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
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/185,242 filed on 03/16/2023.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “a silicon oxide disposed on the substrate defining one or more features.” However, the specification does not define what is meant by “defining” in this context, nor does it clearly explain what the recited “features” are or how the silicon oxide structurally defines such features.
It is unclear whether the silicon oxide forms openings, sidewalls, patterned regions, or otherwise participates in creating the recited features. As a result, the scope of the silicon oxide layer and its relationship to the substrate and the bi-metallic silicide layer cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Because the manner in which the silicon oxide “defines one or more features” is unclear, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2013/0292703 to Horii et al. (Horii) in view of US Pub # 2006/0019471 to Choi.
Regarding independent claim 1, Horii discloses a semiconductor device (Fig. 15), comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 15: 10),
a silicon oxide (40 and ¶0042) disposed on the substrate defining one or more features (80);
a bi-metallic silicide layer (Fig. 14: 52d are alloyed by an alloying annealing step, see ¶0066) disposed on the substrate (10) in the one or more features (80), the bi- metallic silicide comprising a first metal (52a), a second metal (52b) different than the first metal (Ti), and a silicon (52c) containing compound, and
at least a first metal layer (52a) comprising the first metal (Ti) overlying the bi-metallic silicide layer (52d) (Fig. 15).
Horii fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bi-metallic silicide layer comprises greater than or about 0.8 E+14 per cm-2 second metal atoms.
Choi teaches (¶0032) examples of dosages of the metal ion include dosages from about 1x1010 atom/cm2 to approximately 1x1017 atom/cm2 at doping energies of from approximately 1 keV to 1000 keV. Thereby recognizing that the amount of a metal atoms in the bi-metallic silicide layer is a result-effective variable that affects properties such as silicide formation (¶0004), reducing a surface resistance and a contact resistance (¶0006).
Although Choi does not expressly disclose the bi-metallic silicide layer comprises greater than or about 0.8 E+14 per cm-2 second metal atoms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the second metal atoms, i.e., to optimize a result-effective variable, to achieve predictable improvements in silicide performance, such as improved phase stability, reduced sheet resistance, or improved contact reliability. Optimization of result-effective variables is ordinarily within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.02.
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed metal atoms greater than or about 0.8 E+14 per cm-2 or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Horri discloses the bi-metallic silicide layer (Fig. 15).
Horii fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bi-metallic silicide layer comprises greater than or about 3 E+14 per cm-2 second metal atoms.
Choi teaches (¶0032) examples of dosages of the metal ion include dosages from about 1x1010 atom/cm2 to approximately 1x1017 atom/cm2 at doping energies of from approximately 1 keV to 1000 keV. Thereby recognizing that the amount of second metal atoms in the bi-metallic silicide layer is a result-effective that affects properties such as silicide formation (¶0004), reducing a surface resistance and a contact resistance (¶0006).
Although Choi does not expressly disclose the bi-metallic silicide layer comprises greater than or about 3 E+14 per cm-2 second metal atoms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the second metal atoms, i.e., to optimize a result-effective variable, to achieve predictable improvements in silicide performance, such as improved phase stability, reduced sheet resistance, or improved contact reliability. Optimization of result-effective variables is ordinarily within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.02.
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed metal atoms greater than or about 3 E+14 per cm-2 or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Horii discloses a second metal layer (52b and ¶0063) comprising the second metal (Al) overlying the first metal layer (52a).
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2013/0292703 to Horii et al. (Horii) in view of US Pub # 2006/0019471 to Choi and further in view of US Pub # 2009/0001588 to Ranade.
Regarding claim 2, Horii and Choi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Horii and Choi fail to explicitly discloses wherein the semiconductor device exhibits a Schottky Barrier Height that is at least about 5% less than a Schottky Barrier Height in a semiconductor device that does not contain a bi-metallic silicide.
Ranade teaches that silicides formed from metals such as Pt and Ni exhibit relatively higher Schottky barrier heights, while silicides formed from metals such as Ta, Ti, and Er exhibit relatively lower Schottky barrier heights, and further teaches that silicides having different barrier height characteristics may be used in conjunction (¶0016).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the bi-metallic silicide of Horii and Choi using a combination of a higher-barrier metal silicide and a lower-barrier metal silicide, as taught by Ranade, with a reasonable expectation that the resulting semiconductor device would exhibit a reduced Schottky barrier height compared to a device that does not include the bi-metallic silicide.
The claimed limitation that the Schottky barrier height is at least about 5% less represents a predictable and expected degree of reduction resulting from the known difference in barrier heights of the constituent silicides. Selection of a particular degree of reduction would have been a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, namely Schottky barrier height. See MPEP §2144.05.
Further, the specification does not demonstrate that a reduction of “at least about 5%” is critical or produces unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Horii and Choi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Horii and Choi fail to explicitly discloses wherein the semiconductor device exhibits a Schottky Barrier Height of less than 0.55 eV.
Ranade teaches that silicides formed from metals such as Pt and Ni exhibit relatively higher Schottky barrier heights, while silicides formed from metals such as Ta, Ti, and Er exhibit relatively lower Schottky barrier heights, and further teaches that silicides having different barrier height characteristics may be used in conjunction (¶0016).
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the bi-metallic silicide of Horii and Choi using a combination of a higher-barrier metal silicide and a lower-barrier metal silicide, as taught by Ranade, with a reasonable expectation that the resulting semiconductor device would exhibit a reduced Schottky barrier height compared to a device that does not include the bi-metallic silicide.
The claimed limitation that the Schottky barrier height of less than 0.55 eV represents a predictable and expected degree of reduction resulting from the known difference in barrier heights of the constituent silicides. Selection of a particular degree of reduction would have been a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable, namely Schottky barrier height. See MPEP §2144.05.
Further, the specification does not demonstrate that a reduction of “at least about 5%” is critical or produces unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen dimension or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Horii and Choi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Horii and Choi fail to explicitly discloses wherein the bi-metallic silicide layer is disposed in a p-MOS region.
Ranade discloses wherein the bi-metallic silicide layer is disposed in a p-MOS region.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modify the structure of a MOSFET of Horri to include a p-MOS region as taught by Ranade in order to the performance of one type of semiconductor device while reducing the performance of another type of semiconductor device (¶0008).
Regarding claim 10, Horii and Choi disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Horii and Choi fail to explicitly discloses wherein the bi-metallic silicide layer is disposed in a n-MOS region.
Ranade discloses wherein the bi-metallic silicide layer is disposed in a n-MOS region.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modify the structure of a MOSFET of Horri to include a n-MOS region as taught by Ranade in order to the performance of one type of semiconductor device while reducing the performance of another type of semiconductor device (¶0008).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub # 2013/0292703 to Horii et al. (Horii) in view of US Pub # 2006/0019471 to Choi and further in view of US Pub # 2011/0227028 to Sekar et al. (Sekar).
Regarding claim 6, Horii and Choi as previously modified teaches:
The semiconductor device of claim 4 (see the rejection of claim 4 above),
Horii and Choi fail to explicitly discloses wherein the second metal is titanium, zirconium, nickel, molybdenum, or a combination thereof.
Even though Horii and Choi are silent as to the metal selected to act as the second metal such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to seek exemplary metals known in the art. Sekar teaches it was known in the art to use molybdenum for a MIM stack (¶53 and Fig. 2E) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected molybdenum for the undisclosed metal as mere selection of an art recognized metal suitable for the intended use of Horii and Choi (MPEP §2144.07).
Regarding claim 7, Horri discloses wherein the first metal is titanium, zirconium, nickel, molybdenum, or a combination thereof (¶0063).
Regarding claim 8, Horii and Choi as previously modified teaches:
The semiconductor device of claim 7 (see the rejection of claim 6 above),
Horii and Choi fail to explicitly discloses wherein the first metal is molybdenum, the second metal is titanium, and the bi-metallic silicide is a molybdenum(titanium)-silicide.
Even though Horii and Choi are silent as to the metal selected to act as the first metal and second metal and bi-metallic silicide such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to seek exemplary metals known in the art. Sekar teaches it was known in the art to use molybdenum, titanium for a MIM stack (¶53 and Fig. 2E) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected molybdenum and titanium for the undisclosed metal as mere selection of an art recognized metal suitable for the intended use of Horii and Choi (MPEP §2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat # 6,268,290 to Taguchi et al., US Pat # 9,691,870 to Ushijima et al., US Pat# 6,812,123 to Matsumoto et al., US Pat # 5108951 to Chen et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHSEN AHMADI whose telephone number is (571)272-5062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William F Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MOHSEN AHMADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896