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 species I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on December 15, 2025 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)).
Claims 10-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 15, 2025.
Claims 4 and 7 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species. There is no support in the elected embodiment of Fig. 2 for the claim limitations of “a height of the upper surface of the second epitaxial pattern adjacent to the second gate structure increases with increasing distance from the second gate structure”, as recited in claim 2 and “the first silicide film extends along the side surface and the lower surface of the first source/drain contact between the first epitaxial pattern and the first source/drain contact, and the second silicide film extends along the side surface and the lower surface of the second source/drain contact between the second epitaxial pattern and the second source/drain contact”, as recited in claim 8; these features are found on unelected embodiment of Figs. 10 and 11.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 28, 2023 and May 2, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a height of the first inclined surface 161 decreases with increasing distance from the first gate structure G1, and a height of the second inclined surface 162 increases with increasing distance from the first gate structure G1” as described in the specification ([0072]). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "110F" and "FP" have both been used to designate “first fin pattern”. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “FP” ([0034]). 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. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Undefined acronyms/symbols, such as “MBCFET” (first occurrence: [0027]). The examiner suggests that applicant spell out all the acronyms/symbols when using them for the first time in the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: a “;” should be removed before “.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-7 and 9 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.
The claimed limitation of "a first active pattern that extends in a first direction", as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to which dimension of a first active pattern that extends in a first direction applicant refers.
The claimed limitations of "a first gate structure that extends in a second direction that intersects the first direction and that intersects the first active pattern", as recited in claim 1, are unclear as to i) which dimension of a first gate structure that extends in a second direction applicant refers; and ii) which element(s) intersects which element(s) applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "a second active pattern that extends in a third direction", as recited in claim 1, is unclear as to which dimension of a second active pattern that extends in a third direction applicant refers.
The claimed limitations of "a second gate structure that extends in a fourth direction that intersects the third direction and that intersects the second active pattern", as recited in claim 1, are unclear as to i) which dimension of a second gate structure that extends in a fourth direction applicant refers; and ii) which element(s) intersects which element(s) applicant refers.
The claimed limitation of "an upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern", as recited in claim 2, is unclear as to whether said limitation is the same as or different from "an upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern", as recited in claim 1.
The claimed limitations of "an upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern has a V shape in a cross-section that intersects the second direction", as recited in claim 1, are unclear as to i) which element(s) intersects the second direction applicant refers; and ii) how a cross-section (a view) or a V-shape (geometry) can intersect the second direction (abstract).
The claimed limitations of "the … epitaxial pattern has a … shape in a cross-section that intersects the … direction", as recited in claims 3 and 5, are unclear as to i) which element(s) intersects the … direction applicant refers; and ii) how a cross-section (a view) or a …-shape (geometry) can intersect the … direction (abstract).
The claimed limitation of "…, and extend in the … direction", as recited in claim 9, is unclear as to which dimension of which element extend in the … direction applicant refers.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5 and 7, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (2016/0087053).
As for claim 1, Kim et al. show in Figs. 7A-7C and related text a semiconductor device 100c, comprising:
a substrate 110 that includes a first region 110N and a second region 110P;
a first active pattern 112 that extends in a first direction Y on the first region;
a first gate structure 140N that extends in a second direction X that intersects the first direction and that intersects the first active pattern;
a first epitaxial pattern 160N disposed on a side surface of the first gate structure, wherein the first epitaxial pattern is connected to the first active pattern and includes n-type impurities ([0050], [0065], [0122], [0127]);
a first source/drain contact 170N that penetrates an upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern and is connected to the first epitaxial pattern;
a second active pattern 112 that extends in a third direction Y on the second region;
a second gate structure 140P that extends in a fourth direction X that intersects the third direction and intersects the second active pattern;
a second epitaxial pattern 160P disposed on a side surface of the second gate structure, wherein the second epitaxial pattern is connected to the second active pattern and includes p-type impurities ([0050], [0065], [0122], [0127]); and
a second source/drain contact 170P that penetrates an upper surface of the second epitaxial pattern and is connected to the second epitaxial pattern,
wherein a lower surface of the first source/drain contact is lower than a lower surface of the second source/drain contact.
