DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference (their interpretation) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see alternate rejections from Cooney III et al. (US 2009/0206449 A1) as well. Hence, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the action is made final.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant failed to define upper wiring structures and upper wiring structure. Is upper wiring structure part of upper wiring structures? Applicant needs to clearly explain the difference.
Regarding claim 13, “upper wiring structures on a same wiring level…”. This is not clear, because upper wiring structure on a same wiring level as what? The comparison is missing and hence the claim is not clear.
The claims 1 and 13 (and their dependent claims) have not been rejected (not new rejection) over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is sufficient uncertainty that it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US PGpub: 2006/0292785 A1), herein after Chang.
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches a structure comprising:
a collector region (16);
a base region (17) adjacent to the collector region;
an emitter region (19) adjacent to the base region;
contacts (12b and another not marked) comprising a first material (ohmic contact 12b and another not marked) contacting the collector region (16) and the base region (17); and
at least one contact (12a and 14) comprising a second material (n-type ohmic contact layer) contacting to the emitter region (19), second material being different than the first material (14 composition is different than 12b).
PNG
media_image1.png
640
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternate rejection:
Cooney III et al. (US 2009/0206449 A1) describes a structure with the following features:
a collector region 26 — see Fig. 9, [0026];
a base region 30 adjacent to the collector region 26 — see Fig. 9;
an emitter region 34 adjacent to the base region 30 - see Fig. 9, [0026];
Contacts 58+62 comprising a first material (W) connected to the collector region 26 and the Base region 30 are connected — see Fig. 9, [0031], “Conductive materials suitable for forming the contacts 58, 60, 62 may include, but are not limited to, metals such as tungsten, copper, aluminum, silver, gold, and alloys thereof.“ (The contacts 58+62 connected to the collector region 26 and the base region 30 are in the Forward operation of a bipolar transistor is not subjected to any major thermal stress, which is why the specialist can manufacture from tungsten, which is cost-effective using PVD can be provided, is nearby); and
at least one contact 60 comprising a second material (Cu) which is connected to the emitter region 34 is connected — see Fig. 9, [0031] (At high currents, bipolar transistors experience the phenomenon of the so-called “emitter current crowding”, i.e. the concentration of the emitter current at the edges of the emitter and a simultaneous depletion in the middle. If 60 is chosen to be Gold as for example which is different than Cu. So, second material being different than the first material.
Regarding claim 2, Chang teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein the second material (12a and 14, Cu) has a higher thermal conductivity than the first material (W) Paragraph [0017], material is same so properties should be same).
Regarding claim 3, Chang teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein the first material comprises tungsten (14, where the diffusion barrier is made of Ta, TaN, W, WN.sub.x, TiWN.sub.x, Pt or Pd. Paragraph [0017]) and the second material comprises copper (first n-type ohmic contact layer 12a and the second n-type ohmic contact layer 12b are made of Ti/Pt/Cu. Paragraph [0017])
Regarding claim 4, Chang teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein the collector region comprises reach throughs (15) to a sub-collector region (13), and the contacts (14, where the diffusion barrier is made of Ta, TaN, W, WN.sub.x, TiWN.sub.x, Pt or Pd. Paragraph [0017]) comprising the first material contact the reach throughs (15, See FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Chang teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein the base region is above the collector region (17 is above 16) and the emitter region (19) is above the base region.
Regarding claim 7, Chang teaches the structure of claim 5, wherein the at least one contact comprising the second material includes a liner of conductive material (where the diffusion barrier is made of Ta, TaN, W, WN.sub.x, TiWN.sub.x, Pt or Pd.).
Regarding claim 8, Chang teaches the structure of claim 5, further comprising wiring structures contacting the at least one contact (Tungsten. where the diffusion barrier is made of Ta, TaN, W, WN.sub.x, TiWN.sub.x, Pt or Pd as in Paragraph [0017]) and the contacts comprising the first material (where the diffusion barrier is made of Ta, TaN, W, WN.sub.x, TiWN.sub.x, Pt or Pd.).
Regarding claim 9, Chang teaches the structure of claim 8, wherein the wiring structures comprise the second material (where the diffusion barrier is made of Ta, TaN, W, WN.sub.x, TiWN.sub.x, Pt or Pd. And, a Cu is obtained by a sputtering, an evaporation, a Cu CVD or a chemical electroplating. See Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 10, Chang teaches the structure of claim 9, wherein the at least one contact and the wiring structures connecting to the at least one contact are dual damascene structures (as marked above).
Regarding claim 11, Chang teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein the at least one contact is multiple contacts, each of which directly contact to a semiconductor material of the emitter region (as marked above).
Regarding claim 12, Chang teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein the at least one contact (12 and 14) is wider than the contacts comprising the first material (12b and another not marked).
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 13-14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PGpub: 2006/0292785 A1), herein after Chang.
Regarding claim 13, Chang teaches a structure comprising:
a collector region (16) comprising a reach through (15) and sub-collector;
a base region (17) above the collector region (16);
an emitter region (19) above the collector region (16);
contacts (12b and another not marked) physically contacting to the collector region (16) and the base region (17); and
at least one contact (12a, and 14) physically contacting to the emitter region and having a higher thermal conductivity than material of the contacts connecting to the collector region and the base region (metal interconnect 14 is obtained by firstly plating with a layer of photoresist on a surface of a compound semiconductor device to be exposed and developed through a photolithography process for defining an area to be plated with metal. Then a diffusion barrier is obtained through a deposition by a sputtering or an electron-beam evaporation to prevent Cu and other materials from inter-diffusion and inter-reaction, where the diffusion barrier is made of Ta, TaN, W, WN.sub.x, TiWN.sub.x, Pt or Pd. And, a Cu is obtained by a sputtering, an evaporation, a Cu CVD (chemical vapor deposition) or a chemical electroplating. first n-type ohmic contact layer 12a and the second n-type ohmic contact layer 12b are made of Ti/Pt/Cu. See Paragraph [0017].). Also, it is known skilled in the art to achieve different thermal conductivity of contacts in order to achieve efficient and good contacts to make the device works as per design.
