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 .
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 12-13, the limitation “a plurality of gates on a first side of the substrate and extending parallelly in a first horizontal direction, each gate is stripe-shaped, having a third length along the first horizontal direction, and having a third width along a second horizontal direction, less than the third length” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the third length and the third width of each gate defined in the first horizontal direction and the second horizontal direction.
Claim 1 and 12-13, the limitation “a plurality of first contacts each on a corresponding one of the plurality of gates and extending along the first horizontal direction, a first length of each first contact being less than the third length, a first width of each first contact in the second horizontal direction being less than the first length and less than the third width” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the first length and the first width of each first contact defined in the first horizontal direction and the second horizontal direction.
Claim 6, lines 2-3, the limitation “a first height of each first contact in a vertical direction is less than a second height of each second contact in the vertical direction” renders the claim indefinite because the figure 2 shown the second contact (16) is higher than the first contact (14).
Claim 7, the limitation “a cross section of each first contact in the second horizontal direction and the vertical direction is a trapezoid shape with a short base of the trapezoid shape in contact with the corresponding one of the plurality of gates; and a cross section of each first contact in the first horizontal direction and the vertical direction is a rectangle shape” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how to define which direction is the first or second horizontal direction. It is not clear how the horizontal directions are oriented such that they create a trapezoid shape or rectangle shape.
Claim 8, the limitation “a cross section of each second contact in the second horizontal direction and the vertical direction is a trapezoid shape with a short base of the trapezoid shape in contact with the substrate; and a cross section of each second contact in the first horizontal direction and the vertical direction is a rectangle shape” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how to define which direction is the first or second horizontal direction. It is not clear how the horizontal directions are oriented such that they create a trapezoid shape or rectangle shape.
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.
(a)(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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LAI et al [US 2017/0194211] previously applied.
With respect to claim 1, as best understood, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate (10, pp [0013]);
a plurality of gates (44, P40, pp [0013]; [0061]) on a first side of the substrate and extending parallelly in a first horizontal direction, wherein each gate is stripe-shaped and having a third length along a y direction (fig. 25), and having a third width along a x direction (fig. 25) less than the third length;
a plurality of first contacts (P100A, pp [0062]) each on a corresponding one of the plurality of gates (P40) and extending along the first horizontal direction, wherein each first contact (P100A) having a first length along a y direction (fig. 25) being less than the third length, and each first contact (P100A) having a first width along a x direction (fig. 25) less than the first length; and
a plurality of second contacts (P70, P105, pp [0061]) on the first side of the substrate, each second contact extends along the first horizontal direction, and is located between adjacent two first contacts and between two corresponding gates (P40).
With respect to claim 2, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose wherein: each second contact is in contact (P70, P105, pp [0061]) with a source region (25, pp [0013]) exposed on the first side the substrate between two adjacent gates; and the substrate further comprises a plurality of drain regions (25, pp [0013]) exposed on a second side of the substrate opposite to the first side.
With respect to claim 3, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose wherein the plurality of gates (44, P40, pp [0013]; [0061]) are equally separated from each other at an interval in the second horizontal direction.
With respect to claim 4, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose wherein: a projection of each first contact (P100A, pp [0062]) on the corresponding gate has a strip shape; and a projection of each second contact (P70, P105, pp [0061]) on the substrate has the strip shape.
With respect to claim 5, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose wherein: the first length of each first contact (P100A, pp [0062]) in the first horizontal direction is equal to a second length of each second contact (P105, pp [0061]) in the first horizontal direction; and the first width of each first contact in the second horizontal direction is equal to a second width of each second contact in the second horizontal direction.
With respect to claim 6, as best understood, LAI et al (fig. 24) disclose wherein: a first height of each first contact (100) in a vertical direction is higher than a second height of each second contact (105) in the vertical direction; and top surfaces of the plurality of first contacts are coplanar with top surfaces of the plurality of second contacts.
With respect to claim 11, LAI et al (fig. 24) disclose further comprising an interlayer dielectric layer (110, pp [0037]) covering the substrate and the plurality of gates, wherein the plurality of first contacts and the plurality of second contacts are embedded within the interlayer dielectric layer.
With respect to claim 13, as best understood, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose a method of fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
providing a substrate (10, pp [0013]) a plurality of source regions (25, pp [0013]) on a first side of the substrate and a plurality of drain regions (25, pp [0013]) on a second side of the substrate opposite to the first side;
forming a plurality of gates (44, P40, pp [0013]; [0061]) on a first side of the substrate between the plurality of source regions and extending parallelly in a first horizontal direction, each gate is stripe-shaped, and extending parallelly in a first horizontal direction, wherein each gate is stripe-shaped and having a third length along a y direction (fig. 25), and having a third width along a x direction (fig. 25) less than the third length;
forming a plurality of first contacts (P100A, pp [0062]) each on a corresponding one of the plurality of gates (P40) and extending along the first horizontal direction, wherein each first contact (P100A) having a first length along a y direction (fig. 25) being less than the third length, and each first contact (P100A) having a first width along a x direction (fig. 25) less than the first length; and
forming a plurality of second contacts (P70, P105, pp [0061]) on the first side of the substrate, each second contact extends along the first horizontal direction, and is located between adjacent two first contacts and between two corresponding gates (P40).
With respect to claim 15, LAI et al (fig. 24) disclose further comprising an interlayer dielectric layer (110, pp [0037]) covering the substrate and the plurality of gates, wherein the plurality of first contacts and the plurality of second contacts are formed to penetrate the interlayer dielectric layer.
With respect to claim 16, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose wherein: the plurality of gates (P40) are formed equally separated from each other at an interval in the second horizontal direction.
With respect to claim 17, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose wherein: the plurality of first contacts (P100A, pp [0062]) and the plurality of second contacts (P70, P105, pp [0061]) are formed in a same patterning process (pp [0057]-[0058]).
With respect to claim 18, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose further comprising: performing a chemical mechanical polishing process (p [0041]) to planarize top surfaces of the plurality of first contacts (100) and the plurality of second contacts (105).
With respect to claim 19, LAI et al (figs. 24-25) disclose wherein: the plurality of second contacts (105) are formed to have a second length in the first horizontal direction equal to the first length.
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.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAI et al [US 2017/0194211] previously applied.
LAI et al. do not teach the exact distance range, as claimed by Applicant. However, the distance range would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 7-8 as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAI et al [US 2017/0194211] previously applied, in view of HSU et al [US 2023/0064918].
LAI et al. do not teach wherein: a cross section of each first contact in the second horizontal direction and the vertical direction is a trapezoid shape with a short base of the trapezoid shape in contact with the corresponding one of the plurality of gates. However, HSU et al (fig. 5K) disclose in a cross section the contact (544A, pp [0059]) in the second horizontal direction and the vertical direction is a trapezoid shape. Moreover, the shape, size, dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LAI et al [US 2017/0194211] previously applied, in view of ZHANG et al [US 2020/0243498].
LAI et al do not teach further comprising at least one metal layer on the plurality of the first contacts and the plurality of the second contacts. However, ZHANG et al (fig. 20) disclose at least one metal layer (784, pp [0141]) on the plurality of the first contacts and the plurality of the second contacts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to combine the teaching of ZHANG et al into the device of LAI et al in order to provide electrically conductive paths to the memory die.
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 HOAI V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1715. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30a.m-10:00p.m.
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, Drew Richards can be reached at 571-271-1736. 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.
/HOAI V PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights