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 .
Status of the Application
1. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 6/26/2026. Claims 11-14 & 21-26 are pending in this application. Claims 15-20 are canceled.
Claim Objections
2. The claims are objected because of the following reasons:
Re claim 21, lines 5-6: in front of “gate spacers…”, insert --forming--, because claim 21 is process claim.
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.
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.
3. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In particular, claim 1, line 7, cites “the gate spacers interfacing with an interlayer dielectric material” is not clear because of “interlayer dielectric material”. Claim 1 early requires an etch stop layer and first hard mask material, and the claim does not clearly specify any positional relationship between the interlayer dielectric material and etch stop layer & first hard mask material. For best understand & examination purpose, Fig. 2 will be applied to consider position of the interlayer dielectric material.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Applicant is suggested to revise and clarify the claim(s) to avoid any further confusions.
For best understanding and examination purpose, the claim(s) will be best considered based on drawings, disclosure, and/or any applicable prior arts.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
4. Claims 8-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2020/0343135) in view of Ngo et al. (US 2002/0162736).
Re claim 8, Huang teaches, under BRI, Figs. 10, 12-16 & 20, [0020, 0027, 0031-0034, 0035, 0038, 0040, 0042, 0044, 0059], a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
-forming a first opening (96) through a dielectric layer (92), a contact etch stop layer (90), and a first hard mask material (82) to expose a conductive portion of a gate stack (68, 72), the first hard mask material (left or right 82) being a single material having a width greater than the gate stack (compared with 74, 76, 78 of 72) (Fig. 12), the gate stack comprises a gate dielectric (68) in physical contact with an interfacial layer (66) and extending from being in physical contact with a first gate spacer (left 46) to being in physical contact with a second gate spacer (right 46) different from the first gate spacer (left 46), the second gate spacer (right 46) being on an opposite side of the gate stack than the first gate spacer (left 46) (Figs. 12-13);
-treating sidewalls of the first opening (96) with a first plasma from a nitrogen- containing precursor (*) to form a treated portion of the conductive portion (at surface of 80);
-filling the first opening (96) with a first conductive material (110) without removing the treated portion of the conductive portion (at surface of 80) (Fig. 20);
-forming a second opening (94) through the dielectric layer (92) and the contact etch stop layer (90) to expose a first source/drain contact (84);
-treating sidewalls of the second opening (94) with a second plasma; and
-filling the second opening (94) with a second conductive material (108).
PNG
media_image1.png
596
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang does not explicitly teach (*) treating with the first plasma from a nitrogen containing precursor.
Ngo teaches “sequentially treating the opening and the upper surface of the lower metal feature with an NH3 plasma and then with a N2/H2 plasma” (abstract).
As taught by Ngo, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Huang to treat with the first plasma from a nitrogen containing precursor as claimed, because it aids in achieving high density & multi-level semiconductor device with sub-micron dimension having lower resistance vias. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Ngo in combination with Huang due to above reason.
Re claim 9, Huang teaches the forming the second opening (94) forms a recess (under 94A) within the first source/drain contact (84) (Fig. 13).
Re claim 10, Huang teaches the forming the second opening does not form a recess within the first source/drain contact (84) (Fig. 17).
Re claim 11, Huang teaches the treating the sidewalls of the first opening (96) and the treating the sidewalls of the second opening (94) are performed simultaneously (first treatment 98) (Fig. 14, [0038].
Re claim 14, in combination cited above, Ngo teaches the nitrogen-containing precursor is ammonia (abstract).
5. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as modified by Ngo as applied to claim 8 above, and in view of You et al. (US 2020/0144105).
The teachings of Huang/Ngo have been discussed above.
Re claim 12, Huang teaches forming the second opening (Fig. 13).
Huang/Ngo does not explicitly teach forming the second opening through a second hard mask material overlying the first source/drain contact.
You teaches forming the second opening (283) through a second hard mask material (274) overlying the first source/drain contact (272) (Fig. 21, [0039].
As taught by You, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to form the second opening through a second hard mask material overlying the first source/drain contact as claimed, because utilizing hard mask material is known and widely used in the art during an etching process.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by You in combination with Huang/Ngo due to above reason.
Re claim 13, in combination cited above, Huang teaches the forming the second opening forms a recess (under 94A) within the first source/drain contact (84) (Fig. 13).
6. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2020/0343135) in view of Lin et al. (US 2015/0118835).
