Attorney’s Docket Number: 2019-3506/24061.4118US03
Filing Date: 01/03/2023
Continuity Data: RCE filed on 06/22/2016
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 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 06/22/2016.
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's amendment filed on 06/22/2016 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 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 102, and 35 U.S.C. 103, as previously formulated in the Final Office action mailed on 04/01/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments have raised new issues and the prior indicated allowability of some claims has been reconsidered. Accordingly, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
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 1-9 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., epi source feature 40C) and a drain feature (e.g., epi drain feature 40B) disposed over a substrate (e.g., substrate 12)
- a source via (e.g., vias Vs 70C) electrically coupled to the source feature
- a drain via (e.g., via Vd 70B) electrically coupled to the drain feature
- a source via metal line disposed over and directly connected to the source via (e.g., M1 conductive line 80A)
- a drain via metal line disposed over and directly connected to the drain via (e.g., M1 conductive line 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, the two first outer edges are both aligned with corresponding outer edges of the source via along the first direction (see, e.g., Figs. 1A and 1C: 70C aligned with 80A edges), and the two second outer edges are both laterally offset from corresponding outer edges of the drain via along the first direction (see, e.g., Figs. 1A and 1B: 70B offset from 80E edges)
Regarding Claim 2, Liaw (see, e.g., Fig. 1C) shows:
- a source contact (e.g., source contact Cs 60C) between the source via and the source feature
- a drain contact (e.g., drain contact Cd 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 (e.g., X1/X2=3:1).
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 and 1D: 70E offset from 80D edges).
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., M1 conductive line 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., M1 conductive line 80A) 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 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US2019/0096909) in view of Liaw (US2019/0067131).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen (see, e.g., Figs. 3 and 5-6) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a semiconductor device (e.g., device 500), comprising:
- source features (see, e.g., Par. [0021]: source terminals of transistors 210x/510x) and drain features disposed over a substrate (see, e.g., Par. [0023]: drain terminals of transistors 210x/510x)
- source contacts and drain contacts (e.g., source/drain contacts 310) disposed over the source features and drain features, respectively
- source vias (e.g., via 312) disposed over the source contacts, wherein the source vias and the source contacts have first contact surface areas
- drain vias (e.g., via 330) disposed over the drain contacts, wherein the drain vias and the drain contacts have second contact surface areas
- a source via metal line (e.g., reference metal line 315 such as ground 140) having a width along a first direction, the source via metal line contacting multiple source vias by extending lengthwise along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (see, e.g., Fig. 6: contacting 3 vias 312 along the length of 315/140)
- a drain via metal line (e.g., interconnect structure 332) having a width along the first direction, the drain via metal line contacting multiple drain vias by extending lengthwise along the second direction (see, e.g., Fig. 6: contacting 2 vias 330 along the length of 332).
Furthermore, while Chen (see, e.g., Figs. 3 and 6) seems to depict that source vias 312 have a larger footprint than drain vias 330, he does not explicitly disclose that each of the first contact surface areas is greater than each of the second contact surface areas. Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-D and Par. [0043]), on the other hand and in the same field of endeavor teaches that forming source node vias having a greater via dimension ratio than the drain node vias increases a contact area between the source node vias 70C-D and source contacts 60C-D and minimizes a contact area between the drain node vias 70A-B and drain contacts 60A-B, thus beneficially decreasing a contact resistance exhibited by the source node vias while decreasing a capacitance on the drain node vias, for improved device currents and speed.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have each of the first contact surface areas being greater than each of the second contact surface areas in the structure of Chen, as taught by Liaw, to beneficially decrease a contact resistance exhibited by the source node vias while decreasing a capacitance on the drain node vias, for improved device currents and speed.
Regarding Claim 11, Chen (see, e.g., Figs. 3 and 5-6) shows that the width of the source via metal line (e.g., 315/140) is greater than the width of the drain via metal line (e.g., 332).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen (see, e.g., Figs. 3 and 6) depicts that 315/140 is wider than 332. Therefore, Chen shows that a ratio between the width of the source via metal line (e.g., 315/140) to the width of the drain via metal line (e.g., 332) is between 1 to 30.
Regarding Claim 13, Liaw (see, e.g., Figs. 1A-D and Par. [0043]) teaches that each of the source vias have a greater length than each of the drain vias along the first direction (e.g., X1 vs. X2 along X), and each of the source vias have about the same width as each of the drain vias along the second direction (e.g., Y1 vs. Y2 along Y).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowable.
Claims 14-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights