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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 13 in the reply filed on 19 December 2025 is acknowledged.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lan et al. US 2024/0021708.
PNG
media_image1.png
765
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lan et al. US 2024/0021708.
Regarding claim 1, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
a backside power rail 246;
a transistor source/drain structure 138 that has a backside facing the backside power rail 246 and has a frontside facing away from the backside power rail 246; and
a via 224A disposed between and electrically connecting the backside power rail 246 and the source/drain structure 138, wherein the via 224A comprises:
a buried portion that is disposed between the backside power rail 246 and the backside of the transistor source/drain structure 138, wherein a part of the buried portion overlaps and contacts at least a part of the backside of the source/drain structure 138;
a side portion that is electrically connected with the buried portion and extends along a vertical side of the source/drain structure 138 between the frontside and the backside; and
a top portion that is electrically connected with the side portion and covers at least a part of the frontside of the source/drain structure 138.
Regarding claim 2, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the buried portion, the side portion, and the top portion all are electrically connected with the source/drain structure 138.
Regarding claim 3, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising a conductive liner [0095] that mechanically separates the side portion and the top portion from the source/drain structure 138 and electrically connects the via 224A to the source/drain structure 138.
Regarding claim 4, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 3, wherein the conductive liner [0095] mechanically separates and electrically connects the side portion and the buried portion.
Regarding claim 5, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 4, wherein the conductive liner [0095] comprises a conductive metal liner.
Regarding claim 6, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 5, wherein the conductive liner [0095] comprises titanium nitride.
Regarding claim 7, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the top portion extends across an entirety of the frontside of the source/drain structure 138.
Regarding claim 10, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the buried portion, the side portion, and the top portion wrap around part of the backside, the vertical side, and at least part of the frontside of the source/drain structure 138.
Regarding claim 11, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the via 224A comprises a metal selected from the list consisting of: tungsten, cobalt, and ruthenium [0094].
Regarding claim 13, Lan et al. in Figs. 2A-2T, [0012] and [0060]-[0105] discloses a method comprising:
providing a semiconductor structure that includes a backside power rail 246, a source/drain structure 138, and a via 224A, wherein the via 224A includes a buried portion that is disposed between the backside power rail 246 and a backside of the source/drain structure 138, a side portion that extends along a vertical side of the source/drain structure 138 from the buried portion to a frontside of the source/drain structure 138, and a top portion that extends across the frontside of the source/drain structure 138 from the side portion, wherein the buried portion of the via 224A overlaps and contacts at least a portion of the backside of the source/drain structure 138; and
delivering current from the backside power rail to the source/drain structure through the via 224A [0105].
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) 8, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the side portion has a smaller cross section than the buried portion and has a smaller cross section than the top portion.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 9, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 8, but does not expressly disclose wherein the top portion has a larger cross section than the buried portion.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Lan et al. in Fig. 2T (annotated above) and [0060]-[0105] discloses the device of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the via 246 is 100 to 150 nanometers tall from the buried portion to the top portion and is 20 to 30 nanometers wide at the buried portion. Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the relative dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, Jn re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(1V)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONYA D MCCALL-SHEPARD whose telephone number is (571)272-9801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 AM-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 at (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 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.
/Sonya McCall-Shepard/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898