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 of Group I, Species B, represented by figure 14 and claims 1-14 in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 4, 2024 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Honda (US 2022/0293510 A1) (“Honda”).
Regarding claim 1, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
a semiconductor substrate (10) comprising (detailed below)
an isolation structure (36) and an active structure (10A) defined by the isolation structure (36),
wherein the active structure (10A) comprises at least one fin-shaped structure (10A is fin shaped);
a first stacked structure (defined below) disposed in the semiconductor substrate (10), wherein the first stacked structure (defined below) extends in a horizontal direction (the figures are horizontal in direction) and is disposed straddling the fin-shaped structure (10A), and the first stacked structure comprises (the first stacked structure is defined below):
an electrically conductive layer (64) comprising (detailed below):
a first portion (portion with 68; hereinafter “A”); and
a second portion (portion without 68; hereinafter “B”),
wherein a top surface of the second portion (top of B) is higher than atop surface of the first portion (top of A) in a vertical direction (this direction is shown), and
a distance between the top surface of the second portion and the isolation structure in the vertical direction is greater than a distance between the top surface of the first portion and the isolation structure in the vertical direction (this limitation is met as B is higher than A, and therefore, A would be further from 36 than B);
a capping layer (68) disposed on the electrically conductive layer (64); and
a dielectric capping layer (70) disposed on the capping layer (68) and the electrically conductive layer (64); and
a contact structure (8) directly contacting the second portion (B) of the electrically conductive layer (64) and electrically connected with the first stacked structure (defined above as A/B/68/70; hereinafter C).
Regarding claim 3, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
wherein a surface of the electrically conductive layer (64) comprises a ladder-shaped structure (Based upon Applicant’s figure 14 and ¶ 0025 it appears the “ladder-shaped” structure is the step structure shown. The prior art teaches this same structure), and
the top surface of the first portion (top of A) and the top surface of the second portion (top of B) are located at two opposite sides of the ladder-shaped structure (the step structure) in the horizontal direction (the horizontal direction is shown), respectively .
Regarding claim 4, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
wherein the contact structure (8) directly contacts the top surface of the second portion (top of B, where portions of 8 directly contact the top of B).
Regarding claim 5, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
wherein a distance between a top surface of the dielectric capping layer (top of 70) and the top surface of the second portion of the electrically conductive layer (top of B) in the vertical direction (the direction shown) is less than a distance between the top surface of the dielectric capping layer (top of 70) and the top surface of the first portion of the electrically conductive layer (top of A) in the vertical direction (direction shown) (this limitation is met for the same rational provided in claim 1 regarding the distance).
Regarding claim 6, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
wherein the top surface of the second portion (B) of the electrically conductive layer (64) directly contacts the dielectric capping layer (70).
Regarding claim 7, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
wherein a sidewall of the second portion (side of B) of the electrically conductive layer (64) faces the capping layer (68) in the horizontal direction (direction shown), and
the capping layer (68) directly contacts the sidewall of the second portion (B).
Regarding claim 9, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
wherein the sidewall of the second portion (sidewall of B) of the electrically conductive layer (70) is connected with the top surface of the first portion (top of A) and the top surface of the second portion (top of B) to form a ladder-shaped structure (Based upon Applicant’s figure 14 and ¶ 0025 it appears the “ladder-shaped” structure is the step structure shown. The prior art teaches this same structure).
Regarding claim 11, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
wherein an edge of the capping layer (an edge of 68) in the horizontal direction (a direction shown) faces the contact structure (8) and is located above the fin-shaped structure (10A) in the vertical direction (direction shown).
Regarding claim 12, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
herein the active structure (10A) further includes a peripheral structure (figure 2 element N) surrounding the fin-shaped structure (10A) , and
the first stacked structure extends (C) in the horizontal direction (shown in figure 2) and is disposed straddling the peripheral structure (N) .
Regarding claim 13, Honda teaches at least in figures 13A-15C:
wherein an edge of the capping layer (an edge of 80) in the horizontal direction (direction shown) faces the contact structure (8) and is located above the peripheral structure (N) in the vertical direction (an edge of 70 in region N of figure 2).
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(s) 2, 8, 10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda.
Regarding claim 2, Honda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the top surface of the second portion (B) is higher than a top surface of the capping layer in the vertical direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the etch back of 68 discussed in ¶ 0077 could have removed more material than intended. This is because all semiconductor process have some level of inherent variability in them. Thus, even if one were attempting to make the top surface of 68 and the top surface of B exactly even, in practice there would be some devices where the top of 68 would be below top of B due to said process variation. Thus, this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Honda does not explicitly teach:
wherein the dielectric capping layer (70) directly contacts the sidewall of the second portion of the electrically conductive layer (side wall of 64 between A and B).
However, using the same rational as claim 2 above, it would have been obvious that the capping layer 70 would be formed in the overetched 68 space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that 70 would contact a sidewall of 70.
Regarding claim 10, Honda does not explicitly show:
further comprising:
a second stacked structure disposed above the semiconductor substrate (a second figure 15B based upon figure 15A).
Honda does not explicitly teach:
wherein a distance between the sidewall of the second portion of the electrically conductive layer and the contact structure in the horizontal direction is less than a distance between the second stacked structure and the contact structure in the horizontal direction.
However, the distance claimed is considered a change in size or proportion under MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Where, the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 14, Honda does not explicitly teach:
wherein a distance between an edge of the capping layer (edge of 68) in the horizontal direction and the contact structure (8) is less than a distance between the peripheral structure (figure 2 a region in N) and the contact structure (8) in the horizontal direction (however the drawings of Honda are not to scale, figure 1 includes multiple figure 2s, and/or this can be considered a change in size or proportion of the claimed distances that will not produce any unexpected results, and/or have not been shown to be critical. Therefore, the limitation of claim 14 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm 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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights