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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 13-17 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.
The claimed limitation of “a first dielectric layer 46 positioned on the substrate, the plurality of impurity regions and the word line structure”, as recited in claim 13, is unclear as to the structural relationship between the first dielectric layer positioned on the substrate and the plurality of impurity regions and the word line structure, recited in the same sentence.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taniguchi (2012/0086063) in view of Skotnicki et al. (2002/0163027).Regarding claim 1, Taniguchi teaches in figure 4B and related text a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate 5;
a first dielectric layer 46 positioned on the substrate a first contact 47A positioned on the substrate in the first dielectric layer, wherein a topmost surface of the first contact and a topmost surface of the first dielectric layer are coplanar;
a first assistance feature 47C comprising:
a bottom portion (the horizontal portion) positioned in the first contact; and
a capping portion (the horizontal portion) positioned on the bottom portion and covering the topmost surface of the first contact;
a second contact (another 47A, see figure 4A) positioned on the substrate in the first dielectric layer and separated from the first contact,
wherein a topmost surface of the second contact and the topmost surface of the first dielectric layer are coplanar; and
a second assistance (another 47C) feature positioned on the second contact and covering the topmost surface of the second contact;
wherein the bottom portion and the capping portion of the first assistance feature and the second assistance feature comprise germanium or silicon germanium.
Taniguchi does not teach that the bottom portion and the capping portion of the first assistance feature comprises germanium or silicon germanium.
Chen et al. teach in related text (see e.g. paragraph [0081]) a capacitor electrode can comprise germanium or silicon germanium.
Taniguchi and Chen et al. are analogous art because they are directed to conductive materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Taniguchi because they are from the same field of endeavor.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the bottom portion and the capping portion of the first assistance feature to comprise germanium or silicon germanium, as taught by Chen et al., in Taniguchi’s device, in order to improve the contact resistance of the device by using conventional conductive material.
Regarding the claimed limitations of using specific materials, it is noted that substitution of materials is not patentable even when the substitution is new and useful. Safetran Systems Corp. v. Federal Sign & Signal Corp. (DC NIII, 1981) 215 USPQ 979.
It is further held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 13, Taniguchi teaches in figure 4B and related text a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate 5;
a plurality of impurity regions 22 positioned in the substrate and separated from each other;
a word line structure 9 positioned between the plurality of impurity regions and positioned in the substrate;
a first dielectric layer 46 positioned on the substrate, the plurality of impurity regions and the word line structure;
a first contact 47A and a second contact (another 47A, see figure 4A) respectively and correspondingly positioned on the plurality of impurity regions, wherein the first contact is positioned in the first dielectric layer, wherein a topmost surface of the first contact and a topmost surface of the first dielectric layer are coplanar; and
a first assistance feature comprising:
a bottom portion 47C positioned in the first contact 47A; and
a capping portion (the horizontal part of element 47C) positioned on the bottom portion and covering the topmost surface of the first contact;
Taniguchi does not teach that the bottom portion and the capping portion of the first assistance feature comprises germanium or silicon germanium.
Chen et al. teach in related text (see e.g. paragraph [0081]) a capacitor electrode can comprise germanium or silicon germanium.
Taniguchi and Chen et al. are analogous art because they are directed to conductive materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Taniguchi because they are from the same field of endeavor.It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the bottom portion and the capping portion of the first assistance feature to comprise germanium or silicon germanium, as taught by Chen et al., in Taniguchi’s device, in order to improve the contact resistance of the device by using conventional conductive material.
Regarding the claimed limitations of using specific materials, it is noted that substitution of materials is not patentable even when the substitution is new and useful. Safetran Systems Corp. v. Federal Sign & Signal Corp. (DC NIII, 1981) 215 USPQ 979.
It is further held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Taniguchi teaches in figure 4B and related text that a thickness of the first contact 47A is varied along a direction perpendicular to a top surface of the substrate (the horizontal portion versus the vertical portion).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Taniguchi teaches in figure 4B and related text that a width of the first contact 47A is greater (at least part thereof) than a width of the second contact.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Taniguchi teaches in figure 4B and related text that the width of the first contact 47A (from left to right) is greater than two times a maximum the thickness (the bottom part) of the first contact.
Regarding claim 5, Taniguchi teaches in figure 4B and related text a recess inwardly positioned in the second contact; wherein the width of the second contact 47A (the width of one vertical part) is less than two times a thickness (the vertical part) of the second contact.
Regarding claim 6, prior art teaches that the first contact and the second contact comprise silicon and/or germanium with substantially no oxygen and nitrogen (since Chen et al. do not teach the presence of oxygen and nitrogen).
Regarding claim 7, Taniguchi teaches in figure 4B and related text that a width of the bottom portion at the topmost surface of the first contact 47A is greater than a width of the bottom portion at a bottom of the bottom portion.
Regarding claim 8, Taniguchi teaches in figure 4B and related text that the width of the bottom portion at the bottom of the bottom portion is greater than a width of the bottom portion at a first vertical level located above the bottom of the bottom portion.
Regarding claim 9, Taniguchi does not teach that a difference between a width of a bottom surface of the first contact and the width of the bottom portion at the bottom of the bottom portion is less than two times the thickness of the first contact.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the difference between a width of a bottom surface of the first contact and the width of the bottom portion at the bottom of the bottom portion is less than two times the thickness of the first contact, in Taniguchi’s device, in order to adjust the capacitor characteristics according to the requirements of the application in hand.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Taniguchi does not teach that the width of the first contact is greater than 60 nm, and the width of the second contact is less than 20 nm.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the width of the first contact greater than 60 nm, and the width of the second contact less than 20 nm, in Taniguchi’s device, in order to adjust the capacitor characteristics according to the requirements of the application in hand.
Regarding claim 11, Taniguchi teaches in figure 4B and related text that a thickness of the capping portion and a thickness of the second assistance feature (another 47C)
are substantially the same.
Regarding claim 12, Taniguchi does not teach that that a thickness of the capping portion and a thickness of the second assistance feature are different.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to form the thickness of the capping portion and the thickness of the second assistance feature to be different, in Taniguchi’s device, in order to simplify the processing steps of making the device by not planarizing the top surface of the capping portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORI NADAV whose telephone number is 571-272-1660. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
O.N. /ORI NADAV/
12/11/2025 PRIMARY EXAMINER
TECHNOLOGY CENTER 2800