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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching (Pub. No.: US 2017/0141215) in view of Tung (Patent No.: US 10685873) and further in view of WEIMAN (Pub. No.: US 2007/0190362).
Re claim 1, Ching teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
preparing a conductive structure that includes a plurality of conductive features (48/50, Fig. 4B, ¶ [0024]), adjacent two of which are spaced apart from each other by a corresponding one of a plurality of recesses;
conformally forming a dielectric capping layer (58, Fig 5B, [0033]) on the conductive structure;
forming a dielectric cover layer (60) on the dielectric capping layer to fill the recesses;
wherein the dielectric material for forming the dielectric capping layer is a silicon-based dielectric material (“60 may comprise Phospho-Silicate Glass (PSG), Boro-Silicate Glass (BSG), Boron-Doped Phospho-Silicate Glass (BPSG)”, ¶ [0032]); and
removing a portion of the dielectric cover layer and a portion of the dielectric capping layer (Figs. 5B → 7B) to expose the conductive features, so as to form a plurality of spacer features respectively filled in the recesses;
Ching fails to teach wherein each of the dielectric capping layer and the dielectric cover layer is made of a dielectric material doped with metal oxide.
Tung teaches wherein the dielectric cover layer is made of a dielectric material doped with metal oxide (108/109, FIG. 11F, col. 9, lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of providing stronger etch-stop function as taught by Tung, col. 10, lines 15-24.
Moreover, after the combining of Ching and Tung would teach wherein each of the dielectric capping layer and the dielectric cover layer is made of a dielectric material doped with metal oxide.
Additionally, Ching/Tung fails to teach wherein a doping concentration of the metal oxide in the dielectric material for forming the dielectric capping layer falls within a range of from 0.5% to 10%.
WEIMAN teaches wherein a doping concentration of the metal oxide in the dielectric material for forming the dielectric capping layer falls within a range of from 0.5% to 10% (“the formed layer may contain about 5% to about 95% of titanium dioxide”, ¶ [0093], which is overlapping from 5% to 10%).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of reducing the intrinsic or extrinsic stress of the deposited layers as taught by WEIMAN, [0005].
Re claim 2, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric material for forming the dielectric capping layer is selected from SiO, SiCO, SiNO, SiCN, SiCON, or combinations thereof (108, col. 8, lines 40-45).
Re claim 3, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the metal oxide doped in the dielectric material for forming the dielectric capping layer is selected from AlOx, ZrOx, SnOx, PbOx, TiOx, WOx, CrOx, AsOx, or combinations thereof (109, FIG. 11F, col. 9, lines 58-67).
Re claim 5, Tung differs from the invention by not showing the method according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric material for forming the dielectric cover layer is SiCOH.
However, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
Re claim 6, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the metal oxide doped in the dielectric material for forming the dielectric cover layer is selected from AlOx, ZrOx, SnOx, PbOx, TiOx, WOx, CrOx, AsOx, or combinations thereof (109, FIG. 11F, col. 9, lines 58-67).
Re claim 7, in the combination, WEIMAN the method according to claim 1, wherein a doping concentration of the metal oxide in the dielectric material for forming the dielectric cover layer falls within a range of from 0.5% to 10% (“the formed layer may contain about 5% to about 95% of titanium dioxide”, ¶ [0093], which is overlapping from 5% to 10%).
Re claim 34, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric capping layer has a thickness that falls within a range of from 2 Å to 50 Å (“layer 109 may be deposited to a thickness ranging from 5 Å to 100 Å”, col. 10, lines 13-17).
Claim(s) 21-26 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (Pub. No.: US 2021/0343578) in view of Tung and further in view of WEIMAN.
Re claim 21, Chang teaches a method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
preparing a conductive structure that includes a plurality of conductive features (154, Fig. 11, ¶ [0030]), two adjacent ones of which are spaced apart from each other by a corresponding one of a plurality of recesses; and
forming a plurality of spacer features which are respectively filled in the recesses, and each of which includes a spacer element (210, Fig. 12, [0050]) that is disposed in a respective one of the recesses, and a spacer film (200, [0050]) that covers side and bottom surfaces of the spacer element;
wherein the dielectric material for forming the spacer elements of the spacer features is a silicon-based dielectric material (200/210, ¶ [0050]);
Chang fails to teach wherein each of the spacer films and the spacer elements of the spacer features is made of a dielectric material doped with metal oxide.
Tung teaches the spacer elements of the spacer features is made of a dielectric material doped with metal oxide (109, FIG. 11F, col. 9, lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of providing stronger etch-stop function as taught by Tung, col. 10, lines 15-24.
Moreover, after the combining of Chang and Tung would teach wherein each of the spacer films and the spacer elements of the spacer features is made of a dielectric material doped with metal oxide.
Additionally, Chang/Tung fails to teach wherein a doping concentration of the metal oxide in the dielectric material for forming the dielectric capping layer falls within a range of from 0.5% to 10%.
