Attorney’s Docket Number: 2019-3506/24061.4118US03
Filing Date: 01/03/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 07/26/2022 (CON of 17/873,782 now PAT 12,154,856)
10/29/2020 (DIV of 17/083,976 now PAT 11,545,432)
Applicants: Tsai et al.
Examiner: Younes Boulghassoul
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the Supplemental Amendment filed on 01/05/2026.
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgment
The Supplemental Amendment filed on 01/05/2026, responding to the Office action mailed on 08/05/2025, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-20.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections and the respective claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103, as previously formulated in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 08/05/2025. Accordingly, all previous claim objections and claim rejections are hereby withdrawn.
However, Applicant’s amendments have raised new issues, and some of the previously presented prior art remains relevant. Accordingly, new grounds of rejections are presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
- L. 11: amend to -- top portion of the source feature--
- L. 12: amend to -- top portion of the source contact--
- L. 13: amend to -- top portion of the source via--
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 6 and 18-20 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.
Claim 6 has been amended to recite the limitation “wherein the source via has about the same width as the drain via along a first direction perpendicular to the first direction.” at L. 2-3. The limitation is non-sensical thus renders the scope of the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will construe the claim as reciting -- wherein the source via has about the same width as the drain via along view of the specification and the instant amendments to claim 1, until further clarifications are provided by applicant.
Claim 18 has been amended to recite the limitations “wherein along a first direction, a top portion of the source contact extends beyond an outer edge of a top portion the source feature, a top portion of the source via extends beyond an outer edge of a top portion the source contact, and a top portion of the source via metal line extends beyond an outer edge of a top portion the source via.” at L. 10-13. It if unclear if the multiple recitations of “a top portion of the source contact” and “a top portion the source via” are respectively directed to a same or different features, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will construe the claim as reciting -- wherein along a first direction, a top portion of the source contact extends beyond an outer edge of a top portion of the source feature, a top portion of the source via extends beyond an outer edge of the top portion of the source contact, and a top portion of the source via metal line extends beyond an outer edge of the top portion of the source via.--, as best understood by the examiner in view of the specification, until further clarifications are provided by applicant.
Claims 19 and 20 depend from claim 18 thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
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 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)(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 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US2020/0044071).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang (see, e.g., Figs. 5M-N, 6M-N and Par. [0052]-[0054]) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device, comprising:
- a source feature (e.g., source region 220a,214a) and a drain feature (e.g., drain region 220b,214b) disposed over a substrate (e.g., substrate 200a)
- a source via (e.g., conductive via 700a) electrically coupled to the source feature
- a drain via (e.g., conductive via 700b) electrically coupled to the drain feature
- a source via metal line disposed over and directly connected to the source via (e.g., portion of routing pattern 800 in direct contact with 700a)
- a drain via metal line disposed over and directly connected to the drain via (e.g., portion of routing pattern 800 in direct contact with 700b)
- wherein the source via metal line has two first outer edges extending lengthwise along a first direction (e.g., direction D2), wherein the drain via metal line has two second outer edges extending lengthwise along the first direction, wherein from a top view and along a second direction (e.g., direction D1) different from the first direction, a first lateral offset between an outer edge of the source via and one of the first outer edges is smaller than a second lateral offset between outer edges of the drain via and corresponding outer edges of the second outer edges (see, e.g., Fig. Figs. 5N and 6N along cut III-III’/D1: offset between edges of 700a and 800 is smaller than offset between edges of 700b and 800).
Regarding Claim 6, Huang (see, e.g., Figs. 5M and 6M) shows that the source via has a greater length than the drain via along the second direction (e.g., W700a greater than W700b along D1), wherein the source via has about the same width as the drain via along the first direction (e.g., 700a and 700b have about a same dimension along D2).
Regarding Claim 7, Huang (see, e.g., Figs. 5M-5N) shows:
- a gate structure (e.g., gate stack 216) extending over the substrate along the second direction (e.g., D1)
- a gate via (e.g., gate contact 700c) electrically coupled to the gate structure
- a gate metal line disposed over and directly connected to the gate via (e.g., portion of routing pattern 800 in direct contact with 700c)
- wherein the gate metal line has outer edges extending lengthwise along the first direction and the outer edges of the gate metal line are offset from edges of the gate via from a top view (e.g., edges of 800 offset from 700c along D2).
Regarding Claim 8, Huang (see, e.g., Figs. 5M-5N) depicts that routing pattern 800 in direct contact with 700b, and the routing pattern 800 in direct contact with 700c have substantially the same dimension along D1. Therefore, Huang also shows that the gate metal line and the drain via metal line have a same width along the second direction.
Regarding Claim 9, Huang (see, e.g., Figs. 5M-5N) depict that the routing pattern 800 in direct contact with 700c has a dimension along D1 that is smaller than the routing pattern 800 in direct contact with 700a. Therefore, Huang also shows that the gate metal line has a first metal line width along the second direction, the source via metal line has a second metal line width along the second direction (e.g., W700a), and the second metal line width is greater than the first metal line width.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liaw (US2019/0067131).
