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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1-10, the claims require an organometallic layer surrounding the conductive layer of a contact structure. The forming of an “organometallic layer” is not enabled. It is believed that the term “organometallic layer” was not defined with reasonable certainty. As best understood, the “organometallic layer” (also referred to as a nucleation layer) is formed as a result of an organometallic precursor dissociatively chemisorbs on side surfaces of recesses [Para.46 of the Specification]. The term dissociatively chemisorb requires that a chemical bond of organometallic precursor is broken and is subsequently chemically bonded to the material surfaces of the recesses. Based on this rationale, it is not understood how an “organometallic layer” is formed when the source of the “organometallic layer” is the organometallic precursor which has gone through a dissociate chemisorb process. It is also not known what portion of the organometallic precursor is chemisorbed and remains on the side surfaces.
Regarding claims 2, 12, and 18, the “organometallic layer” comprising “organoaluminium” is not enabled. Similar to the discussion above, it is not understood how an “organoaluminium” layer is formed. Additionally, an actual organoalunimum compound is highly reactive wherein a layer of such compound appears unlikely. The actual forming of an organoaluminum layer is not enabled.
Regarding claims 11-16, the “carbon-based layer” is not enabled. Similar to the discussion above, it is not understood how a “carbon-based layer” is formed based on the dissociation chemisorb process comprising the organometallic precursor. It is believed that the term “carbon-based layer” was not defined with reasonable certainty.
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 1-16 and 18 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “organometallic” in claims 1-10 is used by the claim to mean “a chemisorbed layer from the dissociation of an organometallic precursor,” while the accepted meaning is “a substance with at least one metal-carbon bond, wherein the carbon is part of an organic molecule.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The term “organoaluminium” in claims 2, 12, and 18 is used by the claim to mean “a chemisorbed layer from the dissociation of an organoaluminium precursor,” while the accepted meaning is “a substance with at least one aluminum-carbon bond, wherein the carbon is part of an organic molecule.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The term “carbon-based layer” in claims 11-16 is used by the claim to mean “a chemisorbed layer from the dissociation of an organometallic precursor,” while the accepted meaning is “an organic material layer or a layer composed primarily of carbon atoms.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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 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 Lavoie et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0127058) [Hereafter “Lavoie”].
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 metal containing 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 as an organometallic layer surrounding the conductive layer. However, Lavoie [Fig.6] discloses forming a contact structure comprising a tungsten-containing nucleation layer [Paras.40-41 discloses a tungsten-containing nucleation layer 126 on dielectric layer 118 and surrounding conductive contact 128 with organometallic precursors] such that the tungsten-containing nucleation layer includes an “organometallic layer” as best understood. Lavoie further teaches that such tungsten-containing organometallic films have been shown to be continuous and have good adhesion [Para.44].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to replace the tungsten-containing nucleation layer of Kamineni with the tungsten-containing organometallic nucleation layer of Lavoie, such that contact structures may be formed to be continuous and with good adhesion [Lavoie, Para.44].
Claim(s) 11, 17, and 19-20 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 Khaderbad et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0006127) [Hereafter “Khaderbad”].
Regarding claim 11, Kamineni [Fig.12] discloses a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate [102];
a source/drain (S/D) region [112] disposed on the substrate;
a first conductive structure [174/176], comprising:
a first metal layer [170] disposed on the S/D region; and
a conductive nitride layer [168] [Para.57] disposed on the metal layer.
Kamineni fails to explicitly disclose
a second conductive structure, comprising:
a second metal layer disposed on the first metal layer; and
a carbon-based layer disposed surrounding the second metal layer and on the first metal layer.
However, Khaderbad [Fig.12] discloses a semiconductor device comprising
a second conductive structure [824], comprising:
a second metal layer [824] disposed on the first metal layer [810]; and
a carbon doped barrier layer [828] disposed surrounding the second metal layer [Para.67].
Kamineni [Para.57] discloses a carbon-based layer, as best understood, [168] [WC] disposed surrounding the metal layer. It would have been to combine the teachings of Khaderbad and Kamineni to include the second conductive structure in combination with the tungsten carbide barrier to provide a second metal layer disposed on the first metal layer; and a carbon-based layer disposed surrounding the second metal layer and on the first metal layer as claimed. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Khaderbad and Kamineni above, 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 claim 17, Kamineni [Fig.12] and Khaderbad [Fig.12] [Discussed above in the treatment of claims 1 and 11] disclose a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate [102];
a gate structure [104] disposed on the substrate;
a gate contact structure [172], comprising:
a first conductive layer [170] comprising a first metal disposed on the gate structure,
and
a first nucleation layer [168] comprising a metallic material disposed on the first conductive layer;
a source/drain (S/D) region [112/114] disposed on the substrate;
a S/D contact structure [174/176], comprising:
a second conductive layer [170] comprising a second metal disposed on the S/D region,
and
a nitride layer [168] disposed on the second conductive layer.
Khaderbad discloses a conductive structure, comprising:
a third conductive layer [824] comprising the first metal [Note 824 and 826 comprise the same metal] [Paras.60-61] disposed on the S/D contact structure [818]; and
a second nucleation layer [168 of Kamineni] comprising the metallic material disposed on the third conductive layer.
It would have been to combine the teachings of Khaderbad and Kamineni to include the second conductive structure in combination with the second nucleation layer It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Khaderbad and Kamineni above, 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 19-20, Kamineni and Khaderbad disclose the semiconductor device
wherein the metallic material comprises a transition metallic element [Ti, Ta, W] [Kamineni; Para.57] and a platinum-group metallic element;
wherein the third conductive layer [824] comprises a ruthenium layer [Kaderbad; Para.61].
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Khaderbad and Kamineni above, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art is considered analogous art and discloses at least some of the claimed subject matter of the current invention.
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