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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Wang et al. 20190206874 applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, lines 14 and 16 recite “the metal gate” lacks antecedent basis. As such the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. 20190206874.
PNG
media_image1.png
466
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, fig. 10 of Wang discloses a memory device comprising:
a memory array region R1;
a dielectric 23 disposed in the memory array region;
a digit line contact (portion of 41A(41) between 23 left and 23 right) disposed in the dielectric 23 in the memory array region, the digit line contact having a top surface (top surface of 41A) at a first level;
a digit line (44A/43A/42A/71/81) coupled to the digit line contact in the memory array region by at most one barrier region (41 above 23) on the dielectric 23, the digit line having a metal composition (that of 43A, 71 and 81), the digit line being a line arranged to carry signals to write and read data to a memory cell in the memory array region (necessary the case as the digit line is a bit line structure BL);
a transistor in a periphery R2 to the memory array region, the transistor having a gate with a top surface (top of 44B(44)) of the gate at a second level, the second level being higher than the first level;
a metal contact 82 coupled to the transistor, the metal contact 82 having the metal composition of the digit line 81; and
one or more metal barrier regions 72/44B above the metal gate 43B(43) of the transistor, coupling the transistor to the metal contact 82, the one or more metal barrier regions 72/44B arranged as a unit on and directly contacting the metal gate 43B(43) and directly contacting the metal contact 82.
Regarding claim 2, fig. 10 of Wang discloses wherein the digit line has a thickness (that of 81) equal to a thickness of the metal contact 82.
Regarding claim 3, par [0021] of Wang discloses wherein the metal composition includes tungsten.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the 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.
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.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 4, par [0023] of Wang discloses wherein the at most one barrier region include polysilicon, amorphous silicon or other non-metallic conductive materials that may contain silicon or not extending above and from a top level of the dielectric, and the one or more metal barrier regions include metal silicide.
Wang does not discloses wherein the at most one barrier region includes tungsten silicide, and the one or more metal barrier regions include tungsten silicon nitride and tungsten silicide.
However, the court has held that 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).
As such it would have been obvious to form a device comprising wherein the at most one barrier region includes tungsten silicide, and the one or more metal barrier regions include tungsten silicon nitride and tungsten silicide in order to have a desire resistance.
Regarding claim 5, Wang does not disclose wherein the tungsten silicide extends above the top level of the dielectric by about 3 nm and the one or more metal barrier regions combined extends above a top level of the metal gate by about 6 nm.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Wang wherein the tungsten silicide extends above the top level of the dielectric by about 3 nm and the one or more metal barrier regions combined extends above a top level of the metal gate by about 6 nm in order to meet the applicant’s design.
Regarding claim 6, par [0021] of Wang discloses wherein the digit line is a tungsten digit line without a barrier region above a top level of the dielectric coupling the tungsten digit line to the digit line contact, and the one or more metal barrier regions include tungsten silicide contacting the metal gate and the metal contact.
Wang does not disclose of tungsten silicon nitride.
However, the court has held that 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).
As such it would have been obvious to form a device comprising the one or more metal barrier regions include tungsten silicon nitride contacting the metal gate and the metal contact in order to have a desire resistance.
Regarding claim 7, Kim does not disclose of wherein the tungsten silicon nitride has a thickness of 3 nm.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Wang of wherein the tungsten silicon nitride has a thickness of 3 nm in order to meet the applicant’s resistance design.
Regarding claim 8, Wang discloses claim 1. Wang does not disclose of wherein a step height between a top level of the metal contact on the transistor in the periphery to a top level of the digit line in the memory array region is about 12 nm.
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
As such it would have been obvious to form a device of Wang of wherein a step height between a top level of the metal contact on the transistor in the periphery to a top level of the digit line in the memory array region is about 12 nm in order to meet the applicant’s design.
Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to form a device of Kim comprising wherein the transistor is a transistor of a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) device in order to have low power consumption.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to form a device comprising wherein the metal gate is a high-k metal gate in order to reduce leakage current and enable continued transistor scaling.
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 VONGSAVANH SENGDARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5770. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM 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, PURVIS A. Sue can be reached on (571)272-1236. 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.
/VONGSAVANH SENGDARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