PNG
media_image1.png
640
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternate rejection:
Cooney III et al. (US 2009/0206449 A1) describes a structure with the following features:
a collector region 26 — see Fig. 9, [0026];
a base region 30 adjacent to the collector region 26 — see Fig. 9;
an emitter region 34 adjacent to the base region 30 - see Fig. 9, [0026];
Contacts 58+62 comprising a first material (W) connected to the collector region 26 and the Base region 30 are connected — see Fig. 9, [0031], “Conductive materials suitable for forming the contacts 58, 60, 62 may include, but are not limited to, metals such as tungsten, copper, aluminum, silver, gold, and alloys thereof.“ (The contacts 58+62 connected to the collector region 26 and the base region 30 are in the Forward operation of a bipolar transistor is not subjected to any major thermal stress, which is why the specialist can manufacture from tungsten, which is cost-effective using PVD can be provided, is nearby); and
at least one contact 60 comprising a second material (Cu) which is connected to the emitter region 34 is connected — see Fig. 9, [0031] (At high currents, bipolar transistors experience the phenomenon of the so-called “emitter current crowding”, i.e. the concentration of the emitter current at the edges of the emitter and a simultaneous depletion in the middle. If 60 is chosen to be Gold as for example which is different than Cu. So, second material being different than the first material. (At high currents, bipolar transistors experience the phenomenon of the so-called “emitter current crowding”, i.e. the concentration of the emitter current at the edges of the emitter and a simultaneous depletion in the middle. This inefficient use of the entire emitter leads to a local increase in temperature in the emitter, which is why Copper with its increased thermal conductivity is considered by experts to be the material of choice for which at least one contact is suggested).
Regarding claim 14, Chang teaches the structure of claim 13, wherein the material of the contacts comprises tungsten (14, where the diffusion barrier is made of Ta, TaN, W, WN.sub.x, TiWN.sub.x, Pt or Pd. Paragraph [0017]) and the material of the at least one contact comprises copper (first n-type ohmic contact layer 12a and the second n-type ohmic contact layer 12b are made of Ti/Pt/Cu. Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Chang teaches the structure of claim 16, wherein the wiring structures comprise a same material as the at least one contact (The metal interconnect 14 is obtained by firstly plating with a layer of photoresist on a surface of a compound semiconductor device to be exposed and developed through a photolithography process for defining an area to be plated with metal. Then a diffusion barrier is obtained through a deposition by a sputtering or an electron-beam evaporation to prevent Cu and other materials from inter-diffusion and inter-reaction, where the diffusion barrier is made of Ta, TaN, W, WN.sub.x, TiWN.sub.x, Pt or Pd. And, a Cu is obtained by a sputtering, an evaporation, a Cu CVD (chemical vapor deposition) or a chemical electroplating. So, contact 14 has material Cu as common).
Regarding claim 19, Chang teaches the structure of claim 13, wherein the at least one contact is a single contact (12a and 14) of a different width than the contacts to the base region and the collector region, the single contact directly contacting the emitter region (19). (12a. 12b (the marked contact) seems to be wider in depth compared to 12a in FIG. 1. See annotated figure).
Claims 6, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US PGpub: 2006/0292785 A1), herein after Chang, in view of Hulvey et al. (US Patent: 6657280 B1), herein after Hulvey.
Regarding claim 6, Chang teaches the contacts comprising the first material directly contacting semiconductor material of the collector region (Collector region should be made of semi material and contacts are directly contacting the regions) and the base region, and the at least one contact comprising the second material (n-type ohmic contact layer 12a) directly contacting semiconductor material of the emitter region (19, emitter layer should be made of semiconductor material).
Chang does not explicitly teach the structure of claim 5, wherein the at least one contact comprising the second material has a top surface coplanar with the contacts comprising the first material.
However, difference could be easily derived by a person skilled in the art from the feature in Hulvey wherein collector contact (120) is coplanar with emitter contact (122) as in FIG. 2B. Also, the applicant did not apparently present the advantage of making these two contacts coplanar.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Chang’s structure with coplanar contacts as taught by Hulvey so that such the structure makes effective connection producing an efficient device.
Regarding claim 15, Chang does not explicitly teach the structure of claim 13, wherein the at least one contact comprises a top surface coplanar with the contacts.
However, difference could be easily derived by a person skilled in the art from the feature in Hulvey wherein collector contact (120) is coplanar with emitter contact (122) as in FIG. 2B. Also, the applicant did not apparently present the advantage of making these two contacts coplanar.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Chang’s structure with coplanar contacts as taught by Hulvey so that such the structure makes effective connection producing an efficient device.
Regarding claim 16, Chang teaches the structure of claim 13, further comprising wiring structures contacting to the contacts and the at least one contact (please see above marked pictures).
Regarding claim 18, Chang does not explicitly teach the structure of claim 16, wherein the at least one contact and the wiring structures connecting to the at least one contact are dual damascene structures.
However, difference could be easily derived by a person skilled in the art from the feature in Hulvey wherein collector contact (120) is coplanar with emitter contact (122) as in FIG. 2B. Also, the applicant did not apparently present the advantage of making these two contacts coplanar.
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use Chang’s structure with coplanar contacts as taught by Hulvey so that such the structure makes effective connection producing an efficient device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHEIKH MARUF whose telephone number is (571)270-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-6pm EDT.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at 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 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.
/SHEIKH MARUF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights