Attorney’s Docket Number: NAUP3120USA3
Filing Date: 7/6/2023
Claimed Priority Dates: 8/5/2020 (US 16/985,242)
9/20/2017 (US 15/710,820)
8/21/2017 (TW 106128223)
Inventors: Hsu et al.
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the amendment filed on 5/7/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA (or as subject to pre-AIA ) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for a 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.
Amendment Status
The amendment filed on 5/7/2026 in reply to the Office action in paper no. 3, mailed on 3/10/2026, has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-11.
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.
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 1 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US 2013/0270613) in view of Dyer (US 2008/0237726).
Regarding claim 1, Chou (see, e.g., figs. 10) shows most aspects of the instant invention including a method for fabricating a semiconductor device comprising:
Forming a gate structure 14 on a substrate 10
Forming a spacer around the gate structure, the spacer comprising an offset spacer 22 adjacent the gate structure and a main spacer 24 adjacent the offset spacer
Forming a second contact etch stop layer (CESL2) 42 around the spacer and on and directly contacting the offset spacer 22 and the main spacer 24
Chou, however, fails to teach forming a first contact etch stop layer (CESL1). Dyer, in a similar method to that of Chou, teaches forming a gate structure 100, a spacer 40, and a CESL2 70 directly contacting the spacer (see, e.g., fig. 7). Dyer further teaches the steps of forming a CESL1 68 around and directly contacting the spacer 40 and the substrate 10 (see, e.g., fig. 5), and forming the CESL2 70 on and directly contacting the CESL1 (see, e.g., fig. 7). Chou teaches that the CESL1 increases carrier mobility and the on-current of the device (see, e.g., par.0080/ll.12-21, par.0005 and par.0003/ll.1-4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Chou to include the step of Dyer of forming the CESL1, thereby increasing the carrier mobility and on-current of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Chou (see, e.g., figs. 7- 9) shows the method further comprising performing a replacement metal gate (RMG) process to transform the gate structure 18 into a metal gate 46 after forming the second CESL 42.
Regarding claim 8, Chou (see, e.g., fig 5) shows the method further comprising forming a source/drain region 32 adjacent to two sides of the spacer 22/24 in the substrate before forming the CESL2 42. Dyer (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows forming the source/drain regions 12 adjacent to two sides of the spacer 40 before forming the CESLs.
Regarding claim 9, Dyer teaches that the first 68 and second 70 CESLs comprise different materials (see, e.g., par.0057/ll.5-10, par.0063/ll.15-19, an par.0070/ll.1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Dyer teaches that the first 68 and second 70 CESLs comprise different dielectric constants (see, e.g., par.0057/ll.5-10, par.0063/ll.15-19, an par.0070/ll.1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Dyer (see, e.g., col.6/ll.2-4) teaches that the dielectric constant of the CESL1 68 is lower than that of the CESL2 70 (see, e.g., par.0057/ll.5-10, par.0063/ll.15-19, an par.0070/ll.1-3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 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.
Response to Arguments
The applicants argue:
Dyer fails to show forming a CESL1 around the spacer and on and directly contacting the offset spacer, the main spacer, and the substrate, as recited in claim 1.
The examiner responds:
The prior art of record teaches these features of the claimed invention, as now recited in claim 1. For example, Chou shows the spacer comprising an offset spacer 38 and a main spacer 24 (see, e.g., fig. 9). Dyer, on the other hand, teaches forming a CESL1 68 around and on and directly contacting the spacer 40 and the substrate 10 (see, e.g., fig. 5).
Conclusion
This action is made final. 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 Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights