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 Invention I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on October 27 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s additional election without traverse of Species 1b and Species 2a in the reply filed on January 21 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has cancelled claims 6, 12, and 19-20 which were drawn to a non-elected species and/or invention. Election was made without traverse in the replies filed October 27 2025 and January 21 2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-18, and 21-24 are examined. The Restriction/Election Requirement is made final.
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.
Claim 23 is 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 term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This language is indefinite as the specification does not describe what is required of conductive feature relative to the ILD to be considered “about 0.5 nm to 2 nm” higher. The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
(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.
Claims 9-11, 13, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (“Liu” US 2021/0066500).
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses a semiconductor device structure (Figure 23), comprising:
a first interlayer dielectric (ILD) (86) disposed over a substrate (50, see Figure 23);
a second ILD (108) disposed over the first ILD (86, see Figure 23);
an etch stop layer (96) disposed between and in contact with the first and second ILDs (86, 108, see Figure 23);
a first conductive feature (118, portion above the top surface of the first ILD 86, see Figure 23, see also annotated Figure 23 below) disposed in the second ILD (108, see Figure 23), the first conductive feature (top portion of 108 above the first ILD 86) comprising:
a first portion (portion above the etch stop layer 96) separated from the second ILD (108) by a first gap (portion of air gap 120 between the first portion of the first conductive feature and the second ILD 108); and
a second portion (portion below the top surface of the etch stop layer and above the first ILD 86) separated from the etch stop layer (96) by a second gap (portion of gap 120 between the second portion of the first conductive feature and the etch stop layer 96) less than the first gap (since the gap 120 has a tapered shape, narrowing in width from a top edge, the width of the second gap is less than a width of the first gap); and
a second conductive feature (second, lower portion of the conductive feature 118 below the etch stop layer 96) disposed in the first ILD (86, see Figure 23), the second conductive feature (portion of 118 below the etch stop layer 96) being in contact with the first conductive feature (top portion of 118, since the conductive feature portions of 118 are a part of the same conductive material, they are in physical contact).
Regarding claim 10, Liu further discloses a third ILD (122) disposed over the second ILD (108, see Figure 23),
wherein the first conductive feature (top portion of 118 above the first ILD 86) further comprises a third portion extending into the third ILD (122, see portion of 118 extending into the third ILD 122 in Figure 23).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses wherein the second conductive feature (portion of 118 below the etch stop layer 96) is separated from the first ILD (86) by a third gap (portion of gap 120 around the second conductive feature).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses wherein the third gap (portion of gap 120 around the second conductive feature ) is greater or less than the first gap (portion of gap 120 around the first conductive feature portion of 118, since the gap tapers and gets narrower from top to bottom, the third gap is less than the first gap, however, there is also a portion of the first gap that’s width is less than the third gap width, additionally, the longitudinal length of the third gap is greater than that of the first gap, see Figure 23).
Regarding claim 24, Liu discloses wherein the second gap (portion of gap 120 between the conductive feature 118) is less than the third gap (portion of gap 120 around the second conductive feature, here, the Examiner interprets the second gap to be less in longitudinal thickness/length that the third gap, see Figure 23).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al. (“Su” US 2022/0310441).
Regarding claim 21, Su discloses a semiconductor device structure (Figure 15A), comprising:
a first interlayer dielectric (ILD) (34) disposed over a substrate (24, see Figure 15A);
a second ILD (58) disposed over the first ILD (34, see Figure 15A);
an etch stop layer (56) disposed between and in contact with the first and second ILDs (34, 58, see Figure 15A);
a first conductive feature (72) being disposed in and separated from the second ILD (58) by a first air gap (74, see Figure 15A); and
a second conductive feature (50) being disposed in and separated from the first ILD (34) by a second air gap (52, see Figure 15A), and the second conductive feature (50) having a top in contact with a bottom of the first conductive feature (72, the second conductive feature 50 is in physical contact with the first conductive feature 72 through metal cap 54, see Figure 15A).
