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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on November 24, 2025 has been entered. No claim(s) has/have been canceled or added. Therefore, claim(s) 1-8 and 22-28 remain(s) pending in the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim(s) 22-28 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Cheng et al. (US 2019/0319099). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 23 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claim 23, “the a sidewall” recited in line 8 of the claim should read “a sidewall”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, as currently amended the claim requires that “a contact area between the second S/D epitaxial region and the second surface of the channel region is greater than a contact area between the first S/D epitaxial region and the first surface of the channel region” and that “the first surface of the channel region is lower than a top surface of the first spacer layer, and the second surface of the channel region is lower than a bottom surface of the second spacer layer”. The specification, however, does not include any description of a semiconductor device that includes a first S/D epitaxial region and a second S/D epitaxial region, where a contact area between the second S/D epitaxial region and a second surface of a channel region is greater than a contact area between the first S/D epitaxial region and a first surface of the channel region, opposite the second surface, and where the second surface of the channel region is lower than a bottom surface of the second spacer. Specifically, while the specification discloses that a second surface of the channel region (i.e. bottom surface of channel region 102, Fig. 17) is lower than the bottom surface of the second spacer (i.e. 1042, Fig. 17), the specification fails to disclose that second surface of the channel region being lower than the bottom surface of the second spacer, while simultaneously having the contact area between the second S/D epitaxial region and the second surface of the channel region being greater than a contact area between the first S/D epitaxial region and the first surface of the channel region. Namely, in order for the contact area between the second S/D epitaxial region and the second surface of the channel region to be greater than a contact area between the first S/D epitaxial region and the first surface of the channel region, the second surface of the channel region would need to include the bottom surface of the channel region (parallel to the x-axis), along with a lower portions of the sidewalls of the channel region, which would lead to the second surface of the channel region being at a same level as the bottom surface of the second spacer. Accordingly, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-8 which either directly or indirectly depend from claim 1 and which inherit issues of claim 1 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 7, 23 and 28 is/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.
With respect to claim 7, as currently presented the claim requires that “a peripheral portion of the second S/D epitaxial region extends beyond the second surface of the channel region to cover a portion of the sidewall of the channel region”. It is unclear from the claim language, however, what is considered “the second surface of the channel region”. Specifically, as recited in claim 1, “second surface of the channel region” appears to be covering both the bottom surface of the channel region and a portion of the sidewall of the channel region in order for the contact area between the second S/D epitaxial region and the second surface of the channel region to be greater than a contact area between the first S/D epitaxial region and the first surface of the channel region. However, in claim 7, the second surface of the channel region appears to be referring to only the bottom surface of the channel region which is parallel to the x-axis. Accordingly, the meets and bounds of the claim are unclear. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that “second surface of the channel region” includes the bottom of the channel region.
With respect to claim 23, as currently presented the claim recites “a sidewall of the channel region” twice (in line 14 of claim 22 and in line 8 of claim 23). It is unclear whether the second recited “a sidewall of the channel region” was intended to related back to “a sidewall of the channel region (line 14 of claim 22) or to set forth an additional “sidewall of the channel region”. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that the second recited “a sidewall” was intended to relate back to “a sidewall” recited in claim 22.
Regarding claim 28, as currently presented the claim requires that a contact area between the second S/D epitaxial region and the second surface of the channel region is greater than a contact area between the first S/D epitaxial region and the first surface of the channel region”. It is unclear from the claim language, however, what is considered the “second surface of the channel region”. As recited in claim 22, from which claim 28 depends, the “second surface of the channel region” appears to be referring to the bottom portion of the channel region, while the second surface of the channel region”, recited in claim 28, appears to be covering both the bottom and lower side surfaces of the sidewalls of the channel region, in order to the contact area between the second S/D epitaxial region and the second surface of the channel region to be greater than a contact area between the first S/D epitaxial region and the first surface of the channel region. Accordingly, it is not clear what is considered “the second surface of the channel region”. For purpose of compact prosecution, it will be assumed that “second surface of the channel region” includes both the bottom and the lower side surfaces of the sidewalls of the channel region.
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 (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 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(s) 22 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al. (US 2019/0319099, hereinafter “Cheng `099”).
Regarding claim 22, Cheng `099 teaches in Fig. 2A (shown below) and related text a semiconductor device (200, Fig. 2A and ¶[0031]), comprising:
a spacer layer (e.g. 214A, 214B, 206, Fig. 2A and ¶[0035]) having a top surface and a bottom surface opposite to each other;
an opening (i.e. opening in which channel 108 is disposed, Fig. 2A) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface of the spacer layer (Fig. 2A);
a channel region (108, Fig. 2A and ¶[0021]) disposed in the opening and having a first surface and a second surface (e.g. top surface and bottom surface of 108 as shown in Fig. 2A) opposite to each other,
wherein the first surface of the channel region (e.g. top surface of 108, Fig. 2A) is lower than the top surface of the spacer layer (e.g. top surface of spacer 214B, Fig. 2A), and the second surface of the channel region (e.g. bottom surface of 108, Fig. 2A) is lower than the bottom surface of the spacer layer (e.g. 206, Fig. 2A);
a first S/D epitaxial region (216, Fig. 2A and ¶¶[0031] and [0040]) interfacing with the first surface of the channel region (e.g. top surface of 108, Fig. 2A) and further extending to cover a portion of the top surface of the spacer layer (e.g. top surface of 214B, Fig. 2A); and
a second S/D epitaxial region (204, Fig. 2A and ¶¶[0033] and [0041]) interfacing with the second surface of the channel region (e.g. bottom surface of 108, Fig. 2A) and further extending to cover a portion of a sidewall of the first channel region (Fig. 2A).
