DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 and 17-21 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) 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the local capping pattern has an inner diameter in the second direction that is less at a first end of the local capping pattern than at a second end of the local capping pattern, the first end being farther from the substrate than the second end,” does not have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there is no disclosure of any diameters of any elements in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a diameter of the inner sidewall of the local capping pattern decreases along the first direction with increasing distance from the substrate,” does not have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there is no disclosure of any diameters of any elements in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “an inner diameter of the local capping pattern decreases along the first direction with increasing distance from the substrate,” does not have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there is no disclosure of any diameters of any elements in applicant’s disclosure.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the conductive plug consists of the first metal,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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) 1-15 and 17-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the local capping pattern has an inner diameter in the second direction that is less at a first end of the local capping pattern than at a second end of the local capping pattern, the first end being farther from the substrate than the second end,” is unclear as to what is required by “inner diameter.” Specifically, it is noted that “diameter” would appear to imply a specific shape (e.g. circular), however no shape has been positively recited, and therefore it is unclear as to if the local capping pattern requires a particular shape. Further, it is unclear as to what “inner diameter” [emphasis added] requires and as to what portion(s) of the local capping pattern the diameter is measuring.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a diameter of the inner sidewall of the local capping pattern decreases along the first direction with increasing distance from the substrate,” is unclear as to what is required by “a diameter of the inner sidewall.” Specifically, it is noted that “diameter” would appear to imply a specific shape (e.g. circular), however no shape has been positively recited, and therefore it is unclear as to if the local capping pattern requires a particular shape. It is further unclear because there is no pervious recitation of an “inner sidewall of the local capping pattern,” and therefore is indefinite as to what portion(s) of the local capping pattern the diameter is measuring. Lastly, it is unclear as to how a sidewall, understood to be a two dimensional surface, can have a diameter.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “an inner diameter of the local capping pattern decreases along the first direction with increasing distance from the substrate,” is unclear as to what is required by “inner diameter.” Specifically, it is noted that “diameter” would appear to imply a specific shape (e.g. circular), however no shape has been positively recited, and therefore it is unclear as to if the local capping pattern requires a particular shape. Further, it is unclear as to what “inner diameter” [emphasis added] requires and as to what portion(s) of the local capping pattern the diameter is measuring.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 20210384140; herein “Huang”) in view of Shibata (US 20150194305; herein “Shibata”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses in Fig. 1 and related text an integrated circuit device, comprising:
a conductive region (107-3, see [0050]) disposed on a substrate;
an insulating structure (603/605/607, see [0051]) disposed on the substrate, the insulating structure having an upper surface that is normal to a first direction;
an insulating layer (609, see [0051]) disposed on the upper surface of the insulating structure;
a local capping pattern (405, see [0055]) disposed in a contact hole formed in the insulating structure and the insulating layer, the contact hole overlapping the conductive region in the first direction and extending from the conductive region on the substrate through the insulating structure and the insulating layer along the first direction, and the local capping pattern having an outer sidewall in direct contact with an inner sidewall of the insulating layer and an inner sidewall of the insulating structure (in the instance that 403 is omitted, see [0055]); and
a conductive plug (407, see [0055] and Fig. 1) in the contact hole and extending through the local capping pattern along the first direction,
wherein the conductive plug is formed of a first metal and has a lower sidewall formed of the first metal and in direct contact with an insulating material of the inner sidewall of the insulating structure and an upper sidewall formed of the first metal and in direct contact with an inner sidewall of the local capping pattern (in the instance that 403 is omitted, see [0055] and Fig. 1),
wherein the local capping pattern has a width in a second direction that gradually increases with increasing distance from the substrate (see Fig. 1).
Huang does not explicitly disclose
wherein the local capping pattern has an inner diameter in the second direction that is less at a first end of the local capping pattern than at a second end of the local capping pattern, the first end being farther from the substrate than the second end.
In the same field of endeavor, Shibata teaches in Fig. 9 and related text an integrated circuit structure having a local capping pattern (17, see [0023]) and a conductive plug (18 and CB, see [0022] and [0025])
wherein the local capping pattern has an inner diameter in the second direction that is less at a first end of the local capping pattern than at a second end of the local capping pattern, the first end being farther from the substrate than the second end (see Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Huang by having wherein the local capping pattern has an inner diameter in the second direction that is less at a first end of the local capping pattern than at a second end of the local capping pattern, the first end being farther from the substrate than the second end in order to ensure sufficient distance between the wirings of the contact holes and minimize parasitic effects (see Shibata [0003]).
Additionally, it is noted that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the size and shape of the local capping layer be such that it has an inner diameter that is less at a first end of than at a second end, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.