Regarding claim 22, Su discloses wherein the first air gap (74) is different in size than the second air gap (52, see para. [0048] which discloses that the width of the air spacer 52 may be different than the width of the air spacer 74, additionally, the Examiner also considers the gaps being different in size due to their different longitudinal lengths in Figure 15A).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Liu” US 2021/0066500) and Wang et al. (“Wang” US Patent No. 9,824,937).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a semiconductor device structure (Figure 23), comprising:
an epitaxial source/drain feature (82) disposed over a substrate (50, see Figure 23);
a first interlayer dielectric (ILD) (86) disposed over the epitaxial source/drain feature (82);
a second ILD (108) disposed over the first ILD (86, see Figure 23), the second ILD (108) comprises a first dopant species (germanium, from implantation process 124, see para. [0067]) having an atomic radius equal to or greater than silicon (germanium has an atomic radius greater than silicon, see para. [0067]);
a first conductive feature (118, portion above the top surface of the first ILD 86, see Figure 23, see also annotated Figure 23 below) disposed in the second ILD (108, see Figure 23); and
a second conductive feature (second, lower portion of the conductive feature 118 below the etch stop layer 96) disposed over the epitaxial source/drain feature (82), the second conductive feature (second, lower portion of the conductive feature 118 below the etch stop layer 96) extending through the first ILD (86) and in contact with the first conductive feature (top portion of 118, since the conductive feature portions of 118 are a part of the same conductive material, they are in physical contact).
Liu does not disclose a second dopant species having an atomic mass less than 15.
Wang discloses, however, a second dopant species having an atomic mass less than 15 (specifically, Wang discloses using helium, which has an atomic mass of under 15, as a dopant in an implantation process 240 for a dielectric material 150, where the second ILD is considered to be the top portion of 150 of Wang, see Figure 9 and col. 6, line 43 to col. 7 line 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the teachings of Liu to include the second dopant species for the purpose of modifying the characteristics of the dielectric layer such as etch rate or hardness according to the desired requirements of the dielectric layer (see Wang, col. 6, line 43 to col. 7 line 38).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses wherein the first dopant species (germanium, 124 of Liu) comprise germanium (Ge), argon (Ar), xenon (Xe), silicon (Si), arsenic (As), or the like, or a combination thereof (the dopant species comprises germanium).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses wherein the second dopant species (helium, implantation process 240) comprise helium (He), hydrogen (H), lithium (Li), beryllium (Be), or a combination thereof (the species comprises helium).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Liu and Wang discloses wherein the first dopant species (germanium, 124, Liu) are atomic species of germanium (Liu) and the second dopant species (helium, 240, Wang) are neutral radical species of helium (helium, see col. 6, line 43 to col. 7 line 38).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Liu and Wang discloses the first dopant species (germanium, 124, Liu) have a first depth (D1) in the second ILD (108 of Liu, D1 being between 0nm and 20nm) and the second dopant species (helium, 240, Wang) have a second depth in the second ILD (top portion of 150 of Wang), and the second depth is greater than the first depth (the depth of the helium implantation of Wang is ~1200 Angstroms, and the depth of the germanium of Liu is 0 to 20nm, which is 0 to 200 Angstroms, thus the second depth of Wang is greater than the first depth of Liu).
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses wherein the first ILD (lower portion of 150) comprises dopant species of helium (specifically, Wang discloses using helium as a dopant in an implantation process 240 for a dielectric material 150, thus the helium would also be implanted in the lower portion of 150 which is considered the first ILD, see Figure 9 and col. 6, line 43 to col. 7 line 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the teachings of Liu to include the helium also in the first ILD for the purpose of modifying the characteristics of the dielectric layer such as etch rate or hardness according to the desired requirements of the dielectric layer (see Wang, col. 6, line 43 to col. 7 line 38).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dolejsi et al. (“Dolejsi” US 2023/0307291).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses an etch stop layer (96) disposed between the first ILD and the second ILD (see Figure 23).
Liu does not disclose wherein the etch stop layer comprises dopant species of helium.
