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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 05th, 2026 has been entered. By this amendment, claims 7 and 12-14 have been amended, claim 11 has been cancelled, and claim 21 has been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending in the present application in which claims 1, 7, and 14 are in independent form.
New Grounds of Rejection
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)(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) 14, 17, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0082751), of record.
In re claim 14, Yang discloses a method, comprising: forming a recess (opening) in a first dielectric layer 10; forming a first conductive structure 14A in the recess (see paragraphs [0017], [0022], [0023] and fig. 1); depositing a metal cap 20 on the first conductive structure 14A and within the recess, wherein an upper surface of the metal cap 20 is coplanar with an upper surface of the first dielectric layer 10, wherein sidewalls of the metal cap 20 are aligned with sidewalls of the first conductive structure 14A, and wherein an entire surface of the sidewalls of the metal cap 20 is surrounded by the first dielectric layer 10 (see paragraphs [0035], [0036], [0038] and fig. 1); forming a second dielectric layer 24 on the first dielectric layer 10 and around the metal cap 20 (see paragraph [0059] and fig. 9); and forming a second conductive structure (21A,22A) on the metal cap 20, wherein sidewalls of the second conductive structure (21A,22A) are in direct contact and aligned with the sidewalls of the metal cap 20, and wherein a width of the second conductive structure (21A,22A) is equal to a width of the first conductive structure 14A (see paragraphs [0041], [0042] and fig. 9, notes that the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation (In re Hyatt, 211 F. 3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000)), thus, since the claimed limitations are not in a sequential order, the second conductive structure (21A,22A) can be formed before the forming of the second dielectric layer 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
699
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 17, as applied to claim 14 above, Yang discloses wherein the metal cap 20 comprises one or more of: a titantum-based material, a cobalt- based material, a nickel-based material, a ruthenium-based material, a tantalum-based material, a tungsten-based material, and a platinum-based material (see paragraphs [0036], [0042]).
In re claim 19, as applied to claim 14 above, Yang discloses wherein the second conductive structure includes a tungsten-based structure (see paragraphs [0026], [0046] and fig. 9).
In re claim 21, as applied to claim 14 above, Yang discloses wherein forming the second dielectric layer 24 comprises depositing the second dielectric layer 24 on the first dielectric layer 10 and the metal cap 20; and removing a portion of the second dielectric layer on the metal cap 20 (see paragraph [0061] and fig. 9, note that, at least one opening is formed into the second dielectric layer 24 and is formed by lithography and etching).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0082751) in view of Chou et al. (U.S. Pub. 2019/0164748), both of record.
In re claim 15, as applied to claim 14 above, Yang is silent to wherein the second conductive structure is formed using a bottom-up metal-on-metal deposition.
However, Chou discloses in a same field of endeavor, a method for forming a semiconductor device, including, inter-alia, wherein the second conductive structure 54 is formed using a bottom-up metal-on-metal deposition (see paragraph [0033] and figs. 2-3).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the teaching as taught by Chou into the method of Yang in order to enable wherein the second conductive structure is formed using a bottom-up metal-on-metal deposition in the method of Yang to be performed because in doing so would obtain a decreased parasitic capacitance and can be advantageous in scaling small technology nodes.
In re claim 16, as applied to claim 15 above, Yang in combination with Chou discloses wherein the bottom-up metal-on-metal deposition comprises selectively growing a metallic material of the metal cap to form the second conductive structure (see paragraph [0035] and fig. 3 of Chou).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0082751) in view of Fang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0309829), both of record.
In re claim 18, as applied to claim 14 above, Yang is silent to wherein the second conductive structure has a width that is less than approximately 13 nanometers.
However, Fang discloses in a same field of endeavor, a semiconductor device, wherein the second conductive structure has a width that is between about 5 nanometers an about 15 nanometers (see paragraph [0015]).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the teaching of Fang into the method of Yang in order to optimize width of the second conductive structure to have a width that is less than approximately 13 nanometers in order to reduce the overall size of the semiconductor device as well as increasing the switching speed of the device. Furthermore, the width range of the second conductive structure would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0082751) in view of Glass et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0258982), both of record.
In re claim 20, as applied to claim 19 above, Yang is silent to wherein a concentration of tungsten at a lower portion of the tungsten-based structure is smaller than a concentration of tungsten at an upper portion of the tungsten-based structure.
However, Glass discloses in a same field of endeavor, a semiconductor device, including, inter-alia, wherein the concentration of the tantalum and tungsten material can be adjusted (i.e., increasing/decreasing) (see paragraph [0053]).
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to incorporate the teaching of Glass in the method of Yang in order to adjust the concentration of tungsten so that a concentration of tungsten at a lower portion of the tungsten-based structure is smaller than that at an upper portion of the tungsten-based structure in the method of Yang to be performed in order to improve contact resistance of the transistor device. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable concentration ranges involves only routine skill in the art. “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable concentration ranges by routine experimentation”, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12, and 13 are allowed over prior art of record.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
It is determined that the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed subject matter of independent claims 1 and 7 as a whole taken alone or in combination, in particular, prior art of record does not teach “partially removing a portion of the one or more second dielectric layers to form a recess; and performing a bottom-up deposition of a metallic material of the metal cap to form a second conductive structure within the recess and directly on the metal cap", as recited in independent claim 1 and “depositing a third dielectric layer on the second dielectric layer”, as recited in independent claim 7.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, and 13 also allowed as being directly or indirectly dependent of the allowed independent base claims.
Response to Applicant’s Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/KHIEM D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892