Regarding Claim 1, Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-D and Par. [0043]) shows all aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device, comprising:
- a source feature (e.g., one of epi source features 40C,40D) and a drain feature (e.g., one of epi drain features 40A,40B) disposed over a substrate (e.g., substrate 12)
- a source via (e.g., one of vias Vs 70C,70D) electrically coupled to the source feature
- a drain via (e.g., one of vias Vd 70A,70B) electrically coupled to the drain feature
- a source via metal line disposed over and directly connected to the source via (e.g., one of M1 conductive lines 80A,80F)
- a drain via metal line disposed over and directly connected to the drain via (e.g., one of M1 conductive lines 80B,80E)
- wherein the source via metal line has two first outer edges extending lengthwise along a first direction (e.g., direction Y), wherein the drain via metal line has two second outer edges extending lengthwise along the first direction, wherein from a top view and along a second direction (e.g., direction X) different from the first direction, a first lateral offset between an outer edge of the source via and one of the first outer edges is smaller than a second lateral offset between outer edges of the drain via and corresponding outer edges of the second outer edges (see, e.g., Fig. Figs. 1B vs. 1C: conductive lines 80A,80F have at least one outer edge that is aligned with an underlying top edge of 70C,70D, while conductive lines 80B,80E have outer edges that are offset from underlying top edges of 70A,70B).
Regarding Claim 2, Liaw (see, e.g., Fig. 1C) shows:
- a source contact (e.g., one of source contacts Cs 60C,60D) between the source via and the source feature
- a drain contact (e.g., one of drain contacts Cd 60A,60B) between the drain via and the drain feature
- wherein at least one sidewall of the source via extends past a sidewall of the source contact along the second direction (e.g., top portion of Vs sidewall vs. bottom portion of Cs sidewall along X)
Regarding Claim 3, Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-D) shows that the source via (e.g., Vs) and the source contact (e.g., Cs) have a first contact surface area, the drain via (e.g., Vd) and the drain contact (e.g., Cd) has a second contact surface area, and the first contact surface area is greater than the second contact surface area.
Regarding Claim 4, Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-D and Par. [0043]) shows that the source via has a first length along the second direction (e.g., X1 of Vs between 15-150nm), the drain via has a second length along the second direction (e.g., X2 of Vd between 5-40nm), and a ratio of the first dimension to the second dimension is about 1.1:1 to about 12:1.
Regarding Claim 5, Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-D and Par. [0043]) shows that the first length is in a range between about 3 nm and about 300 nm (e.g., X1 between 15-150nm), and the second length is in a range between about 3 nm and about 60 nm (e.g., X2 between 5-40nm).
Regarding Claim 6, Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-D and Par. [0043]) shows that the source via has a greater length than the drain via along the second direction (e.g., X1 vs. X2 along X), wherein the source via has about the same width as the drain via along the first direction (e.g., Y1 vs. Y2 along Y).
Regarding Claim 7, Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-D) shows:
- a gate structure (e.g., gate structure 30A) extending over the substrate along the second direction
- a gate via (e.g., via VG 70E) electrically coupled to the gate structure
- a gate metal line (e.g., M1 conductive line 80D) disposed over and directly connected to the gate via
- wherein the gate metal line has outer edges extending lengthwise along the first direction and the outer edges of the gate metal line are offset from edges of the gate via from a top view (see, e.g., Figs. 1A,D).
Regarding Claim 8, Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1B,D) shows that the gate metal line (e.g., M1 conductive line 80D) and the drain via metal line (e.g., one of M1 conductive lines 80B,80E) have a same width along the second direction.
Regarding Claim 9, Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1C,D) shows that the gate metal line (e.g., M1 conductive line 80D) has a first metal line width along the second direction, the source via metal line (e.g., one of M1 conductive lines 80A,80F) has a second metal line width along the second direction, and the second metal line width is greater than the first metal line width.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US2020/0044071).
Regarding Claim 4, Huang (see, e.g., Figs. 5M and 6M and Par. [0052]) depicts an embodiment wherein a layout area of the first conductive via 700a is larger than a layout area of the second conductive via 700b, such that the first conductive via 700a connected to the source is larger than the second conductive via 700b connected to the drain, to provide larger surface area for electrical connection. Additionally, the source via 700a is depicted as having a first dimension along D1 that is about 2-3 times that of drain via 700b along D1.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the source via having a first length along the second direction, the drain via having a second length along the second direction, and a ratio of the first length to the second length being about 1.1:1 to about 12:1, in the structure of Huang, because Huang teaches that the source via can be designed to be larger than the drain via to provide a larger surface area for electrical connection, wherein a ratio of the first dimension to the second dimension to be about 2:1 to 3:1, and the court has held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, Huang teaches that the source via (e.g., 700a) has a first length along the second direction (e.g., W700a), the drain via (e.g., 700b) has a second length along the second direction (e.g., W700b), and a ratio of the first length to the second length is about 1.1:1 to about 12:1.
Regarding Claim 5, Huang (see, e.g., Figs. 5M-N, 6M-N and Par. [0055]) discloses that conductive vias 700a and 700b are designed with dimensions such that electrical connections between source/drain regions 214a/b and routing patterns 800 may be achieved without the need of an interconnect metal layer, thereby reducing the manufacturing cost of FET 10, and eliminating the parasitic capacitance between the interconnect metal layer and the gate stack. As such, Huang recognizes the dimensions of conductive vias 700a and 700b as result effective variables.
Therefore, with respect to the specific first and second length ranges claimed by applicant (i.e., between about 3 nm and about 300 nm, and between about 3 nm and about 60 nm, respectively), said length ranges are only considered to be the “optimum” length ranges disclosed by Huang that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to obtain using routine experimentation based, among other things, on layout constraints for connecting source/drain regions to routing patterns, etc. (see In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as source/drain vias are implemented with lengths enabling the omission of an interconnect metal layer, as already suggested by Huang himself.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-17 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims filed on 01/05/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 Younes Boulghassoul whose telephone number is (571) 270-5514. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST. 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571) 272-1705. 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.
/YOUNES BOULGHASSOUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814