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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner notes that there was an error in the stated groupings for the restriction date 10/22/2025. Group I being claims 1-12 and Group II being claims 13-24.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Group II claims 13-24 are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Items in the Figures that included letters (eg. 106a, 106b, 108a, 108b,…etc.) are not found in specification. Please amend the spec to indicate when, for instance, item 106 is cited whether it is refereeing to 106a or 106b or both 106a and 106b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (hereinafter Wu, US 2021/0043502).
In regards to independent claim 1, Wu teaches a transistor device comprising:
a substrate (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 110, [0014], “substrate 110”);
a source region on the substrate (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 130, [0018], “source/drain features 130”);
a first electrically conductive layer on the source region (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 190, [0031], “source/drain contact 190”);
a first layer comprising Carbon adjacent the source region and below the first electrically conductive layer (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 152, [0022], “CESL 152…can be silicon carbide,” Note: the sidewall of the CESL 152 film is to the side of the S/D therefore that portion is adjacent and the portion of the film above the S/D is below the contact);
a drain region on the substrate (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 130, [0018], “source/drain features 130”);
a second electrically conductive layer on the drain region (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 190, [0031], “source/drain contact 190,” Note: That Fig. 2H shows only one contact being created, however, the process described in Fig. 2H is repeated for the desired source and drain regions that need contacts [0010-0011]) );
a second layer comprising Carbon adjacent the drain region and below the second electrically conductive layer (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 152, [0022], “CESL 152…can be silicon carbide,” Note: the sidewall of the CESL 152 film is to the side of the S/D therefore that portion is adjacent and the portion of the film above the S/D is below the contact);
a dielectric layer on the substrate between the source region and the drain region (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 144+210+202, [0033]); and
a third electrically conductive layer on the dielectric layer (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 220+230, [0033]).
In regards to dependent claim 3, Wu teaches wherein the first layer comprising Carbon further comprises Silicon, and the second layer comprising Carbon further comprises Silicon (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 152, [0022], “CESL 152…can be silicon carbide).
In regards to dependent claim 4, Wu teaches wherein the first layer comprising Carbon comprises between 10%-99.9% Carbon, and the second layer comprising Carbon comprises between 10%-99.9% Carbon (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 152, [0022], “CESL 152…can be silicon carbide Note: silicon carbide is 50% silicon 50% carbon).
In regards to dependent claim 5, Wu teaches wherein the dielectric layer is a first dielectric layer and the transistor device further comprises a second dielectric layer adjacent the first layer comprising Carbon and a third dielectric layer adjacent the second layer comprising Carbon (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 142, 126A, 126B).
In regards to dependent claim 6, Wu teaches wherein the second dielectric layer comprises Silicon and Oxygen, and the third dielectric layer comprises Silicon and Oxygen (Wu, [0017], silicon oxide).
In regards to dependent claim 7, Wu teaches wherein the transistor device is a planar transistor (Wu, [0013]).
In regards to dependent claim 8, Wu teaches wherein the transistor device is a FinFET transistor, the substrate comprises a plurality of fins, the source region is on a first fin and the drain region is on a second fin (Wu, [0018]).
In regards to independent claim 9, Wu teaches an integrated circuit device (Wu, Fig. 2H, [0018], IC device 100) comprising:
a plurality of transistors on a first layer (Wu, Fig. 2H, [0018], layer containing gate 120A, source/drain 130 and channel); and
one or more additional layers comprising an interconnect to couple the transistors (Wu, Fig. 2H, Item 140 MLI, [0020]);
wherein each of the plurality of transistors comprises:
a source region (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 130, [0018], “source/drain features 130”);
a material comprising Carbon adjacent the source region (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 152, [0022], “CESL 152…can be silicon carbide,” Note: the sidewall of the CESL 152 film is to the side of the S/D therefore that portion is adjacent and the portion of the film above the S/D is below the contact);
a drain region (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 130, [0018], “source/drain features 130”);
a material comprising Carbon adjacent the drain region (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 152, [0022], “CESL 152…can be silicon carbide,” Note: the sidewall of the CESL 152 film is to the side of the S/D therefore that portion is adjacent and the portion of the film above the S/D is below the contact); and
a gate to control current flow between the source region and the drain region (Wu, Fig. 2H, [0018], gate 120A).
In regards to dependent claim 10, Wu teaches wherein the materials adjacent the source region and the drain region further comprise Silicon (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 152, [0022], “CESL 152…can be silicon carbide).
In regards to dependent claim 11, Wu teaches wherein the materials adjacent the source region and the drain region comprise between 10%-99.9% Carbon (Wu, Fig. 2H Item 152, [0022], “CESL 152…can be silicon carbide Note: silicon carbide is 50% silicon 50% carbon).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu.
In regards to dependent claim 2, Wu teaches wherein the first layer comprising Carbon is between 1-50 Angstroms, and the second layer comprising Carbon is between 1-50 Angstroms (Wu, [0022], “thickness T1 is about 1 nm to about 10 nm”). Although the range is not identical, Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the resistance of the contact. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill 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. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Criticality Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the thicknesses and similar thicknesses are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of King. The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
In regards to dependent claim 12, Wu teaches wherein the materials adjacent the source region and the drain region are between 1-50 Angstroms thick (Wu, [0022], “thickness T1 is about 1 nm to about 10 nm”). Although the range is not identical, Differences in the thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. Thickness is a result-effective variable. Reducing the thickness decreases the resistance of the contact. Therefore the thickness would be obtainable by routine experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105, USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” See In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929). "When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill 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. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397
Criticality Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the thicknesses and similar thicknesses are known in the art, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of King. The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thicknesses or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C TRAPANESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-12pm & 8pm-10pm EST.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/WILLIAM C TRAPANESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812