Further, it is noted that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the angle of inclination of the capping layer to be a result effective variable affecting the aspect ratio of the trench and the spacing between the adjacent wirings. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Huang to modify the angle to a range such that the local capping layer has an inner diameter that is less at a first end of than at a second end since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Lastly, it is noted that It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the barrier layer of Huang, or position it between the local capping layer and the metal fill layer as shown by Shibata, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Regarding claim 2, the combined device shows wherein a portion of the conductive plug in contact with the local capping pattern has a width in the second direction that decreases with increasing distance from the substrate (Shibata: see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, Huang further discloses wherein the local capping pattern (405) includes a silicon-containing insulating layer, a metal nitride layer, a metal oxynitride layer, a metal-doped insulating layer, or a combination thereof (see [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, Huang further discloses wherein the local capping pattern (405) includes a material which is the same as a material of at least a portion of the insulating structure (603/605/604) (see [0051]).
Regarding claim 8, Huang further discloses wherein a first length of the local capping pattern (405) is less than a second length of the contact hole along the first direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Huang further discloses wherein the local capping pattern (405) includes a second metal that is different from the first metal (see [0058] and [0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Huang further discloses wherein the first metal is selected from molybdenum (Mo), copper (Cu), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), ruthenium (Ru), manganese (Mn), titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), aluminum (Al), and a combination thereof (see [0056]).
Regarding claim 21, the combined device shows wherein the conductive plug consists of the first metal.
Note that It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the barrier layer of Huang, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Shibata as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hatazaki (US 2022/0302023; herein “Hatazaki”).
Regarding claim 3, Huang does not explicitly disclose
wherein the local capping pattern is disposed concentrically with the conductive plug, and surrounds the upper sidewall of the conductive plug.
In the same field of endeavor, Hatazaki teaches in Fig. 7-8 and related text an integrated circuit device wherein
the local capping pattern (CM1) is disposed concentrically with the conductive plug (CM2), and surrounds the upper sidewall of the conductive plug (see [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Haung by having the local capping pattern is disposed concentrically with the conductive plug, and surrounds the upper sidewall of the conductive plug in order to provide a conventional conductive contact shape.
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Shibata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20200381309; herein “Lin”).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the conductive region includes a metal silicide layer; a metal layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches in Fig. 17B and related text the conductive region (86, see [0010]) includes a metal silicide layer (98, see [0050]); a metal layer (98, see [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Huang by having the source/drain having a metal silicide layer, as taught by Lin, in order to provide a silicided ohmic contact with decreased contact resistance.
Regarding claim 11, the combined device of Huang and Shibata further shows the conductive plug includes molybdenum (Mo) (Shibata: see [0022]), the local capping pattern includes a silicon-containing insulating layer, a metal nitride layer, a metal oxynitride layer, a metal-doped insulating layer, or a combination thereof (Huang: see [0058]),
but does not show
the conductive region includes an epitaxial semiconductor layer and a metal silicide layer interposed between the epitaxial semiconductor layer and the conductive plug, and
the conductive plug contacts the metal silicide layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches in Fig. 17B and related text
the conductive region includes an epitaxial semiconductor layer (86, see [0034]) and a metal silicide layer (98, see [0050]) interposed between the epitaxial semiconductor layer and the conductive plug (112, see [0051]), and
the conductive plug contacts the metal silicide layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Huang by having the conductive region includes an epitaxial semiconductor layer and a metal silicide layer interposed between the epitaxial semiconductor layer and the conductive plug, and the conductive plug contacts the metal silicide layer, as taught by Lin, in order to provide a commonly known FinFET structure for improved channel control and have silicided ohmic source/drain contact with decreased contact resistance.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang and Shibata as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Dewey et al. (US 20210091080; herein “Dewey”).
Regarding claim 12, Huang does not explicitly disclose
an upper insulating structure disposed on the insulating structure, the upper insulating structure having an upper contact hole formed therein overlapping the conductive plug in the first direction, the upper insulating structure extending along the first direction;
an upper local capping pattern having an outer sidewall in direct contact with an upper portion of an inner sidewall of the upper contact hole, and having a width in the second direction gradually increasing along the first direction with increasing distance from the substrate; and
an upper conductive plug passing through the upper local capping pattern and the upper contact hole along the first direction, having a lower sidewall in direct contact with the upper insulating structure and an upper sidewall in direct contact with the upper local capping pattern, and including a second metal.
In the same field of endeavor, Dewey teaches in Fig. 17 and related text am integrated circuit device comprising a second device layer have the same structure as the first device layer (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Haung by having a second device layer with the same structure as the first device layer in order to achieve a 3D CMOS IC structure enabling increased density of functional units on limited real estate of a chip (see [0002]). The limitations of the claim are therefore taught by lower device structure having the claimed limitations, as shown by Huang as modified, and the duplication of the device structure, as shown by Dewey.
Claim(s) 13, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Shibata and Lin.
Regarding claim 13, Huang in view of Shibata teaches all of the claimed limitations in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above. Huang further discloses the conductive region (107-3, see [0050]) is a source/drain region (107-3, see [0050]) disposed on a substrate.
Huang and Shibata do not explicitly disclose
the source/drain having a recess on an upper surface thereof;
a metal silicide layer disposed on the recess of the source/drain region, and including a first metal;
wherein the second metal is different from the first metal.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches in Fig. 17B and related text
the source/drain (86, see [0010]) having a recess on an upper surface thereof;
a metal silicide layer (98, see [0050]) disposed on the recess of the source/drain region, and including a first metal;
wherein the second metal (of 112, see [0051]) is different from the first metal (see [0050] and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Huang by having the source/drain having a recess on an upper surface, a metal silicide layer disposed on the recess of the source/drain region, and including a first metal, and wherein the second metal is different from the first metal, as taught by Lin, in order to provide a silicided ohmic contact with decreased contact resistance.
Regarding claim 15, Huang further discloses wherein the local capping pattern includes a silicon-containing insulating layer, a metal nitride layer, a metal oxynitride layer, a metal-doped insulating layer, or a combination thereof (see [0058]).
Regarding claim 17, Huang further discloses wherein the local capping pattern (405) includes a third metal that is different from the second metal (see [0058] and [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, Huang further discloses wherein the second metal is selected from molybdenum (Mo), copper (Cu), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), ruthenium (Ru), manganese (Mn), titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), aluminum (Al), and a combination thereof (see [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, Huang in view of Shibata teaches all of the claimed limitations in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above. Huang further discloses the conductive region (107-3, see [0050]) is a source/drain region (107-3, see [0050]) disposed on a substrate and the conductive plug (407, see [0055] and Fig. 1) is a source/drain contact structure electrically connected to the source/drain region.
Huang and Shibata do not explicitly disclose
a fin-type active region protruding from a substrate in a first direction normal to an upper surface of the substrate;
the source/drain region disposed in the fin-type active region;
a metal silicide layer in direct contact with an upper surface of the source/drain region;
a gate line extending from the fin-type active region in a second direction intersecting with the fin-type active region;
the source/drain contact structure is electrically connected to the source/drain region through the metal silicide layer; and
a gate contact structure passing through a second portion of the insulating structure in the first direction, and electrically connected to the gate line.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches in Fig. 17B and related text
a fin-type active region (52, see [0009]) protruding from a substrate (50) in a first direction normal to an upper surface of the substrate;
the source/drain region (86, see [0010]) disposed in the fin-type active region;
a metal silicide layer (98, see [0050]) in direct contact with an upper surface of the source/drain region;
a gate line (94, see [0010]) extending from the fin-type active region in a second direction intersecting with the fin-type active region;
the source/drain contact structure (112, see [0051]) is electrically connected to the source/drain region through the metal silicide layer; and
a gate contact structure (110, see [0049]) passing through a second portion of the insulating structure in the first direction, and electrically connected to the gate line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Huang by having a fin-type active region protruding from a substrate, the source/drain region disposed in the fin-type active region, a metal silicide layer in direct contact with an upper surface of the source/drain region, a gate line extending from the fin-type active region in a second direction intersecting with the fin-type active region, the source/drain contact structure is electrically connected to the source/drain region through the metal silicide layer, and a gate contact structure passing through a second portion of the insulating structure in the first direction, and electrically connected to the gate line, as taught by Lin, in order to provide a commonly known FinFET structure for improved channel control and have silicided ohmic source/drain contact with decreased contact resistance.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, Shibata, and Lin, as applied to claims 13 and 19 above, and in view of Hatazaki.
Regarding claim 14, the combined device of Huang, Shibata and Lin further shows the local capping pattern (Huang: 405) surrounds an upper end of the conductive plug, a first upper surface of the local capping pattern and a second upper surface of the conductive plug are both planar and extend in the same horizontal plane, but does not explicitly disclose the local capping pattern is concentrically disposed with the conductive plug.
In the same field of endeavor, Hatazaki teaches the remaining limitations in substantially the same manner and for the same reasons as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 20, the combined device of Huang, Shibata, and Lin further shows a first upper surface of the local capping pattern (Huang: 405) and a second upper surface of the conductive plug (Huang: 407) are both planar and extend in a plane normal to the first direction, the local capping pattern includes a silicon-containing insulating layer, a metal nitride layer, a metal oxynitride layer, a metal-doped insulating layer, or a combination thereof (Huang: see [0058]), and the conductive plug includes molybdenum (Mo) (Shibata: see [0022]),
but does not explicitly disclose
the local capping pattern is concentrically disposed with the conductive plug to surround an upper end of the conductive plug,
In the same field of endeavor, Hatazaki teaches the remaining limitations in substantially the same manner and for the same reasons as applied to claim 3 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented 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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights