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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/ Restrictions
Applicant's election of group II: claims 10-20, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 11/04/2025”, withdrawal of non-elected claim(s) 1-9 is/are acknowledged. This office action considers claims 1-20, in “Claims - 11/04/2025”, pending for prosecution, of which claim(s) 1-9 is/are withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation of " a first gate contact, a first source/drain contact, and a second source/drain contact in the ILD layer, and in electrical contact with the back-end-of-line metallization layer; " in claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 (d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 11-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites:
“wherein at least a portion of the full wrap-around contact is a metal-silicide layer on the sidewalls of a section of the source/drain”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“wherein at least a portion of the full wrap-around contact is a metal-silicide layer on a sidewalls of a section of the source/drain”.
Claims 12-16 depend from claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) 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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as lacking enablement.
Claim 17 recites “a first gate contact, a first source/drain contact, and a second source/drain contact in the ILD layer, and in electrical contact with the back-end-of-line metallization layer”. The power connection device in claim 17, in essence, states that a gate, a first source/drain and a second source/drain are electrically connected – that is shorted. The examiner argues the application doesn't teach someone skilled in the art how to make or use the invention, making it inoperable as claimed.
Claims 18-20 depend from claim 17.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claim 1, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP 2173.06 II (second) wherein 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 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) that forms the basis for the rejection set forth in this Office action:
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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;
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller et al. (US 20220190161 A1 – hereinafter Miller).
Regarding Claim 10, Miller teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document; Fig. 14; specifically, ([0070]-[0071]), and as cited below), comprising:
a source/drain (32P – Fig. 14A-B – [0070]) having a height, a length, and a width (Fig. 14A-B); and
a full wrap-around contact (46 – [0070]) surrounding at least a partial length of the source/drain (that is, 46 surrounds 32P), wherein the full wrap-around contact includes a partial front-side wrap-around contact from a front side of a substrate and a partial back-side wrap-around contact from a back side of the substrate (that is, 46 surrounds 32P at least from front (left) and back (right) sides of substrate 24 as shown in Fig. 14).
Regarding Claim 11, Miller teaches the semiconductor device of claim 10, wherein at least a portion of the full wrap-around contact is a metal-silicide layer on the sidewalls of a section of the source/drain ([0071] – “A wrap-around metal silicide liner (the silicide portion of conformal metal layer 46)”).
Regarding Claim 12, Miller teaches the semiconductor device of claim11, wherein the metal-silicide layer does not separate the partial back-side wrap-around contact from the source/drain (since the silicide is part of layer 46).
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Chang et al. (US 20240079465 A1 - hereinafter Chang).
Regarding Claim 13, Miller teaches claim 12 from which claim 13 depends. But, Miller does not expressly disclose wherein a portion of the metal- silicide layer separates the partial front-side wrap-around contact from the source/drain.
However, it is well known in the art to have a metal-silicide not to cover fully and completely a source/drain region as is also taught by Cheng (Cheng teaches in Fig. 17 that the silicide layer 238 only covers partially the source/drain {220b/220a} – [0025], [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming of a silicide layer not covering fully the source/drain region as taught by Cheng into Miller.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Cheng structure into Miller structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for the obvious of reducing parasitic resistance and lowering contact resistance.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Miller and Cheng teaches the semiconductor device of claim 13, further comprising one or more semiconductor nanosheet layers adjoining a face of the source/drain formed by the height and width (Miller teaches nanosheets 21 adjoining the source/drain – [0047]).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Miller and Cheng teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14, wherein a portion of the partial back-side wrap-around contact has a length greater than the length of the source/drain (Miller teaches in Fig. 14A portion of 46 having a length greater than the length of 32P).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Miller and Cheng teaches the semiconductor device of claim15, further comprising a gate structure (Miller in Fig. 14B – 28 – [0071]) on the one or more semiconductor nanosheet layers (21), and a dielectric insulating layer (44 – [0070]) separating the gate structure (28) from the portion of the partial back-side wrap-around contact (46) extending beyond the length of the source/drain (32P).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898