Dolejsi discloses, however, an etch stop layer (120) comprising a dopant species of helium (see para. [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Dolejsi into the teachings of Liu to include the dopant species of helium in the etch stop layer for the purpose of altering dielectric constant and etchability (Dolejsi, para. [0047]).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (“Wang” US Patent No. 9,824,937).
Regarding claim 14, Liu discloses wherein the second ILD (108) comprises a first dopant species (germanium, from implantation process 124, see para. [0067]) having an atomic radius equal to or greater than silicon (germanium has an atomic radius greater than silicon, see para. [0067])
Liu does not disclose a second dopant species having an atomic mass less than 15.
Wang discloses, however, a second dopant species having an atomic mass less than 15 (specifically, Wang discloses using helium, which has an atomic mass of under 15, as a dopant in an implantation process 240 for a dielectric material 150, see Figure 9 and col. 6, line 43 to col. 7 line 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the teachings of Liu to include the second dopant species for the purpose of modifying the characteristics of the dielectric layer such as etch rate or hardness according to the desired requirements of the dielectric layer (see Wang, col. 6, line 43 to col. 7 line 38).
Regarding claim 15, Liu discloses wherein the first dopant species (germanium, 124 of Liu) comprise germanium (Ge), argon (Ar), xenon (Xe), silicon (Si), arsenic (As), or the like, or a combination thereof (the dopant species comprises germanium).
Regarding claim 16, Wang discloses wherein the second dopant species (helium, implantation process 240) comprise helium (He), hydrogen (H), lithium (Li), beryllium (Be), or a combination thereof (the species comprises helium).
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Liu and Wang discloses wherein the first dopant species (germanium, 124, Liu) are atomic species of germanium (Liu) and the second dopant species (helium, 240, Wang) are neutral radical species of helium (helium, see col. 6, line 43 to col. 7 line 38).
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Liu and Wang discloses the first dopant species (germanium, 124, Liu) have a first depth (D1) in the second ILD (108 of Liu, D1 being between 0nm and 20nm) and the second dopant species (helium, 240, Wang) have a second depth in the second ILD (150 of Wang), and the second depth is greater than the first depth (the depth of the helium implantation of Wang is ~1200 Angstroms, and the depth of the germanium of Liu is 0 to 20nm, which is 0 to 200 Angstroms, thus the second depth of Wang is greater than the first depth of Liu).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (“Liu” US 2021/0066500).
Regarding claim 23, Liu discloses wherein a top surface of the third portion of the first conductive feature (top portion of 118 extending into the third ILD 122) is higher than a top surface of the second ILD (108, top surface of extended portion 130) by about 0.5 nm to about 2 nm (Figure 23 shows dimension D1, which denotes an implantation depth, but also clearly shows the amount of the conductive feature that extends above the top layer of the second ILD 108, which is between 0 and 20nm, see para. [0068], such as about 5nm, it is also clear that the distance the conductive feature extends above the second ILD extended portions 130 is about half the distance D1, thus is around 2.5nm, thus, the claimed range almost overlap).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art under routine optimization and experimentation to have the third portion of the first conductive feature higher than the top surface of the second ILD by about 0.5nm to about 2nm because “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Specifically, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the distance therebetween under routine experimentation/optimization because a certain distance n can be altered based on criteria such as, but not limited to, implantation species, depth, angle, etc., which causes the extended feature (130 of Liu) of the second ILD (108), which is for sealing the air gaps to prevent subsequently deposited material from entering the air gaps and potentially causing issues. Additionally, the extension of the conductive feature into the upper third ILD by a sufficient distance and the extended portions extending to a sufficient distance according to one having ordinary skill in the art would anchor the conductive feature due to the increased pressure contact, making the device more durable. For example, one having ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine during experimentation sufficient anchoring of the conductive feature and sealing of the airgaps by varying the distance between the upper surface of the second ILD’s extended portions and the top surface of the conductive feature. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal distance based on these criteria under routine optimization.
PNG
media_image1.png
339
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Genevieve G Bullard-Connor whose telephone number is (571)270-0609. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-5pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/Genevieve G Bullard-Connor/Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /DALE E PAGE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights