DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Domestic Benefit
Present application 18/379,600 filed 10/12/2023 is a divisional of 17/152,190 filed 01/19/2021, now abandoned and having 1 RCE-type filing therein.
Foreign Priority
No claim to an application for foreign priority.
Four Information Disclosure Statements
The four information disclosure statements respectively submitted on 12/13/2023, 06/10/2024, 01/06/2025, 03/20/2025 were filed before first Office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the four information disclosure statements have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers in Figure 5 appear faint and/or pixelated thereby making the Figure difficult to read.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title1 or similar is suggested:
-- FORMATION OF METAL CAP DIRECTLY ON METAL SILICIDE LAYER FOR CONTACT RESISTANCE REDUCTION--.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification page 7, paragraph 0028 states, “devices and methods of formation these devices…” could benefit from some rephrasing or punctuation for the purpose of clarity.
Specification page 13, paragraph 0055 states, “showin in” should instead be “shown in” for the purpose of clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the terms in page 14, paragraph 0059, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-6 and 11-14 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 is indefinite by reciting, “preparing a metal cap layer directly on the metal silicide layer…” (bolded for emphasis) because it is difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the metes and bounds of what “preparing” requires or entails. Does the claim require the metal cap layer to be prepared for depositing OR, in other words, is it required that the metal cap layer truly be deposited or only prepared to be deposited. Further, “preparing…directly on” is confusing in nature and meaning. How does one skilled in the art “prepare…directly on”? When claim 1 is considered by itself (i.e., without the dependent claims) this limitation is confusing in meaning and the metes and bounds of such a limitation are not well understood/defined. For purpose of examination of the merits, the metal cap layer is deposited directly on the metal silicide layer.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 11-14 do not remedy the indefiniteness from claim 1 and are rejected for incorporating the indefiniteness from the independent claim.
Dependent claims 5-6, further complicate the above issue because-- does the actual PVD process deposit the metal cap layer OR does the claim language only require the preparing of the process itself? For purpose of examination of the merits, the metal cap layer is deposited directly on the metal silicide layer.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2020/0203481 A1 to Thareja et al. (“Thareja”).
PNG
media_image1.png
757
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The applied reference has a common Applicant 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.
Regarding independent claim 1, Thareja teaches of a method (see title: “…METHOD OF FORMING A CONTACT”) comprising:
depositing a metal silicide layer 222 (“metal silicide layer”; Figure 2C; paragraph 0032) in a feature (“trench”; Figure 2C; paragraph 0032; in the instant case the trench may be considered the claimed feature because it has the claimed bottom wall and sidewall, infra) of a substrate 200 (“substrate”; Figure 2C; paragraph 0022) in a first processing chamber (see Figure 1, step 110; paragraph 0032; also see Figure 4: there is a processing chamber), the feature comprising a bottom wall (i.e., see Figure 2B to Figure 2C: bottom walls 208) and sidewalls (i.e., see figure 2C: walls of dielectric material 212; paragraph 0025);
moving the substrate 200 to a second processing chamber 402 (see Figure 4; also refer to paragraph 0040: there is an embodiment such that anchor layer 227 is forming on 222 without intervening layers ---as such---the substrate is moved from the processing chamber used to deposit the metal silicide to the processing chamber to deposit the anchor layer) that is integrated (see Figure 4) with the first processing chamber (i.e., as per supra) such that there is not an air break (see paragraph 0055, “Because all these operations 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, and 120 are performed within the same processing system, vacuum is not broken as the substrate is transferred to various chambers, which decreases the chance of contamination and improves the quality of the deposited epitaxial film.”) between the first and second processing chambers;
preparing (see Figure 2C and Figure 1, step 114; there is another processing chamber) a metal cap layer 227 (“anchor layer”; Figure 2C; paragraph 0040 –this is taught as being a metal layer) directly on (see paragraph 0040: “In embodiments where the barrier layer 225 was not used, the anchor layer 227 is formed on the metal silicide layer 222 (FIG. 2C)”) the metal silicide layer 222; and
depositing (see Figure 2D and Figure 1, step 116) a conductor 226 (“conductor”; Figure 2D; paragraph 0042) on the metal cap layer 227.
Regarding claim 2, Thareja teaches wherein the feature 214 comprises a source/drain region 208 (“source/drain region”; Figure 2B; paragraph 0024) as the bottom wall (see Figure 2B), and a dielectric material 212 as the sidewalls (see Figure 2B).
Regarding claim 3, Thareja teaches wherein the metal silicide layer 222 is deposited selectively (see paragraph 0032: “selective epitaxial deposition process”) on the bottom wall 208.
Regarding claim 4, Thareja teaches wherein the conductor 226 is deposited selectively (i.e., as per paragraph 0042 the conductor 226 is specifically formed “in the trench 214” thereby being selective) on the metal cap layer 227.
Regarding claim 5, Thareja teaches wherein the preparing of the metal cap layer 227 directly on (see paragraph 0040: “In embodiments where the barrier layer 225 was not used, the anchor layer 227 is formed on the metal silicide layer 222 (FIG. 2C)”) the metal silicide layer 222 is by a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process (see paragraph 0041: “The deposition of the anchor layer 227 is performed in a fourth process chamber of the processing system. In one embodiment, the anchor layer 227 is formed in a PVD chamber”) of a metal cap material 227.
Regarding claim 11, Thareja teaches wherein the metal silicide layer 222 comprises: titanium silicide (see paragraph 0032: there is TiSi), cobalt silicide (see paragraph 0032: there is CoSi), ruthenium silicide (see paragraph 0032: there is RuSi), nickel silicide, molybdenum silicide, or alloys thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Thareja teaches wherein the metal cap layer 227 comprises: tungsten (see paragraph 0040; there is element W), ruthenium (see paragraph 0040; there is element Ru), molybdenum, or alloys thereof.
Regarding claim 14, Thareja teaches wherein the conductor 226 comprises a metal selected from the group consisting of: tungsten (see paragraph 0042: there is element W), ruthenium (see paragraph 0042: there is element Ru), and cobalt (see paragraph 0042: there is element Co).
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0203481 A1 to Thareja et al. (“Thareja”) in view of EP 0766302 A2 to Fiordalice et al. (“Fiordalice”).
Thareja teaches all limitations of claim 1 and claim 5 from which claim 6 depends.
Regarding claim 6, Thareja teaches of PVD deposition of the metal anchor layer in paragraph 0041. But does not elaborate on the optimum ranges for different parameters of the PVD deposition.
The problem encountered by Thareja as suggested by Fiordalice is the optimum PVD process for a metal layer. See Fiordalice column 6, lines 18-43. In at least one embodiment there may be a chamber pressure of 100mT that is squarely within the claimed range of chamber pressure; there is a chamber temperature of 20-500°C that overlaps the claimed chamber temperature range thereby making this range prima facie obvious; there is a RF pedestal frequency of 0-600MHz that over that overlaps the claimed chamber frequency range thereby making this range prima facie obvious; the bias and DC watts are not disclosed and therefore appear to be 0W that are both squarely within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that combining Fiordalice’s PVD parameters with Thareja’s invention would have been beneficial in order to deposit a metal containing layer that is robust and solid and the parameters would also be obvious to try as per MPEP 2141(III)(E).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0203481 A1 to Thareja et al. (“Thareja”) in view of US 2018/0315646 A1 to Tsai et al. (“Tsai”).
Thareja teaches all limitations of claim 1 and claim 5 from which claims 7-8 depend.
Regarding claims 7-8, Thareja teaches of forming the metal anchor layer 227 that is the claimed metal cap layer.
Thareja does not teach of forming a gap-fill material atop the metal anchor layer.
The problem encountered by Thareja as suggested by Tsai in paragraph 0043 is that of poor device performance by the metal anchor layer extending up the sidewalls vertically to the top of the insulating layer.
Tsai fixes this issue by etching back the metal glue layer.
Specifically, Tsai teaches in Figure 2F, paragraph 0030 of forming the metal glue layer 280 that is similar to the metal anchor layer and the claimed metal cap layer. Then Tsai teaches in Figure 2G, paragraph 0032 of a gap fill material 290 formed over the metal glue layer 280. Then Tsai teaches in Figure 2H-2I of etching 290 and 280. Then there is further etching in Figure 2J of the metal glue layer 280/282.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that combining Tsai’s gap fill material and metal glue layer with the invention of Thareja would have been beneficial as best stated by Tsai in paragraph 0043 in order to improve device performance by preventing through etching the metal cap/glue/anchor layer from extending vertically up the sidewall.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0203481 A1 to Thareja et al. (“Thareja”) in view of US 2018/0315646 A1 to Tsai et al. (“Tsai”) and in view of US 2016/0204221 A1 to He et al. (“He”).
Thareja teaches all limitations of claim 1 and claim 5 from which claims 9-10 depend.
Regarding claims 9-10, Thareja teaches of forming the metal anchor layer 227 that is the claimed metal cap layer.
Thareja does not teach of forming a gap-fill material atop the metal anchor layer.
The problem encountered by Thareja as suggested by Tsai in paragraph 0043 is that of poor device performance by the metal anchor layer extending up the sidewalls vertically to the top of the insulating layer.
Tsai fixes this issue by etching back the metal glue layer.
Specifically, Tsai teaches in Figure 2F, paragraph 0030 of forming the metal glue layer 280 that is similar to the metal anchor layer and the claimed metal cap layer. Then Tsai teaches in Figure 2G, paragraph 0032 of a gap fill material 290 formed over the metal glue layer 280. Then Tsai teaches in Figure 2H-2I of etching 290 and 280. Then there is further etching in Figure 2J of the metal glue layer 280/282.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that combining Tsai’s gap fill material and metal glue layer with the invention of Thareja would have been beneficial as best stated by Tsai in paragraph 0043 in order to improve device performance by preventing through etching the metal cap/glue/anchor layer from extending vertically up the sidewall.
Tsai teaches in Figures 2H-2I of etching 290 and 280. Tsai does not expressly teach of using a CMP type process to remove parts of 290 and 280.
He teaches in paragraphs 0002,0030 that layers that are above the ending/horizontal top surface of the finished device may be polished via a CMP.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that combining the CMP process of He with Tsai’s gap fill material and metal glue layer with the invention of Thareja would have been beneficial as best explained by He in paragraphs 0002, 0030 in order to know that a CMP process may be used to remove layers above the horizontal finishing plane of a device and for this reasons would be obvious to try as per MPEP 2141(III)(E) or MPEP 2141(III)(B).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0203481 A1 to Thareja et al. (“Thareja”) in view of US 2005/0191803 A1 to Matsuse et al. (“Matsuse”).
Thareja teaches all limitations of claim 1 and claim 11 from which claim 12 depends.
Regarding claim 12, Thareja teaches that the metal silicide layer 222 may be titanium silicide (see paragraph 0032: there is TiSi) or cobalt silicide (see paragraph 0032: there is CoSi) or ruthenium silicide (see paragraph 0032: there is RuSi).
Thareja never expressly mentions molybdenum silicide as the claimed metal silicide layer directly on the source/drain region.
Matsuse, however, teaches in Figure 2, paragraph 0042 of metal silicide 17 that is directly touching the source/drain region 18. Matsue teaches in paragraph 0042, “…metal silicide 17 such as TiSo, CoSi, NiSi, MoSi, etc.”
According to Section 2144.06.II, "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). The Section 2144.06.II further states that "An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious”. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claimed metal silicide layer of Thareja by substituting the metal silicide layer of Thareja with the functionally-equivalent MoSi metal silicide layer of Matsuse as expressly mentioned in paragraph 0042 of Matsuse.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P DULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-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, ELISEO RAMOS-FELICIANO can be reached at (571)272-7925. 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.
18 December 2025
/John P. Dulka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
1 Please have title reflect the claimed invention of a method as opposed to a device.