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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 2/27/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 150. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 appears to be a duplicate of claim 14. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets claim 20 as depending on claim 16, rather than claim 9 as-written, to differentiate claim 20 from claim 14. However, appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 9, 13, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (U.S. 2018/0337188 A1; “Yu”) in view of Haensch et al. (U.S. 2015/0255574 A1; “Haensch”).
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses a method comprising:
Providing a stack of layers (20, 242, 46, Fig. 9) comprising a source/drain (242, Fig. 9), wherein the stack of layers defines a front side (lower surface of 20, Fig. 9) and a backside (upper surface of 46, Fig. 9);
Forming a via (272, Fig. 10) in the backside (upper surface of 46, Fig. 9), wherein the via extends (272, Fig. 10) to the source/drain (242, Fig. 10) ([0033]);
Delivering a dopant into the via, wherein the dopant impacts an exposed surface of the source/drain (242, Fig. 11) ([0033]);
Forming a silicide region (274, Fig. 13) along the exposed surface of the source/drain ([0035]); and
Forming a backside contact (282, Fig. 13) within the via, wherein the backside contact (282, Fig. 13) is formed over the silicide region (274, Fig. 13) ([0035]).
Yet, Yu does not disclose the dopant is delivered at a temperature greater than 300°C. However, Haensch discloses delivering a dopant, wherein the dopant impacts an exposed surface of a source/drain at a temperature greater than 300°C (“…up to about 400 degrees C”; [0034]). Higher temperature dopant delivery has the advantage of improved dopant incorporation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yu with delivering the dopant into the via at a temperature greater than 300°C, as taught by Haensch, so as to improve dopant incorporation into the exposed surface(s) of the source/drain.
Regarding claim 13, Yu and Haensch disclose the dopant is delivered at a temperature less than 400°C (Haensch: [0034]) and the dopant comprises boron or phosphorus (Yu: [0033], [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, Yu discloses a method comprising:
Providing a stack of layers (20, 242, 46, Fig. 9) comprising the source/drain (242, Fig. 9), wherein the stack of layers defines a front side (lower surface of 20, Fig. 9) and a backside (upper surface of 46, Fig. 9);
Forming a via (272, Fig. 10) in the backside, wherein the via extends to the source/drain (242, Fig. 10) ([0033]);
Delivering a dopant into the via, wherein the dopant impacts an exposed surface of the source/drain (242, Fig. 11) ([0033]);
Forming a silicide region (274, Fig. 13) along the exposed surface of the source/drain ([0035]); and
Forming a backside contact (282, Fig. 13) within the via, wherein the backside contact is formed over the silicide region (274, Fig. 13) ([0035]).
Yet, Yu does not disclose the dopant is delivered at a temperature between 300°C and 400°C. However, Haensch discloses delivering a dopant, wherein the dopant impacts an exposed surface of a source/drain at a temperature within the range of 300°C to 400°C (“less than about 150 degrees C., although higher temperatures may be employed (e.g., up to about 400 degrees C”)); [0034]). Higher temperature dopant delivery has the advantage of improved dopant incorporation.
Yet, Haensch does not specify that the dopant must be delivered within a temperature between 300°C and 400°C. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a dopant delivery temperature of between 300°C and 400°C, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19, Yu discloses the dopant comprises boron or phosphorus ([0033], [0022]).
Claim(s) 10-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (U.S. 2018/0337188 A1; “Yu”) as modified by Haensch et al. (U.S. 2015/0255574 A1; “Haensch”) as applied to claims 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (U.S. 2020/0020590 A1; “Lu”).
Regarding claim 10, Yu and Haensch disclose delivering a dopant (Yu: [0033]) but do not disclose performing a pre-amorphization implant. However, Lu discloses performing a pre-amorphization implant ([0058]-[0059]). This has the advantage of reducing the annealing temperature needed in a subsequent silicide annealing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yu and Haensch with performing a pre-amorphization implant, as taught by Lu, so as to reduce the annealing temperature needed in the subsequent silicide annealing process.
Regarding claim 11, Yu, Haensch, and Lu disclose the pre-amorphization implant comprises germanium (Lu: [0058]) delivered at an implant energy of 2 keV and 20 keV (Lu: [0058]). Yu, Haensch, and Lu do not disclose the implant energy must be between 1 keV and 4 keV. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a pre-amorphization implant energy between 1 keV and 4 keV, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Yu and Haensch disclose delivering a dopant (Yu: [0033]) but do not disclose performing a pre-amorphization implant. However, Lu discloses performing a pre-amorphization implant using germanium ([0058]-[0059]). This has the advantage of reducing the annealing temperature needed in a subsequent silicide annealing process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yu and Haensch with performing a pre-amorphization implant, as taught by Lu, so as to reduce the annealing temperature needed in the subsequent silicide annealing process.
Yu, Haensch, and Lu disclose the germanium is delivered at an implant energy of 2 keV and 20 keV but do not disclose the implant energy must be between 1 keV and 4 keV. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a pre-amorphization implant energy between 1 keV and 4 keV, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (U.S. 2018/0337188 A1; “Yu”) as modified by Haensch et al. (U.S. 2015/0255574 A1; “Haensch”) as applied to claims 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (KR20040057354; published 07/02/04; references to English translation; “Choi”).
Regarding claims 12 and 18, Yu and Haensch disclose delivering the dopant into the via (Yu: [0033]) but do not disclose performing a laser anneal after delivering the dopant. However, Choi discloses laser annealing after delivering a dopant, performed at a temperature less than 650°C ([35]). This has the advantage of activating the source/drain while reducing the thermal budget of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yu and Haensch with laser annealing performed at a temperature less than 650°C, as taught by Choi, so as to activate the source/drain while reducing the thermal budget of the device.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (U.S. 2018/0337188 A1; “Yu”) as modified by Haensch et al. (U.S. 2015/0255574 A1; “Haensch”) as applied to claims 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (U.S. 8,294,265 B1; “Oh”).
Regarding claims 14 and 20, Yu and Haensch disclose forming the silicide region comprises forming a titanium silicide by blanket depositing a titanium layer (Yu: [0035]). Yet, Yu and Haensch do not disclose the blanket depositing is by a plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) process. However, Oh discloses blanket depositing titanium by a PECVD process (col 4, lines 4-12). PECVD has the advantage of forming a high-quality film. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Yu and Haensch with blanket depositing titanium by PECVD, as taught by Oh, so as to form a high-quality titanium film for the subsequently formed silicide region.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitation that the stack of layers defines a front side and a backside, wherein the front side comprises one or more devices and performing a dopant implant to the backside including the plurality of vias, wherein each via of the plurality of vias extends to the source/drain. Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1.
Claim 15 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm 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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 11/14/25