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
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/29/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The term “substantially equal” in claims 2, 5, 10, and 14 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. The examiner notes that the inventions of claims 2, 5, 10, and 14 can be made with a variety of methods and materials, and at a variety of scales, meaning one of ordinary skill in the art cannot be reasonably apprised of the manufacturing tolerances that the term “substantially equal to” may be intended to encompass. For the purposes of this examination, “substantially equal to” will be interpreted to be any values which are equal within rounding-range in as it appears in the prior art.
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) 1-2, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayuzumi (US 20110042752 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mayuzumi discloses, in FIG. 1A, a semiconductor device with “semiconductor substrate” 21,”gate electrode” (gate structure) 31 over the substrate, “source/drain regions” 37 are described in paragraph 0110: “a stress applying film . . . is formed in the source/drain regions 37” (strained layers) are disposed aside the gate structure, paragraph 103 states that contact portions 103 are connected to the source/drain regions 37 (source/drain contact patterns), and FIG. 1A shows that the top surface of the source/drain contact patterns are coplanar with a top surface of the gate structure, “third contact portion” (gate contact via) 54 is disposed on and electrically connected to the gate structure 31, and “second contact potions” (source/drain contact vias) 53 are disposed on and connected to the source/drain contact patterns 43.
Regarding claim 2, Mayuzumi further discloses in FIG. 1A that the height of the gate contact via is substantially equal to a height of each of the source/drain contact vias.
Regarding claim 9, Mayuzumi discloses a semiconductor substrate, a gate structure over the substrate, strained layers aside the gate structure, source/drain patterns on and electrically connected to the strained layer, and a gate contact via disposed on and electrically connected to the gate structure. Further, FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B show that the gate contact via is funnel shaped.
Regarding claim 10 Mayuzumi discloses that a height of the gate contact via is substantially equal to a height of each of the source/ drain vias, as shown above.
Regarding claim 11, Mayuzumi further discloses, in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B, that each of the source/drain contact vias (53) has a funnel shape.
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) 3, 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mayuzumi (US 20110042752 A1) in view of Chang (US 20220326301 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mayuzumi teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches in FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B that the gate contact via has a bottom surface in physical contact with the gate structure and a top surface opposite the bottom surface. In addition, paragraph 0129 teaches that the opening in which the gate contact via is formed is “hole-shaped,” meaning the bottom surface of the gate contact via is circular in the top view.
However, Mayuzumi does not teach that the top surface of the gate contact via is elliptical.
Chang teaches, in paragraph 0075, “via contact” 130 in which “the upper surface of via contacts 130 may have an elliptical shape.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine Mayuzumi with Chang such that the top surface of the gate contact via is elliptical in top view. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, maintain the upper surface area of the via available for contact while reducing the profile of the upper surface of the via along a direction (the direction along the short axis).
Regarding claim 8, Mayuzumi teaches, in FIG. 1A, that each of the source/drain contact vias has a bottom surface in physical contact with the corresponding source/drain contact pattern, and that these vias have a top surface opposite the bottom surface, and a circular bottom surface. Chang also teaches an elliptical top to a via, as shown above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to create the source/drain vias with a circular bottom and elliptical top in a top view, as taught by Mayuzumi and Chang, for the same reasons that one is motivated to create a gate contact via with a circular bottom and elliptical top in a top view, as shown above.
Regarding claim 12, Mayuzumi and Chang teach that the gate contact via has a bottom surface in physical contact with the gate structure, and that the bottom surface of the gate via is circular and a top surface is elliptical in a top view, as shown above.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayuzumi (US 20110042752 A1) in view of Chang (US 20220326301 A1) in further view of Smith (US 20220270979 A1).
Regarding claim 4, as shown above Mayuzumi and Chang teach the limitations of claim 3, however, they do not explicitly teach a ratio of area of the bottom surface to the top surface of the gate contact via between 1:1.2 and 1:2.
Smith teaches, in paragraph 0032, that the ratio of the area top surface of a via to the area of the bottom surface of a via is “greater than or about” 1.25:1, 1.5:1, 1.75:1, or 2:1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to construct the gate contact via taught by Mayuzumi and Chang with a bottom to top surface area ratio of between 1:1.2 and 1:2, as taught by Smith. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to, for example, maximize area of contact on the top surface while maintaining a lower profile of the gate contact via as it passes through the rest of the device.
Regarding claim 12, Mayuzumi and Chang teach that a ratio of areas between the bottom and top surfaces of the gate contact via ranges from ‘about’ 1:1.25 to 1:2, as shown above.
Claim(s) 6-7, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayuzumi (US 20110042752 A1) in view of Chang (US 20220326301 A1) in further view of Smith (US 20220270979 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mayuzumi teaches a sidewall connecting the top and bottom surfaces of the via of FIG. 1A, but does not teach that a portion of the sidewall is curved.
Tsai teaches, in FIG. 19, contact vias 92, in which “the sidewalls of contact plugs 92 have substantially straight and slanted lower portions, and curved upper portions” (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the gate contact via taught by Mayuzumi and Chang such that the via has a portion of curved sidewall.
Regarding claim 7, Tsai further teaches, in FIG. 19, an angle α between the bottom surface and sidewall of the gate contact via, and paragraph 0046 states that this angle may be “between about 80 degrees and about 90 degrees.” Additionally, the examiner notes that the sidewall depicted has an upper surface that curves to an angle of well over 45 degrees relative to the bottom surface (meaning that there exists a portion of the upper half of the sidewall, along its curve, which forms a 65 to 80 degree angle with the top surface of the via).
It would have been obvious to further modify the via taught by Mayuzumi, Chen, and Tsai such that the via includes an angle between 87 and 90 degrees between the sidewall and bottom surface, and an angle between 65 and 80 degrees between the top surface and a sidewall, as taught by Tsai. One having ordinary skill in the art is motivated to do so in order to achieve a desirable ratio of widths of the via between the top and bottom surfaces of the via, as this configuration is good for gap filling (Tsai, paragraph 0045).
Regarding claim 15, Mayuzumi, Chang, and Tsai teach a gate contact via with a sidewall connecting the top surface and bottom surface of the gate contact via, an inclined angle between a top surface and a side wall between 65 and 80 degrees, and an angle between the bottom surface and the sidewall of the gate contact via between 87 and 90 degrees, as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MINNEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9688. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8:30 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9060. 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.
/GABRIEL SEBASTIAN MINNEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JACOB Y CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897