As for claim 3, Kim et al. show the first epitaxial pattern has a hexagonal shape in a cross-section that intersects the first direction (Figs. 7A-7B).
As for claim 5, Kim et al. show the second epitaxial pattern has a pentagonal shape in a cross-section that intersects the third direction (Figs. 7A-7B).
As for claim 7, Kim et al. show the first source/drain contact includes a first silicide film, a first barrier metal film, and a first filling metal film that are sequentially stacked on the first epitaxial pattern, and
the second source/drain contact includes a second silicide film, a second barrier metal film, and a second filling metal film that are sequentially stacked on the second epitaxial pattern ([0136]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 2 and 6, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2016/0087053) in view of Hsu et al. (2017/0323852).
As for claims 2 and 6, Kim et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 1 above, except an upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern has a V shape in a cross-section that intersects the second direction (claim 2); and a first liner film that extends along the upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern, the side surface of the first gate structure, the upper surface of the second epitaxial pattern, and the side surface of the second gate structure; and a second liner film disposed on the first liner film and that extends along a side surface of the first source/drain contact and a side surface of the second source/drain contact (claim 6).
Hsu et al. teach in Fig. 8 and related text:
As for claim 2, an upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern 30 has a V shape in a cross-section.
As for claim 6, a first liner film 44 that extends along the upper surface of the epitaxial pattern 30, the side surface of the gate structure 24/36/38/40; and
a second liner film 46 disposed on the first liner film and that extends along a side surface of the source/drain contact 60.
Kim et al. and Hsu et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a field effect transistor and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim et al. with the specified feature(s) of Hsu et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern having a V shape in a cross-section; a first liner film extending along the upper surface of the epitaxial pattern, the side surface of the gate structure; and a second liner film disposing on the first liner film and that extending along a side surface of the source/drain contact, as taught by Hsu et al., in Kim et al.’s device, in order to reduce parasitic capacitances and thus increase the device performance and reduce the power consumption of the device. Furthermore, a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, the combined device shows:
As for claim 2, an upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern has a V shape in a cross-section that intersects the second direction.
As for claim 6, a first liner film that extends along the upper surface of the first epitaxial pattern, the side surface of the first gate structure, the upper surface of the second epitaxial pattern, and the side surface of the second gate structure; and
a second liner film disposed on the first liner film and that extends along a side surface of the first source/drain contact and a side surface of the second source/drain contact.
Claim(s) 9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2016/0087053) in view of Kuo et al. (2024/0363395).
Kim et al. disclosed substantially the entire claimed invention, as applied to claim 1 above, except the first active pattern includes a plurality of first sheet patterns that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, vertically spaced apart from each other, and extend in the first direction, and the second active pattern includes a plurality of second sheet patterns that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, vertically spaced apart from each other, and extend in the third direction.
Kuo et al. teach in Figs. 16, 16A-16E and related text the first active pattern 204a includes a plurality of first sheet patterns 208a that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, vertically spaced apart from each other, and extend in the first direction Y, and
the second active pattern 204b includes a plurality of second sheet patterns 208b that are sequentially stacked on the substrate, vertically spaced apart from each other, and extend in the third direction Y.
Kim et al. and Kuo et al. are analogous art because they are directed to a complementary field effect transistor and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kim et al. with the specified feature(s) of Kuo et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first active pattern including a plurality of first sheet patterns that being sequentially stacked on the substrate, vertically spaced apart from each other, and extend in the first direction, and the second active pattern including a plurality of second sheet patterns that being sequentially stacked on the substrate, vertically spaced apart from each other, and extend in the third direction, as taught by Kuo et al., in Kim et al.'s device, in order to improve the short-channel effect, reduce leakage current and improve the performance of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEIYA LI whose telephone number is (571)270-1572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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.
/MEIYA LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811