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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chou et al (US Publication No. 2021/0407808).
PNG
media_image1.png
357
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Chou discloses a method, comprising: forming a fin structure Fig 2, 204 ¶0014 above a substrate Fig 2, 202; forming a gate structure Fig 2, 210 that wraps around the fin structure on at least three sides of the fin structure ¶0013; forming a first source/drain region and a second source/drain region on the fin structure ¶0013 Fig 2,wherein the gate structure is between the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region¶0013 Fig 2;forming a recess above the first source/drain region Fig 2, 218,wherein the recess is adjacent to the gate structure Fig 2; forming a liner Fig 2, 222 on sidewalls of the recess; performing an oxidation treatment operation to oxidize the liner Fig 6, 2220 ¶0025; and forming a source/drain contact Fig 9-10, 230 over the liner in the recess such that the source/drain contact is coupled with the first source/drain region Fig 10.
Regarding claim 2, Chou discloses, wherein performing the oxidation treatment operation comprises performing the oxidation treatment operation to increase an oxygen concentration of a material of the liner ¶0022 and 0025.
Regarding claim 3, Chou discloses wherein forming the liner comprises: depositing a nitride-containing material to form the liner ¶0022, wherein the oxidation treatment operation results in an oxygen concentration in the nitride-containing material being greater relative to a nitride concentration in the nitride-containing material ¶0025.
Regarding claim 4, Chou discloses wherein performing the oxidation treatment operation comprises: performing the oxidation treatment operation to achieve a dielectric constant, for a material of the liner, that satisfies a threshold dielectric constant ¶0025.
Claims 21, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly (US Publication No. 2020/0135559).
Regarding claim 21, Kelly discloses a method, comprising: forming a first source/drain region and a second source/drain region above a substrate Fig 6, forming a gate structure Fig 6, 214, the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region being located on opposing sides of the gate structure Fig 6; forming a source/drain contact Fig 6, 1002 over the first source/drain region Fig 6, 210 and adjacent to the gate structure Fig 6, 214; forming a bottom contact etch stop layer (B-CESL) Fig 6, 316 between the gate structure and the source/drain contact Fig 6, 1002; a gate spacer Fig 6, 314 between the B-CESL and the gate structure Fig 6; and forming a source/drain contact liner Fig 6, 602 between the B-CESL Fig 6, 316 and the source/drain contact Fig 6, 1002.
Regarding claim 25, Kelly discloses wherein the source/drain contact liner comprises a first source/drain contact liner Fig 6, 602, and the method further comprising: forming a second source/drain contact liner Fig 6, 902 between the first source/drain contact liner Fig 6, 602 and the source/drain contact Fig 6, 1002.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al (US Publication No. 2021/0407808) in view of Kelly (US Publication No. 2020/0135559).
Regarding claim 15, Chou discloses a method, comprising: forming a fin structure Fig 2, 204 ¶0014 above a substrate Fig 2, 202; forming a gate structure Fig 2, 210 that wraps around the fin structure on at least three sides of the fin structure ¶0013; forming a first source/drain region and a second source/drain region on the fin structure ¶0013 Fig 2,wherein the gate structure is between the first source/drain region and the second source/drain region¶0013 Fig 2;forming a recess above the first source/drain region Fig 2, 218,wherein the recess is adjacent to the gate structure Fig 2; forming a first liner Fig 2, 222 on sidewalls of the recess; performing an oxidation treatment operation to oxidize the first liner Fig 6, 2220 ¶0025; and forming a source/drain contact Fig 9-10, 230 over the first liner in the recess such that the source/drain contact is coupled with the first source/drain region Fig 10. Chou discloses all the limitations but silent on the second liner. Whereas Kelly discloses forming a first liner on sidewalls of the recess Fig 15, 602;forming a second liner Fig 15, 902 on the first liner after the first liner formation; and forming a source/drain contact over the second liner in the recess such that the source/drain contact is coupled with the first source/drain region Fig 15. Chou and Kelly are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices having metal gates and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chou because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contact and incorporate the teachings of Kelly to improve device performance ¶0041.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou et al (US Publication No. 2021/0407808) in view of Kelly (US Publication No. 2020/0135559) and in further view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2022/0246738).
Regarding claim 16, Kelly discloses wherein forming the first liner comprises: depositing the first liner Fig 5, 602 on a bottom surface of the recess and on the sidewalls of the recess ¶0038;wherein forming the second liner comprises: depositing the second liner Fig 5, 902 on the first liner Fig 5, 602. Kelly discloses all the limitations but silent on the removal of a portion of both the first and the second liner. Whereas Kim discloses wherein the method further comprises: removing a portion of the first liner ¶0139 Fig 11J and a portion of the second liner over the bottom surface of the recess such that a top surface of the first source/drain region is exposed in the recess¶0139 Fig 11J,wherein remaining portions of the first liner and remaining portions of the second liner remain over the sidewalls of the recess¶0139 Fig 11J. Chou, Kelly and Kim are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices having metal gates and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chou and Kelly because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liner arrangement and incorporate the teachings of Kim to improve connectivity.
Claims 22-24, 26-27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly (US Publication No. 2020/0135559) and in further view of Han et al (US Publication No. 2023/0395667).
Regarding claim 22, Kelly discloses all the limitations but silent on the oxygen concentration of the first liner relative to the gate spacer. Whereas Han discloses wherein at least one of: a first oxygen concentration of a first material of the source/drain contact liner Fig 3, 174 ¶0142 is greater relative to a second oxygen concentration of a second material of the gate spacer Fig 3, 140 ¶0079, or a third oxygen concentration of a third material of the B-CESL is greater relative to the second oxygen concentration of the second material of the gate spacer. Kelly and Han are analogous art because they are directed to semiconductor devices having metal gates and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kelly because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material for the liner and incorporate the teachings of Han to improve isolation and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (1960).
Regarding claim 23, Kelly discloses wherein the source/drain contact liner comprises a first source/drain contact liner, and wherein the first oxygen concentration of the first material of the first source/drain contact liner is greater relative to a fourth oxygen concentration of a fourth material of a second source/drain contact liner, wherein the second source/drain contact liner is between the first source/drain contact liner and the source/drain contact Fig 5 ¶0037 and 0042-0043.
Regarding claim 24, Han discloses wherein at least one of: a first dielectric constant of the source/drain contact liner Fig 3, 174 ¶0142 is lesser relative to a second dielectric constant of the gate spacer Fig 3, 140 ¶0079-SIN, or a first dielectric constant of the B-CESL is lesser relative to a second dielectric constant of the gate spacer.
Regarding claim 26, Kelly discloses wherein a first thickness of the first source/drain contact liner is greater relative to a second thickness of the second source/drain contact liner Fig 5. Also, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liner thickness, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 27, Han discloses a first dielectric constant of the first source/drain contact liner and a second dielectric constant of the second source/drain contact liner ¶0141-0142. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material composition of the liner, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 17-20 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: After further search and consideration, it is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of the instant application as a whole either taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach or suggest the specific steps in performing the treatment of the etch stop and the liner layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 pm.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571 272 1670. 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.
/CHRISTINE A ENAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811