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
1. Applicant's election, with traverse, of Species II, of which claims 17-26 and 30-32 read upon in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
Applicant’s traversal arguments, in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made” with the reply “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 11/24/2025, see “In addition, as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.146, a reasonable number of species are permitted in a single application. The present application contains two species, which should be considered to be a reasonable number of species. Further, examination of both species together in one application would not place an undue burden on the Examiner. It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner's Election of Species Requirement is improper in view of the fact that a reasonable number of species are set forth in the present application, and such is permitted by Rule 146”, (remarks on page 2) have been fully considered. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments for the following reasons:
Firstly, Species I-III, as claimed, are independent or distinct because they have been disclosed in separate figures and different embodiments, and are characterized by mutually exclusive characteristics. Please see below:
Regarding Species I, II and III, are mutually exclusive with “depositing a first interlayer dielectric layer to embed a source/drain region; curing the first interlayer dielectric layer at a first temperature; removing a portion of the first interlayer dielectric layer; depositing a sacrificial dielectric layer on the first interlayer dielectric layer; curing the sacrificial dielectric layer at a second temperature substantially less than the first temperature; and removing the sacrificial dielectric layer” (as reference in at least Figs. 10A-10C; see [0043-0045, 0071]) in Species I, and, “depositing a first contact etch stop layer (CESL) over a source/drain region; depositing a first interlayer dielectric layer over the first CESL; removing a portion of the first interlayer dielectric layer and a portion of the first CESL to expose a portion of the source/drain region; forming a silicide layer on the portion of the source/drain region; depositing a second CESL on the silicide layer; and depositing a second interlayer dielectric layer on the second CESL” (as reference in at least Figs. 20A-23B; see [0058-0063]) in Species II, and, “depositing a first contact etch stop layer (CESL) over a source/drain region; depositing a first interlayer dielectric layer on the first CESL; recessing the first interlayer dielectric layer; depositing a sacrificial dielectric layer on the recessed first interlayer dielectric layer, wherein the first interlayer dielectric layer is denser than the sacrificial dielectric layer; and removing the sacrificial dielectric layer to expose a portion of the first CESL” (as reference in at least Figs. 11A-12B; see [0047-0048]) in Species III.
Secondly, there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reasons apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter as exemplified by the aforementioned mutually exclusive characteristics, while the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (different search strategies or search queries, as evidenced by the above-defined distinctions between the species) (see MPEP § 808.02) and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
This office action considers claims 13-32 pending for prosecution. The Applicant has elected Species II, of which the Applicant has stated that claims 17-26 and 30-32 read upon in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 11/24/2025. Thus, claims 13-16 and 27-31 have been withdrawn from consideration, and claims 17-26 and 30-32 have been presented for examination.
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.
2. Claims 17-20 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 17, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The method of claim 16, further comprising removing a portion of the first contact etch stop layer after removing the sacrificial dielectric layer, wherein a portion of the source/drain region is exposed” (Claim 17; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The method of claim 16, further comprising removing a portion of the first contact etch stop layer after removing the sacrificial dielectric layer, wherein a portion of the source/drain region is exposed” (Claim 17) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 17 depends on intervening claim 16 and parent claim 13, which have not been elected. Thus, it is not clear how to evaluate the limitations of elected claim 17. Therefore, the limitation of “The method of claim 16, further comprising removing a portion of the first contact etch stop layer after removing the sacrificial dielectric layer, wherein a portion of the source/drain region is exposed” (Claim 17) is indefinite and unclear.
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, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.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.
Regarding Claims 18-20, those are rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 17.
Regarding Claim 30, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “The method of claim 29, further comprising removing the exposed portion of the first CESL to expose a portion of the source/drain region” (Claim 30; emphasis added). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “The method of claim 29, further comprising removing the exposed portion of the first CESL to expose a portion of the source/drain region” (Claim 30) is ambiguous and unclear as claim 30 depends on parent claim 29, which has not been elected. Thus, it is not clear how to evaluate the limitations of elected claim 30. Therefore, the limitation of “The method of claim 29, further comprising removing the exposed portion of the first CESL to expose a portion of the source/drain region” (Claim 30) is indefinite and unclear.
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, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.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.
Regarding Claims 31-32, those are rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). 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.
3. Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20190164966 A1; hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches method for forming a semiconductor device structure (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0012+], and as cited below), comprising:
depositing a first contact etch stop layer (CESL) (610; Fig. 6; [0025]) over a source/drain region (520; Fig. 5; [0023]);
depositing a first interlayer dielectric layer (620; Fig. 6; [0026]) over the first CESL (610; Fig. 6; [0025]);
removing a portion of the first interlayer dielectric layer (620; Figs. 8A-8B; [0030]; first ILD 620 is partially removed from areas around structure 520) and a portion of the first CESL (610; Figs. 8A-8B; [0030]; portion of the first CESL 610 over structures 520 is removed) to expose a portion of the source/drain region (520; Figs. 8A-8B; [0030]);
forming a silicide layer (1020; Figs. 9-10; [0032]) on the portion of the source/drain region (520; [0032]);
depositing a second CESL (1410; Fig. 14; [0037]) on the silicide layer (1020; Figs. 9-13; [0032, 0036]; see [0036] where silicide layer 1020 forms into layer 1320); and
depositing a second interlayer dielectric layer (1420; Fig. 14; [0038]) on the second CESL (1410; Fig. 14; [0037]).
Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches all of the features of claim 21.
Wang further comprising forming a conductive contact (1520; Fig. 15; [0040]) through the second interlayer dielectric layer (1420; Fig. 14; [0039-0040]) and the second CESL (1410; Fig. 14; [0039-0040]).
Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches all of the features of claim 22.
Wang further teaches wherein the silicide layer (1020; Fig. 15 in view of Figs. 9-13; [0032, 0036]; see [0036] where silicide layer 1020 forms into layer 1320) has a dimension greater than a dimension of the conductive contact (1520; Fig. 15; [0040]).
Regarding claim 24, Wang teaches all of the features of claim 21.
Wang further teaches wherein top surfaces of the first CESL (610; Fig. 6; [0025]) and the first interlayer dielectric layer (620; Fig. 6; [0026]) are coplanar (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 25, Wang teaches all of the features of claim 24.
Wang further teaches wherein the silicide layer (1020; Figs. 9-10; [0032]) is formed on the first CESL (610; Fig. 6; [0025]).
Regarding claim 26, Wang teaches all of the features of claim 25.
Wang further teaches wherein the second CESL (1410; Fig. 14; [0037]) is deposited on the first interlayer dielectric layer (610; Figs. 8A-8B; [0030]; first ILD 620 is partially removed from areas around structure 520).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.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, 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 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). 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898