DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated June 8, 2026 in which claims 1-2, 6-12, 15-17, and 19 were amended, claims 3-5, 13, and 18 were cancelled, and claims 21-25 were added, 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) 1-2 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamineni et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0187896) [Hereafter “Kamineni”] in view of Niimi et al. (U.S. Pat. 9484255) [Hereafter “Niimi”].
Regarding claim 1, Kamineni [Fig.12] discloses a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate [102];
a gate structure [104] disposed on the substrate;
a contact structure [172], comprising:
a conductive layer [170] disposed on the gate structure; and
a nucleation layer [Para.59 discloses a tungsten-containing nucleation layer deposited over adhesive/barrier layer 168] surrounding the conductive layer; and
a dielectric layer [122,124] surrounding the contact structure.
Kamineni fails to explicitly disclose the nucleation layer comprising a metal oxide layer surrounding the conductive layer. However, Niimi [Fig.1] discloses forming a contact structure wherein a nucleation layer comprising a metal oxide layer [34] surrounding the conductive layer [36/33].
It would have been obvious to provide wherein a nucleation layer comprising a metal oxide layer as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 2 and 6-10, Kamineni and Niimi disclose
wherein the nucleation layer comprises aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, or titanium oxide [Niimi];
wherein the nucleation layer is non-overlapping with the gate structure [Niimi; Fig.1];
wherein the nucleation layer [34] comprises a thickness of about 0.1 nm to about 0.6 nm;
wherein a ratio of a thickness of the organometallic nucleation layer to a width of the conductive layer is about 0.001 to about 0.03 [Niimi; Fig.1];
further comprising a gate spacer disposed along a sidewall of the gate structure, wherein the nucleation layer is disposed on and in contact with the gate spacer [Kamineni and Niimi];
further comprising a metal layer [36] disposed on and in contact with the metal oxide layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12, 14-17, 19-20, and 23-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant’s amendments to the claims and/or arguments were persuasive.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 21-22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not fairly disclose or make obvious the claimed device/method taken as a whole, and specifically, the limitations of
a source/drain region disposed in the substrate;
a first conductive structure disposed on the source/drain region; and
a second conductive structure, disposed on the first conductive structure, comprising:
a metal layer with a first curved bottom profile; and
a metal oxide layer with a second curved bottom profile disposed on a sidewall of the metal layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The rejected claims stand rejected and the Action is made Final.
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 BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights