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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/08/23 was filed in a timely manner; thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group #1, claims #1-9 in the reply filed on 01/06/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement (nor selecting elect either with or without traverse), the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
With respect to the newly amended claims, the Examiner takes the following position. When considering Group I (claims 1-9), Group II (claims 10-16) and Group III (claims #21-24), the Examiner takes the position that Group I, II and III represent three separate inventions for the following reasons.
Inventions Group I and Group II are directed to related methods. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed by the method of Group II can be practice for it's intended purpose without requiring forming a conductive layer to fill the first openings and the second opening in a same deposition process by using a same metal precursor, which is allowed by the claimed method of Group I. Also, the invention as claimed in Group I can be practiced for it's intended purpose without requiring a method wherein a material of the source/drain contact plugs is different from a material of the gate electrode, as required by the invention of the Group II claim language. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Inventions Group I and Group III are directed to related methods. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed by the method of Group III can be practice for it's intended purpose without requiring forming a conductive layer to fill the first openings and the second opening in a same deposition process by using a same metal precursor, which is allowed by the claimed method of Group I. Also, the invention as claimed in Group I can be practiced for it's intended purpose without requiring a method wherein the same deposition process comprises a metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) process, as required by the invention of the Group III claim language. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Furthermore, the Examiner directs the Applicant to MPEP 35 U.S.C. 121 quoted in the preceding section states that the Director may require restriction if two or more "independent and distinct" inventions are claimed in one application. In 37 CFR 1.141, the statement is made that two or more "independent and distinct inventions" may not be claimed in one application.
For the above reasons, the Examiner takes the position that the above restriction of the related method Groups (I, II and III) is correct and that these Groups would have been restricted if presented in the original claim presentation.
Claims #10-16 and 21-24 are withdrawn examination considerations.
Claims #1-9 will be examined.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim #1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSAI et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0371790), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai" as modified by WADA et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2008/0088021), hereinafter referred to as "Wada", Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2023/0335469), hereinafter referred to as "Wang" and in further view of LAI et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2022/0254785), hereinafter referred to as "Lai".
Tsai shows, with respect to claim #1, a method for forming a semiconductor device, comprising: forming a gate electrode (fig. #20, item 220) (paragraph 0029) over a substrate (fig. #20, item 100) (paragraph 0014); forming source/drain regions (fig. #1a, item 7) beside the gate electrode (fig. #20, item 104, 106) and on the substrate (paragraph 0014); forming source/drain contact plugs (fig. #20, item 310, 320) on the source/drain regions (paragraph 0032); forming a first dielectric layer (fig. #14, item 420) over the source/drain contact plugs and the gate electrode (paragraph 0033); forming first openings (fig. #16, item 430) and a second opening (fig. #16, item 440) in the first dielectric layer to expose portions of the source/drain contact plugs and a portion of the gate electrode respectively (paragraph 0034), forming a conductive layer to fill the first openings and the second opening (fig. #20, item 310, 320) in a same deposition process (paragraph 0030, 0032).
Tsai substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Tsai fails to show, with respect to claim #1, a method a method comprising, forming a conductive layer to fill the first openings and the second opening in a same deposition process by using a same metal precursor, performing a planarization process to partially remove the conductive layer to form first contact vias in direct contact with the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs and to form a second contact via in direct contact with the exposed portion of the gate electrode, performing a pre-clean process to the first openings and the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs, and to the second opening and the exposed portion of the gate electrode, wherein performing the pre-clean process comprises applying an ozone-containing source; performing a surface treatment to the first and second openings to passivate sidewalls of the first and second openings of the first dielectric layer.
Wada teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising, forming a conductive layer to fill the first openings and the second opening in a same deposition process by using a same metal precursor (paragraph 0004, 0031-0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by the invention of Wada, which teaches, a method comprising, forming a conductive layer to fill the first openings and the second opening in a same deposition process by using a same metal precursor, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a seed layer of forthcoming layer, as taught by Wada.
Tsai as modified by Wada, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Tsai as modified by Wada, with respect to claim #1, fails to show, a method comprising performing a planarization process to partially remove the conductive layer to form first contact vias in direct contact with the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs and to form a second contact via in direct contact with the exposed portion of the gate electrode and performing a pre-clean process to the first openings and the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs, and to the second opening and the exposed portion of the gate electrode, wherein performing the pre-clean process comprises applying an ozone-containing source; performing a surface treatment to the first and second openings to passivate sidewalls of the first and second openings of the first dielectric layer
Wang teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising performing a planarization process to partially remove the conductive layer to form first contact vias (fig. #2R-1, item 184 and 188) in direct contact with the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs and to form a second contact via (fig. #2R-1, item 186) in direct contact with the exposed portion of the gate electrode (paragraph 0086).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by Wada, with the invention of Wang, which teaches, a method comprising performing a planarization process to partially remove the conductive layer to form first contact vias in direct contact with the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs and to form a second contact via in direct contact with the exposed portion of the gate electrode, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a smooth congruent surface for further isolation and conductive layers, as taught by Wang.
Tsai modified by Wada and Wang, substantially shows the invention of claim #1 as shown in the rejection above.
Tsai modified by Wada and Wang, fails to show, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising performing a pre-clean process to the first openings and the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs, and to the second opening and the exposed portion of the gate electrode, wherein performing the pre-clean process comprises applying an ozone-containing source; performing a surface treatment to the first and second openings to passivate sidewalls of the first and second openings of the first dielectric layer.
Lai teaches, with respect to claim #1, a method comprising performing a pre-clean process to the first openings and the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs, and to the second opening and the exposed portion of the gate electrode, wherein performing the pre-clean process comprises applying an ozone-containing source; performing a surface treatment to the first and second openings to passivate sidewalls of the first and second openings of the first dielectric layer (paragraph 0052, 0071, 0094).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #1, to modified the invention of Tsai modified by Wada and Wang, with the invention of Lai, which teaches, a method comprising performing a pre-clean process to the first openings and the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs, and to the second opening and the exposed portion of the gate electrode, wherein performing the pre-clean process comprises applying an ozone-containing source; performing a surface treatment to the first and second openings to passivate sidewalls of the first and second openings of the first dielectric layer, to incorporate a structural condition that provide a surface free of residue that would contaminate further depositions, as taught by Lai.
//
Claim #2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSAI et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0371790), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai" as modified by WADA et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2008/0088021), hereinafter referred to as "Wada", Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2023/0335469), hereinafter referred to as "Wang" and LAI et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2022/0254785), hereinafter referred to as "Lai" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in further view of Wang et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2019/0304834), hereinafter referred to as "Wang(2)".
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, fail to show, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein the ozone-containing source includes deionized ozone, and performing the pre-clean process further comprises applying at least one of deionized water, HCl, ammonium hydroxide (NH40H), and isopropyl alcohol (IPA).
Wang(2) teaches, with respect to claim #2, a method wherein the ozone-containing source includes deionized ozone, and performing the pre-clean process further comprises applying at least one of deionized water, HCl, ammonium hydroxide (NH40H), and isopropyl alcohol (IPA) (paragraph 0031)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #2, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, with the invention of Wang(2) which teaches, a method wherein the ozone-containing source includes deionized ozone, and performing the pre-clean process further comprises applying at least one of deionized water, HCl, ammonium hydroxide (NH40H), and isopropyl alcohol (IPA), to incorporate a structural condition that with removed chemicals that would promote corrosion of plug areas, as taught by Wang(2).
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, fail to show, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein the deionized ozone is applied to the first and second openings for about 10s to 500s to remove residues from the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs and the exposed portion of the gate electrode.
Wang(2) teaches, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein the deionized ozone is applied to the first and second openings for about 10s to 500s to remove residues from the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs and the exposed portion of the gate electrode (paragraph 0031-0032)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, with the invention of Wang(2) which teaches, a method wherein the deionized ozone is applied to the first and second openings for about 10s to 500s to remove residues from the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs and the exposed portion of the gate electrode, to incorporate a structural condition that with removed chemicals that would promote corrosion of plug areas, as taught by Wang(2).
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, fail to show, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the deionized ozone is applied to the first and second openings at a concentration ranging from about 1 ppm to 1000 ppm.
Wang(2) teaches, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the deionized ozone is applied to the first and second openings at a concentration ranging from about 1 ppm to 1000 ppm (paragraph 0031-0032)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #4, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, with the invention of Wang(2) which teaches, a method wherein the deionized ozone is applied to the first and second openings at a concentration ranging from about 1 ppm to 1000 ppm, to incorporate a structural condition that with removed chemicals that would promote corrosion of plug areas, as taught by Wang(2).
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, fail to show, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein performing the surface treatment includes performing a soaking process or a plasma treatment using a source gas selected from N2, H2, O2, Ar, NH3, or a mixture thereof.
Wang(2) teaches, with respect to claim #5, a method wherein performing the surface treatment includes performing a soaking process or a plasma treatment using a source gas selected from N2, H2, O2, Ar, NH3, or a mixture thereof (paragraph 0031-0032)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #5, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, with the invention of Wang(2) which teaches, a method wherein performing the surface treatment includes performing a soaking process or a plasma treatment using a source gas selected from N2, H2, O2, Ar, NH3, or a mixture thereof, to incorporate a structural condition that with removed chemicals that would promote corrosion of plug areas, as taught by Wang(2).
///
Claim #6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSAI et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0371790), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai" as modified by WADA et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2008/0088021), hereinafter referred to as "Wada", Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2023/0335469), hereinafter referred to as "Wang" and LAI et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2022/0254785), hereinafter referred to as "Lai" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in further view of Dutta et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2020/0152514), hereinafter referred to as "Dutta".
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, fail to show, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the same deposition process comprises a metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) process.
Dutta teaches, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the same deposition process comprises a metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) process (paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #6, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, with the invention of Dutta, which teaches, a method wherein the same deposition process comprises a metal-organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) process, to incorporate a structural condition that provide atomic-level thickness control, excellent uniformity over large areas, and the ability to grow diverse materials for high-performance devices, as taught by Dutta.
///
Claim #7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSAI et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0371790), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai" as modified by WADA et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2008/0088021), hereinafter referred to as "Wada", Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2023/0335469), hereinafter referred to as "Wang" and LAI et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2022/0254785), hereinafter referred to as "Lai" and Dutta et al., (U.S. PUB. No2020/0152514), hereinafter referred to as "Dutta" as shown in the rejection of claim #6 above and in further view of Blakeney et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2022/0298624), hereinafter referred to as "Blakeney".
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang, Lai and Dutta, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #6 above.
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang, Lai and Dutta, fail to show, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein the same metal precursor comprises a metal complex compound containing a metal selected from W, Ru, Co, Cu, Mo, Ti, Ta, Ir, or a combination thereof, and a ligand selected from alkoxide, thiocyanate, nitrate, azide, acetonitrile, pyridine, ammonium, halide, or a combination thereof.
Blakeney teaches, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein the same metal precursor comprises a metal complex compound containing a metal selected from W, Ru, Co, Cu, Mo, Ti, Ta, Ir, or a combination thereof, and a ligand selected from alkoxide, thiocyanate, nitrate, azide, acetonitrile, pyridine, ammonium, halide, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0058, 0117).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #7, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang, Lai, Dutta with the invention of Blakeney, which teaches, a method wherein the same metal precursor comprises a metal complex compound containing a metal selected from W, Ru, Co, Cu, Mo, Ti, Ta, Ir, or a combination thereof, and a ligand selected from alkoxide, thiocyanate, nitrate, azide, acetonitrile, pyridine, ammonium, halide, or a combination thereof, to incorporate a structural condition that provide atomic-level thickness control, excellent uniformity over large areas, and the ability to grow diverse materials for high-performance devices, as taught by Blakeney.
////
Claim #8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSAI et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0371790), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai" as modified by WADA et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2008/0088021), hereinafter referred to as "Wada", Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2023/0335469), hereinafter referred to as "Wang" and LAI et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2022/0254785), hereinafter referred to as "Lai" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in further view of Wang et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2021/0375677), hereinafter referred to as "Wang(3)".
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, fail to show, with respect to claim #8, a wherein forming the first openings and the second opening further comprises forming the first openings having a first depth and the second opening having a second depth that is larger than the first depth.
Wang(3) teaches, with respect to claim #8, a method wherein forming the first openings and the second opening further comprises forming the first openings (fig. #165B, item 112) having a first depth and the second opening (fig. #165B, item 110) having a second depth that is larger than the first depth (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #8, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang, Lai with the invention of Wang(3), which teaches, a method wherein forming the first openings and the second opening further comprises forming the first openings having a first depth and the second opening having a second depth that is larger than the first depth, to incorporate a structural condition that provide atomic-level thickness control, excellent uniformity over large areas, and the ability to grow diverse materials for high-performance devices, as taught by Wang(3).
////
Claim #9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSAI et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2024/0371790), hereinafter referred to as "Tsai" as modified by WADA et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2008/0088021), hereinafter referred to as "Wada", Wang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2023/0335469), hereinafter referred to as "Wang" and LAI et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2022/0254785), hereinafter referred to as "Lai" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in further view of KIM et al., (U.S. PUB. No. 2024/0128319), hereinafter referred to as "Kim".
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang and Lai, fail to show, with respect to claim #9, a wherein the first contact vias are formed with curved interfaces between the first contact vias and the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs respectively.
Kim teaches, with respect to claim #9, a method wherein the first contact vias are formed with curved interfaces between the first contact vias and the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs respectively (paragraph 0073, 0078).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #9, to modified the invention of Tsai as modified by Wada, Wang, Lai with the invention of Kim, which teaches, a method wherein the first contact vias are formed with curved interfaces between the first contact vias and the exposed portions of the source/drain contact plugs respectively, to incorporate a structural condition that provides greater surface contact area between S/D and plug device, as taught by Kim.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. 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.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
03/12/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899