PNG
media_image1.png
616
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Cheng `099 teaches wherein a contact area between the second S/D epitaxial region (204, Fig. 2A) and the second surface of the channel region (i.e. bottom surface of channel 108 parallel to the x-axis and lower side surfaces of channel region 108, Fig. 2A) is greater than a contact area between the first S/D epitaxial region (216 , Fig. 2A and ¶¶[0033] and [0041]) and the first surface of the channel region (i.e. top surface of the channel region 108 parallel to the x-axis, Fig. 2A).
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.
Claim(s) 24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng `099 as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of over Cheng et al. (US 2017/0309631, hereinafter “Cheng”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 24 (22), teaching of Cheng `099 was discussed above in the rejection of claim 22. Cheng `099, however, does not explicitly teach that a first S/D contact is disposed over the first surface of the channel region, with the first S/D epitaxial region being interposed between the first surface of the channel region and the first S/D contact and that a second S/D contact is disposed underneath the second surface of the channel region, with the second S/D epitaxial region interposed between the second surface of the channel region and the second S/D contact.
Cheng, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 13 and related text that a first S/D contact (902, 904 (or 1004,1006), Fig. 13 and ¶¶[0048] and [0051]) can be disposed over the first surface of the channel region, with the first S/D epitaxial region (802, 804, Fig. 13, ¶[0047]) interposed between the first surface of the channel region and the first S/D contact (Fig. 13) and a second S/D contact 1202, 1204 (or 1304, 1306), Fig. 13 and ¶¶[0053] and [0055]) can be disposed underneath the second surface of the channel region, with the second S/D epitaxial region (106, Fig. 13, ¶[0039]) interposed between the second surface of the channel region and the second S/D contact (Fig. 13) in order to provide external connections to the first and second S/D epitaxial regions.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it 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 invention pertains to dispose the first S/D contact over the first surface of the channel region, so that the first S/D epitaxial region is interposed between the first surface of the channel region and the first S/D contact and to dispose the second S/D contact underneath the second surface of the channel region, so that the second S/D epitaxial region is interposed between the second surface of the channel region and the second S/D contact, as disclosed by Cheng, in the semiconductor device disclosed by Cheng `099 in order to provide external connections to the first and second S/D epitaxial regions.
Regarding claim 27 (24), the combined teaching of Cheng `099 and Cheng further discloses a first interconnect structure (Cheng, 1004, 1006, Fig. 13 and ¶[0051]) overlying and electrically connected to the first S/D contact (Cheng, 902, 904 and Fig. 13) at a first side and a second interconnect structure (Cheng, 1304, 1306, 1308, Fig. 13 and ¶[0055]) underlying and electrically connected to the second S/D contact (Cheng, 1202, 1204, , Fig. 13) at a second side opposite to the first side (Cheng, Fig. 13).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng `099 and Cheng as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2021/0202385, hereinafter “Huang”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 25 (24), the combined teaching of Cheng `099 and Cheng was discussed above in the rejection of claim 24. Cheng `099 and Cheng, however, do not explicitly teach a first silicide feature interposed between the first S/D epitaxial region and the first S/D contact and a second silicide feature interposed between the second S/D epitaxial region and the second S/D contact.
Huang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 19 and related text that silicide feature (152, Fig. 19 and ¶[0016]) can be interposed between the S/D epitaxial regions (108, Fig. 19 and ¶[0038]1) and the S/D contacts (120, Fig. 19 and ¶[0016]) in order to reduce contact resistance (¶[0016]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it 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 invention pertains to interpose a silicide feature disclosed by Huang between the first S/D epitaxial region and the first S/D contact and between the second S/D epitaxial region and the second S/D contact disclosed by Cheng `099 and Cheng, as doing so would allow to reduce contact resistance to the S/D epitaxial regions.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng `099 and Cheng, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Sharma et al. (US 2019/0304974, hereinafter “Sharma”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 26 (24), teaching of Cheng `099 and Cheng was discussed above in the rejection of claim 24. Cheng `099 and Cheng, however, do not explicitly teach wherein the first S/D contact and the second S/D contact have different maximum lateral dimensions.
Sharma, in a similar field of endeavor teaches a semiconductor device similar to that disclosed by Cheng `099 and Cheng that includes the first S/D contact (364, Fig. 3C and ¶[0049]) disposed over the first surface of the channel region and the second S/D contact (342, Figs. 3A-3C and ¶[0043]) disposed underneath the second surface of the channel region (Figs. 3A-3C) wherein the first S/D contact and the second S/D contact have different maximum lateral dimensions (Fig. 3C) in order to meet specific design requirements.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to oner of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the first S/D contact and/or the second S/D contact disclosed by Sharma, for the first S/D contact and/or second S/D contact disclosed by Cheng `099 and Cheng, as doing so would amount to nothing more than substituting one known element for another in order to meet specific design requirements for the semiconductor device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893