DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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) 7 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) contains subject matter (i.e. “new 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Re claim 7, claim 1 has been amended to require “An apparatus comprising… a mask material…” and claim 7, dependent on claim 1, has been amended to require the limitation “the apparatus is an access line.” Claim 7 thus newly requires an access line to comprise a mask material. This is not supported by the originally-filed specification or claims. Rather, the access line 110 (see e.g. para 22 and Fig. 1A) may comprise 136 and 142 (see e.g. Fig. 1B). Rather than 110 comprising a mask material, para 23 makes it clear that the access line (sometimes called a “conductive structure”) is shown in Fig. 1A and Fig. 1B shows “an access line, with the addition of a mask material 150 thereto”. Thus, the originally-field specification makes a differentiation between access line (110 or 142/136) and the mask material (150), and does not support that the access line comprises the mask material. Thus, claim 7 contains new matter.
Claim Interpretation
The applicant is hereby notified that the examiner is treating claims 1-10 and 12-14 as "product-by-process” claims. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and also see MPEP 2113).
The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. (See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) and also see MPEP 2113).
Claims 1 and 8 each recite the limitation “the first/source drain region and the second source/drain region are formed before the first conductive material is formed.” This limitation is a process limitation, though the claims are directed to an apparatus. The limitation equates the timing of formation of (1) the first and second source/drain regions and of (2) the first conductive material. However, no other limitation in the claim equates (1) and (2) except requiring them to be “by” each other (“a first conductive material… in a trench formed by first… and second source/drain region”). Thus, (1) and (2) are not limited to be in physical contact, to have any specific relative orientations, or in any way that would impart any distinctive structural characteristic resulting from (1) being formed before (2).
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, claims 9-10 and 12-14 depend from claim 8, and the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend.
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. (See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Also note the use of 102/103 rejections for product-by-process claims has been approved by the courts. (See In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972), and also see MPEP 2113).
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 of this title, 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) 1-6, 8-10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0242206 A1 (“Lin”).
Lin teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
316
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
425
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lin teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
1. An apparatus (see e.g. Fig. 20C) comprising:
a first conductive material (e.g. 102 or 104) including a conductive metal nitride (each of 102 and 104 may be a conductive metal nitride, see para 28 and 29) formed in a trench (e.g. the space between one 52A/82 and an adjacent 52A/82 in e.g. Fig. 20C) formed by a first source/drain region 82 and a second source/drain region 82, wherein the first conductive material has a thickness of at least 0.5 nanometers (each of 102, 104, and 106 may be from 3-500 Angstroms, or 0.3-50 nm);
the first/source drain region and the second source/drain region are formed before the first conductive material is formed (see claim interpretation section, above);
a second conductive material (e.g. 104 or 106, depending on the interpretation of the first conductive material above; for example, if the 1st is 102, then the 2nd may be e.g. 104, 106, or 108, and if the 1st is 104, then the 2nd may be e.g. 106) including a conductive metal (each of 104 and 106 may be a metal, see para 29 and 37) formed in the trench formed by the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region (see e.g. Fig. 20C), wherein the second conductive material is disposed on a first surface of the first conductive material (see e.g. Fig. 20C); and
a mask material (e.g. 106 or 108; each may act as a “hard mask” for the materials underneath it, as it may be a different material than the materials underneath it, see para 37 and 39) formed on a top surface of the second conductive material (see e.g. Fig. 20C), wherein a top surface of the mask material is formed to a height that is less than a height of a top surface of the first source/drain region and a height of a top surface of the second source/drain region (see e.g. Fig. 20C).
Regarding the specific claimed thickness of “at least 0.5 nanometers” and the disclosed range of 0.3-50 nanometers: It has been held that when claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See, e.g., Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed.Cir. 1984); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Ornitz, 351 F.2d 1013, 147 USPQ 283 (CCPA 1965); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
It is clearly within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to discover the claimed range given the overlap of the claimed and disclosed range. It has been established that the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a width of the first conductive material at an interface between the first conductive material and the second conductive material is equal to the width of the second conductive material at the interface (e.g. the width of the bottom surface of 104 is the same as the width of the horizontal surface of 102 between 104, where 102 and 104 meet; e.g. the outermost width of 102 is the same as the outermost width of 106 at the portions where 102 and 106 meet).
3. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the conductive metal nitride further comprises titanium nitride (TiN), tantalum nitride (TaN), or a combination thereof (see e.g. para 28-29).
4. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the conductive metal nitride is TiN (while TiN is not explicitly disclosed, a “metal nitride” is disclosed, based on a list of metals like Ta, Cu, W, “or the like”, see e.g. para 28, 29, 37).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that TiN is “like” the disclosed materials such as “TaN” and “WN”, all being nitrides of transition metals, and Ta being next to W in the periodic table.
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conductive metal further comprises tungsten (W), titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), ruthenium (Ru), cobalt (Co), molybdenum (Mo), or any combination thereof (see e.g. para 29 and 37).
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conductive metal is Mo (while Mo is not explicitly disclosed, “metals” are disclosed, based on a list of metals such as Ta, Cu, W, “or the like”, see e.g. para 28, 29, 37).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
One of ordinary skill in the art understands that Mo is “like” the disclosed materials such as Cr, Ta, and W, being transition metals, and Cr, Mo, and W being in the same column of the periodic table.
8. An apparatus (see e.g. Fig. 20C) comprising:
a first conductive material (e.g. 102 or 104) including a conductive metal nitride (each of 102 and 104 may be a conductive metal nitride, see para 28 and 29) formed in a trench (e.g. the space between one 52A/82 and an adjacent 52A/82 in e.g. Fig. 20C) formed by a first source/drain region 82 and a second source/drain region 82,
wherein the first conductive material has a thickness of at least 0.5 nanometers extending in a vertical direction (each of 102, 104, and 106 may be from 3-500 Angstroms, or 0.3-50 nm; see e.g. Fig. 20C);
the first/source drain region and the second source/drain region are formed before the first conductive material is formed (see claim interpretation section, above);
a second conductive material (e.g. 104 or 106, depending on the interpretation of the first conductive material above; for example, if the 1st is 102, then the 2nd may be e.g. 104, 106, or 108, and if the 1st is 104, then the 2nd may be e.g. 106) including a conductive metal (each of 104 and 106 may be a metal, see para 29 and 37) formed in the trench formed by the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region (see e.g. Fig. 20C), wherein the second conductive material is disposed on a top surface of the first conductive material (see e.g. Fig. 20C), and
a mask material (e.g. 106 or 108; each may act as a “hard mask” for the materials underneath it, as it may be a different material than the materials underneath it, see para 37 and 39) formed on a top surface of the second conductive material (see e.g. Fig. 20C), wherein a top surface of the mask material is formed to a height that is less than a height of a top surface of the first source/drain region and a height of a top surface of the second source/drain region (see e.g. Fig. 20C).
Regarding the specific claimed thickness of “at least 0.5 nanometers” and the disclosed range of 0.3-50 nanometers: It has been held that when claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See, e.g., Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed.Cir. 1984); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Ornitz, 351 F.2d 1013, 147 USPQ 283 (CCPA 1965); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
It is clearly within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to discover the claimed range given the overlap of the claimed and disclosed range. It has been established that the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
9. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the thickness of the first conductive material is in a range from 0.5 nanometers to 90 nanometers (each of 102 and 104 may be from 3-500 Angstroms, or 0.3-50 nm), and wherein the thickness of second conductive material is in a range from 10 nanometers to 100 nanometers (each of 104 and 106 may be from 3-500 Angstroms, or 0.3-50 nm).
Regarding the specific claimed thickness: It has been held that when claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See, e.g., Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed.Cir. 1984); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Ornitz, 351 F.2d 1013, 147 USPQ 283 (CCPA 1965); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
It is clearly within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to discover the claimed range given the overlap of the claimed and disclosed range. It has been established that the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
10. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein a sum of the thickness of the first conductive material and the thickness of the second conductive material is at least 80 nanometers (each of 102, 104, and 106 may be from 3-500 Angstroms, or 0.3-50 nm, so the sum thereof may easily fall in the claimed range, especially if one of the first conductive material or the second conductive material is 102+104 or 104+106, so that all three layers are involved in the claim interpretation).
Regarding the specific claimed thickness: It has been held that when claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical. To overcome a prima facie case of obviousness, Applicant must show factual evidence that the particular range is critical or achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See, e.g., Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed.Cir. 1984); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Ornitz, 351 F.2d 1013, 147 USPQ 283 (CCPA 1965); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
It is clearly within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to discover the claimed range given the overlap of the claimed and disclosed range. It has been established that the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
12. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein a sum of the thickness of the first conductive material and the thickness of the second conductive material is equal a total thickness of the access line (see 112b rejection and claim interpretation section, above).
13. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein second conductive material is disposed only on the top surface of the first conductive material (see e.g. Fig. 20C).
14. The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the second conductive material is disposed on a plurality of surfaces of the first conductive material (see e.g. Fig. 20C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 15-20 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claim 15, including:
a conductive structure located between at least a portion of the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region, the conductive structure including:
a first conductive material including a conductive metal nitride formed in a trench formed by the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region,
wherein the first conductive material has a thickness of in a range from 0.5 nanometers to 90 nanometers extending in a vertical direction,
wherein the first conductive material is titanium nitride (TiN); and
a second conductive material including a conductive metal formed in the trench formed by the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region,
wherein the second conductive material is disposed on a top surface of the first conductive material and has a thickness in a range from 10 to 100 nanometers,
wherein a sum of the thickness of the first conductive material and the thickness of the second conductive material is in a range from 60 to 100 nanometers,
wherein the second conductive material is molybdenum (Mo); and
a mask material formed on a top surface of the second conductive material, wherein a top surface of the mask material is formed to a height that is less than a height of a top surface of the first source/drain region and a height of a top surface of the second source/drain region.
The other allowed claims each depend from one of these claims, and each is allowable for the same reasons as the claim from which it depends.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not teach the new limitation regarding the first and second source/drain regions being formed before the first conductive material is formed (see remarks, filed 12/29/25, page 9). However, see above, wherein this limitation is treated as a product-by-process limitation for these device/apparatus claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896