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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-15, 21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0367622 A1; hereinafter Lin).
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With respect to claim 1, Lin discloses an integrated circuit comprising: a substrate [50/62]; a well [92] formed over a portion of the substrate (see Figure 8A); a stacked structure [64,68,66,82,84,86] formed over a first portion of the well (see Figure 9A); a doped epi structure [98A] formed over a second portion of the well adjacent to the stacked structure and below a plane defined by an upper surface of the first portion of the well (see ¶[0053]); and a source/drain region [98C] formed over the doped epi structure (See Figure 11A).
With respect to claim 3, Lin disclose wherein: the well has a first dopant concentration (see ¶[0034]); and the doped epi structure has a second dopant concentration (See ¶[0051]), wherein the first dopant concentration is less than the second dopant concentration.
With respect to claim 4, Lin discloses wherein: the well has a first dopant concentration Cd1; the well has second dopant concentration Cd2 adjacent the doped epi structure; and the doped epi structure has a third dopant concentration Cd3, wherein the first, second, and third dopant concentrations satisfy expressions (I) and (II);
Cd1<Cd2 (I); and
Cd2<Cd3 (II).
(see ¶[0021], ¶[0034-0035], ¶[0051])
With respect to claim 5, Lin discloses wherein: the doped epi structure has a dopant concentration profile in which a lower region adjacent the well has a dopant concentration of not more than 1E18 cm−3 (See ¶[0051]).
With respect to claim 6, Lin discloses wherein: the doped epi structure has a dopant concentration profile having a maximum dopant concentration not greater than 1E20 cm−3 (See ¶[0051]).
With respect to claim 9, Lin discloses a plurality of nanosheets in electrical contact with the source/drain region (See ¶[0038]).
With respect to claim 10, Lin discloses an integrated circuit, comprising: a semiconductor substrate [50/62]; a well region having a first dopant concentration (see ¶[0034]) over the semiconductor substrate; a stacked structure [64,68,66,82,84,86] over a first portion of the well region (see Figure 9A); a first recess [92] in a second portion of the well region; an epitaxial layer [98A] in the first recess, wherein the epitaxial layer comprises a first implanted dopant (See ¶[0051]); and a source/drain (S/D) structure [98C] over the epitaxial layer (See Figure 11A).
With respect to claim 11, Lin discloses wherein: the epitaxial layer comprises a first dopant concentration of the first implanted dopant (See ¶[0051]); a second portion of the well region under the epitaxial layer comprises a second dopant concentration of the first implanted dopant (see ¶[0034]); and the first dopant concentration is greater than the second dopant concentration.
With respect to claim 12, Lin discloses wherein: a ratio of the first dopant concentration to the second dopant concentration is at least 99:1 (see ¶[0021], ¶[0034-0035], ¶[0051]).
With respect to claim 13, Lin discloses wherein: a ratio of the first dopant concentration to the second dopant concentration is at least 85:15 (see ¶[0021], ¶[0034-0035], ¶[0051]).
With respect to claim 14, Lin discloses wherein: the first dopant concentration in the epitaxial layer is not greater than 1E19 cm−3 (See ¶[0051]).
With respect to claim 15, Lin discloses wherein: a first portion of the first implanted dopant extends under the stacked structure (See ¶[0033], ¶[0053]).
With respect to claim 21, Lin discloses an integrated circuit comprising: a substrate [50/62]; a well [92] over the substrate; a stacked structure [64,68,66,82,84,86] over a first portion of the well; a doped structure [98] over a second portion of the well adjacent to the stacked structure, wherein a bottommost surface of the doped structure is closer to the substrate and a bottommost surface of the stacked structure, wherein the doped structure comprises: a first region [98A] having a first dopant concentration, and a second region [98B] over the first region, wherein the second region has a second dopant concentration different from the first dopant concentration; and a source/drain region [98C] over the doped structure (see ¶[0058]).
With respect to claim 23, Lin discloses wherein the second dopant concentration is greater than the first dopant concentration (see ¶[0053]).
With respect to claim 24, Lin discloses wherein the first region is between second region and the well in a first direction parallel to a top surface of the substrate (See Figure 11A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin in view of More (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0299138 A1)
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
With respect to claim 2, Lin fails to disclose a dielectric layer between the doped epi structure and the source/drain region. In the same field of endeavor, More teaches a dielectric layer [524] between the doped epi structure [508b] and the source/drain region [514a] (See Figure 5C). Implementation of a dielectric layer within the layer structure of Lin, as taught by More, prevents the migration of dopants from the source drain region through the buffer region and into the well region (See ¶[0113]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 7, Lin fails to disclose wherein: the doped epi structure has a dopant concentration profile in which a lower region adjacent the well is undoped. In the same field of endeavor, More teaches the doped epi structure [502/508] has a dopant concentration profile in which a lower region [502] adjacent the well is undoped (See ¶[0097]). Implementation of an undoped region as taught by More allows for a buffer region to isolated doped regions from the well region (see ¶[0097] and ¶[0113]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
With respect to claim 16, Lin fails to disclose a dielectric layer over the epitaxial layer; and a source/drain (S/D) structure over the dielectric layer (see Figure 5C). In the same field of endeavor, More teaches a dielectric layer [524] over the epitaxial layer [508b]; and a source/drain (S/D) structure [514a] over the dielectric layer. (See Figure 5C).
Implementation of a dielectric layer within the layer structure of Lin, as taught by More, prevents the migration of dopants from the source drain region through the buffer region and into the well region (See ¶[0113]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 22, Lin fails to disclose a dielectric material between the doped structure and the source/drain region. In the same field of endeavor, More teaches a dielectric material [524] between the doped structure [508b] and the source/drain region [514a] (See Figure 5C).
Implementation of a dielectric layer within the layer structure of Lin, as taught by More, prevents the migration of dopants from the source drain region through the buffer region and into the well region (See ¶[0113]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that the combination of references would arrive at the claimed invention.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lin
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
With respect to claim 8, Lin discloses wherein: the doped epi structure has a concave upper surface but fails to disclose a recess height (RH) of between 1 nm and 5 nm when measured from a plane defined by an upper surface of a mesa structure. Based on the disclosure, it appears that the recess height is noncritical. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to produce a doped epi structure with proper recess height based on routine experimentation to provide proper coverage of the source/drain region.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7546. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00-5.00PM PST.
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, STEVEN LOKE can be reached at 571-272-1657. 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.
/JONATHAN HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818