Re claim 21, Huang teaches, under BRI, Figs. 10, 11B & 12-16, [0015, 0020, 0030-0033, 0035, 0038, 0040], a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising:
-forming a gate stack (68, 72) over a semiconductor fin (36), the gate stack comprises a gate dielectric (68) located between a gate electrode (72) and an interfacial layer (66);
-gate spacers (46) adjacent to the gate stack (68, 72), the gate spacers (46) comprising a first sidewall (bottom sidewall of 46, indicated) interfacing the gate stack (68, 72) and a second sidewall (top sidewall of 46, indicated) opposite the first sidewall;
-forming a first hard mask material (82) overlying the gate stack, the first hard mask (82) sharing a coplanar surface with the second sidewall (top sidewall of 46, indicated) of the gate spacers (46), the first hard mask material comprising a first treated region (at surface of 82), wherein at least a portion of the first treated region extends between gate spacers (46), the gate spacers (46) being different from the gate dielectric (68), wherein a single material (Figs. 10, 11B, 12) extends throughout the first hard mask material (82);
-forming an etch stop layer (90) overlying the first hard mask material (82), the etch stop layer (90) comprising a second treated region (at side surface of 90);
-forming a dielectric layer (92) overlying the etch stop layer (90), the dielectric layer comprising a third treated region (at surface of 92); and
-forming a conductive material (110) extending through and in physical contact with the first treated region (at surface of 92), the second treated region (at surface of 90), and the third treated region (at surface of 92), wherein the conductive material (110) is also in physical contact with a fourth treated region (at surface of 80) located within the gate stack (68, 72).
PNG
media_image2.png
409
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Huang does not explicitly teach the single material extending further from the semiconductor fin than a top surface of the spacers.
Lin teaches, Fig. 6, [0021, 0022, 0023, 0029], the single material (180) extending further from the semiconductor fin (defined under gate 120) (see also Huang’s teaching) than a top surface of the spacers (130).
As taught by Lin, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the single material as claimed, because it aids in enhancing protection to the gate structure & achieving device that is able to prevent device failure due to contact plug shift issue.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Lin in combination with Huang due to above reason.
7. Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as modified by Lin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ngo et al. (US 2002/0162736).
The teachings of Huang/Lin have been discussed above.
Re claim 22, Huang/Lin does not explicitly teach each of the first treated region, the second treated region, the third treated region, and the fourth treated region each comprise nitrogen.
Ngo teaches “sequentially treating the opening and the upper surface of the lower metal feature with an NH3 plasma and then with a N2/H2 plasma” (abstract).
As taught by Ngo, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching into Huang to obtain each of the first treated region, the second treated region, the third treated region, and the fourth treated region each comprise nitrogen as claimed, because it aids in achieving high density & multi-level semiconductor device with sub-micron dimension having lower resistance vias. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Ngo in combination with Huang/Lin due to above reason.
Re claim 23 & 24, Huang/Ngo does not explicitly the first treated region has a nitrogen concertation of the first dopant of between about 0.3%-atomic and about 3%-atomic; and the fourth treated region has a nitrogen concentration of between about 3%-atomic to 30%-atomic.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular concentration(s) because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the concentration(s) are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the concentration(s) are for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another concentration. Indeed, it has been held that mere concentration(s) are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed concentration(s) because a change in concentration would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
8. Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang as modified by Lin as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Ho et al. (US 2017/0288031).
The teachings of Huang/Lin have been discussed above.
Re claim 25, Huang/Lin does not teach forming a second conductive material extending through and in physical contact with an untreated portion of the dielectric layer and an untreated portion of the etch stop layer to make physical contact with a source/drain contact.
Ho teaches, Figs. 2 & 12-14, [0048, 0050], forming a second conductive material (60B) extending through and in physical contact with an untreated portion of the dielectric layer (54) and an untreated portion of the etch stop layer (32) to make physical contact with a source/drain contact (30).
As taught by Ho, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain second conductive material extending through and in physical contact with an untreated portion of the dielectric layer and an untreated portion of the etch stop layer to make physical contact with a source/drain contact as claimed, because it aids in reducing cost and process steps, and improving electrical connection in the formed device.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Ho in combination with Huang/Lin due to above reason.
Re claim 26, Huang teaches the second conductive material (108) extends into the source/drain contact (84) (Fig. 16).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1-7 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The allowable subject matter, for best understanding, includes “depositing an etch stop layer over a first hard mask material over a substrate, the first hard mask material over a gate stack, the gate stack comprising a gate dielectric, wherein the first hard mask material extends over and between gate spacers adjacent to the gate stack, the first hard mask material being in physical contact with a surface of the gate spacers facing away from the gate stack, the gate spacers interfacing with an interlayer dielectric material on an opposite side of the gate spacers from the gate stack, the gate spacers being different from the gate dielectric, the gate dielectric being over an interfacial layer, the first hard mask material extending further from the substrate than the surface of the gate spacers facing away from the gate stack” (claim 1).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
The claims amended with newly added features, interpretation & rejection under Huang are also changed to meet the current claimed newly added features including gate spacers and coplanar surface between first hard mask and second sidewall of the gate spacers. Details included in the above rejection.
Conclusion
11. 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 DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 7/6/26
Prosecution Insights