between the first semiconductor material 210 and the third semiconductor material 230 (fig. 1B), and the second semiconductor material (same material, i.e., SiGe, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7) comprising a slower <111> growth rate than the first semiconductor material (same material, i.e., Si, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7) and the third semiconductor material (same material, i.e., Si, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7).
Furthermore, it should be noted that a recitation of the intended use and/or function of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use and/or function, then it meets the claim. Further in this regard, the process limitation of how the film (e.g., slower growth rate in a <111> plane) is formed has no patentable weight in claim drawn to structure. Note that a product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product by process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product by process claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. Therefore, the process limitation of the instant claim is thus non-limiting.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention to make to use the S/D epitaxial stack as taught by Mulfinger et al. in the device of Levesque et al. in order to improve device performance (e.g., paragraphs 11, 14, 30-31 etc.).
Re claim 14. The structure of claim 13, wherein the second semiconductor material 220 comprises SiGe (fig. 1B, paragraph 22).
Re claim 15. The structure of claim 13, wherein a height of the first semiconductor material 210 is confined by the second semiconductor material 220 (fig. 1D).
Re claim 16. The structure of claim 13, wherein the second semiconductor material 230 (same material, i.e., SiGe, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7) comprises a slower silicide diffusion rate than the third semiconductor material 230 (same material, i.e., Si, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7).
Re claim 18. The structure of claim 12, wherein the stack of epitaxial semiconductor material comprises a first semiconductor material 210 (same material, i.e., Si, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7) and a second semiconductor material (same material, i.e., SiGe, intrinsic properties of the material, also see instant claim 7) which comprises a slower growth rate than the first semiconductor material in a <111> plane.
Furthermore, it should be noted that a recitation of the intended use and/or function of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use and/or function, then it meets the claim. Further in this regard, the process limitation of how the film (e.g., a slower growth rate than the first semiconductor material in a <111> plane) is formed has no patentable weight in claim drawn to structure. Note that a product by process claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final product per se which must be determined in a product by process claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in product by process claims or not. Note that applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above caselaw makes clear. Therefore, the process limitation of the instant claim is thus non-limiting.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons herein above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/JACK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights