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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to a Restriction Requirement mailed on 12/31/2025, the Applicant elected without traverse Group I (claims 1-17) in a reply filed on 02/03/2026. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Currently, claims 1-17 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/18/2023. The IDS has been considered.
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 title is suggested:
(Marked-Up Version) Semiconductor Device Having Buried Contact with Improved Electrical Characteristic
(Clean Version) Semiconductor Device Having Buried Contact with Improved Electrical Characteristic
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 2-4, 7-9 and 16 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.
Claims 2-3, 7 and 16 are indefinite, because the term "about" in each claims 2-3, 7 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "about" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, because the upper and lower limits associated with the term “about” within a claim limitation cannot be clearly determined.
Claim 8 is indefinite, because the limitation “at least one of the first width, the second width, and third width is different” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what one of these widths is different from, whether it is the first width different from the second width, the first width different from the third width, or the first width different from the second width and the third width. The limitation will be interpreted as the first width, the second width, and the third width are different from each other for the purpose of examination.
Note the dependent claim 4 and 9 necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2019/0296024 A1 to Ji et al. (“Ji”).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
539
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
556
463
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Ji in Figs. 3-4B teaches a semiconductor device 200 (Fig. 3 & ¶ 50, semiconductor device 200) comprising:
a substrate 201 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 52, substrate 201) including an active region 203, 208-209 (Fig. 4A, ¶ 52 & ¶ 54, a collective of active region 203, first impurity region 208 and second impurity region 209) defined by an element isolation layer 202 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 52, isolation layer 202);
a word line 206 (Figs. 3, 4B & ¶ 51, word line 206) crossing the active region 203, 208-209 (Figs. 3 & 4B);
a bit line 213 (Figs. 3, 4A & ¶ 51, bit line 213) crossing the active region 203, 208-209 in a direction different from the word line 206 (Figs. 3-4B);
a direct contact 210 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 55, bit line contact plug 210) connecting between the active region 203, 208 and the bit line 213 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 55);
a buried contact SNC (Fig. 4A & ¶ 57, storage node contact plug SNC is buried in the layers 212, 213 and 214) connected to the active region 203, 209 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 57); and
a bit line spacer 215/216 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 56, a collective of first low-k spacer 215 and second low-k spacer 216) that is disposed between the bit line 213 and the buried contact SNC and includes carbon (¶ 66 & ¶ 69, first low-k spacer 215 includes SiCO and second low-k spacer 216 includes SiCO),
wherein the bit line spacer 215/216 includes a first region 215 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 66, first low-k spacer 215) that is adjacent to the bit line 213 and has a first carbon content (¶ 66, SiCO has a low carbon concentration) and a second region 216 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 69, second low-k spacer 216) that is adjacent to the buried contact SNC and has a second carbon content (¶ 69, SiCO has a high carbon concentration) that is higher than the first carbon content (¶ 66, ¶ 69, claims 1 & 12).
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable and obvious over Ji.
Regarding claim 2, Ji does not explicitly disclose each of the first carbon content and the second carbon content is about 5 at % or less.
However, Ji teaches a general condition in which the first region 215 has the first carbon content (Fig. 4A & ¶ 66) and the second region 216 has the second carbon content (Fig. 4A & ¶ 69).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[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).
Here, since Ji teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of each of the first carbon content and the second carbon content being about 5 at % or less produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Ji renders claim 2 obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Ji does not explicitly disclose the first carbon content is about 5 at % or less, and the second carbon content is about 5 at % or more to about 10 at % or less.
However, Ji teaches a general condition in which the first region 215 has the first carbon content (Fig. 4A & ¶ 66) and the second region 216 has the second carbon content (Fig. 4A & ¶ 69), and the first carbon content is lower than the second carbon content (¶ 66 & ¶ 69; see the rejection of claim 1 as noted above).
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[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).
Here, since Ji teaches said general conditions, it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific conditions of the first carbon content being about 5 at % or less, and the second carbon content being about 5 at % or more to about 10 at % or less produce unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree, said general conditions taught by Ji renders claim 3 obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Ji in Fig. 4A further teaches a width of the first region 215 is different from a width of the second region 216 (Fig. 4A).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 14-15 and 17 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 14, Ji in Figs. 3-4B teaches a semiconductor device 200 (Fig. 3 & ¶ 50, semiconductor device 200) comprising:
a substrate 201 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 52, substrate 201) including an active region 203, 208-209 (Fig. 4A, ¶ 52 & ¶ 54, a collective of active region 203 and impurity regions 208-209) defined by an element isolation layer 202 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 52, isolation layer 202);
a word line 206 (Figs. 3, 4B & ¶ 51, word line 206) crossing the active region 203, 208-209 (Figs. 3 & 4B);
a bit line 213 (Figs. 3, 4A & ¶ 51, bit line 213) crossing the active region 203, 208-209 in a direction different from the word line 206 (Figs. 3-4B);
a direct contact 210 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 55, bit line contact plug 210) connecting between the active region 203, 208 and the bit line 213 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 55);
a buried contact SNC (Fig. 4A & ¶ 57, storage node contact plug SNC is buried in the layers 212, 213 and 214) connected to the active region 203, 209 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 57); and
a bit line spacer 215/216 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 56, a collective of first low-k spacer 215 and second low-k spacer 216) that extends along a sidewall of the bit line 213 and includes at least one of SiOCN, SiOC, and SiOCF (¶ 66 & ¶ 69, first low-k spacer 215 includes SiCO and second low-k spacer 216 includes SiCO),
wherein the bit line spacer 215/216 includes a first region 215 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 66, first low-k spacer 215) and a second region 216 (Fig. 4A & ¶ 69, second low-k spacer 216) sequentially disposed from a first surface adjacent to the bit line 213 to a second surface adjacent to the buried contact SNC (Fig. 4A), the first region 215 has a first carbon content (¶ 66), the second region 216 has a second carbon content (¶ 69) that is greater than the first carbon content (¶ 66, ¶ 69, claims 1 & 12).
However, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 14, wherein the bit line spacer includes a first region, a second region, and a third region sequentially disposed from a first surface adjacent to the bit line to a second surface adjacent to the buried contact, and the third region has a third carbon content that is greater than the second carbon content.
Therefore, independent claim 14 is allowed,
Claims 15 and 17 are allowed, because they depend from the allowed claim 14.
Claims 5-6 and 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (i) rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims or (ii) the objected claim and any intervening claims are fully incorporated into the base claim.
Claim 5 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 5, wherein the bit line spacer further includes a third region that has a third carbon content that is greater than the first carbon content and the second carbon content, and the second region is disposed between the first region and the third region.
Claims 6 and 10-13 would be allowable, because they depends from the allowable claim 5.
Claims 7-9 and 16 are rejected.
Claims 7-9 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 7, wherein the first carbon content is about 5 at % or less, the second carbon content is about 5 at % or more and about 10 at % or less, and the third carbon content is about 10 at % or more to about 20 at % or less.
Claim 8 would be allowable, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 8, wherein the first region has a first width, the second region has a second width, the third region has a third width, and at least one of the first width, the second width, and the third width is different.
Claim 9 would be allowable, because claim 9 depends from the allowable claim 8.
Claim 16 would be allowable, because claim 16 depends from the allowed claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0164975 A1 to Song et al.
US 2024/0172422 A1 to Baik
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817