WEIMAN teaches wherein a doping concentration of the metal oxide in the dielectric material for forming the dielectric capping layer falls within a range of from 0.5% to 10% (“the formed layer may contain about 5% to about 95% of titanium dioxide”, ¶ [0093], which is overlapping from 5% to 10%).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of reducing the intrinsic or extrinsic stress of the deposited layers as taught by WEIMAN, [0005].
Re claim 22, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the dielectric material for forming the spacer films of the spacer features is selected from SiO, SiCO, SiNO, SiCN, SiCON, or combinations thereof (108, col. 8, lines 40-45).
Re claim 23, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the metal oxide doped in the dielectric material for forming the spacer films of the spacer features is selected from AlOx, ZrOx, SnOx, PbOx, TiOx, WOx, CrOx, AsOx, or combinations thereof (109, FIG. 11F, col. 9, lines 58-67).
Re claim 24, in the combination, WEIMAN teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein a doping concentration of the metal oxide in the dielectric material for forming the spacer films of the spacer features falls within a range of from 0.5% to 10% (“the formed layer may contain about 5% to about 95% of titanium dioxide”, ¶ [0093], which is overlapping from 5% to 10%).
In re claim 25, Tung differs from the invention by not showing wherein the dielectric material for forming the spacer elements of the spacer features is SiCOH.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include the above said teaching because copper is a very well-known material for making a contact since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416.
Re claim 26, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the metal oxide doped in the dielectric material for forming the spacer elements of the spacer features is selected from AlOx, ZrOx, SnOx, PbOx, TiOx, WOx, CrOx, AsOx, or combinations thereof (109, col. 9, lines 58-67).
Re claim 35, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 21, wherein the spacer films of the spacer features each have a thickness that falls within a range of from 2 Å to 50 Å (“layer 109 may be deposited to a thickness ranging from 5 Å to 100 Å”, col. 10, lines 13-17).
Claim(s) 28-30, 32-33 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tung in view of WEIMAN and further in view of Ching.
Re claim 28, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
depositing a conductive layer (106);
patterning the conductive layer to form a plurality of conductive features (106A/106B), two adjacent ones of which are spaced apart from each other by a corresponding one of a plurality of recesses (FIG. 11A); and
forming a plurality of spacer features (108/109) which are respectively filled in the recesses (130 of FIG. 11A), and each of which includes a spacer element that is disposed in a respective one of the recesses;
wherein the spacer elements of the spacer features are made of a dielectric material doped with metal oxide (109, FIG. 11F, col. 9, lines 58-67);
Tung fails to teach wherein a doping concentration of the metal oxide in the dielectric material for forming the dielectric capping layer falls within a range of from 0.5% to 10%.
WEIMAN teaches wherein a doping concentration of the metal oxide in the dielectric material for forming the dielectric capping layer falls within a range of from 0.5% to 10% (“the formed layer may contain about 5% to about 95% of titanium dioxide”, ¶ [0093], which is overlapping from 5% to 10%).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of reducing the intrinsic or extrinsic stress of the deposited layers as taught by WEIMAN, [0005].
Moreover, Tung fails to teach wherein the dielectric material for forming the spacer elements of the spacer features is a silicon-based dielectric material.
Ching teaches wherein the dielectric material for forming the spacer elements of the spacer features does not contain metal (58/60, FIGS. 5A/5B, ¶ [0032]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above said teaching for the purpose of decreasing parasitic capacitance within the device as taught by Ching, [0003].
Re claim 29, Tung differs from the invention by not showing the method according to claim 1, wherein the dielectric material for forming the spacer elements of the spacer features is SiCOH.
However, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.).
Re claim 30, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 28, wherein the metal oxide doped in the dielectric material for forming the spacer elements of the spacer features is selected from AlOx, ZrOx, SnOx, PbOx, TiOx, WOx, CrOx, AsOx, or combinations thereof (109, col. 9, lines 58-67).
Re claim 32, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 28, wherein:
each of the spacer features further includes a spacer film that covers side and bottom surfaces of the spacer element (108); and
the spacer films of the spacer features are made of a dielectric material doped with metal oxide (109, col. 9, lines 58-67).
Re claim 33, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 32, wherein the dielectric material for forming the spacer films of the spacer features is selected from SiO, SiCO, SiNO, SiCN, SiCON, or combinations thereof (108, col. 8, lines 40-45).
Re claim 36, in the combination, Tung, FIG. 11F teaches the method according to claim 32, wherein the spacer films of the spacer features each have a thickness that falls within a range of from 2 Å to 50 Å (“layer 109 may be deposited to a thickness ranging from 5 Å to 100 Å”, col. 10, lines 13-17).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-7, 21-26, 28-30 and 32-36 on the remarks filed on 06/08/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive because applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-5PM, 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, Britt Hanley can be reached at 571-270-3042. 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.
/TONY TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights