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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “152” has been used to designate both a gate contact (see Figure 1A) and an epitaxial layer (see Figure 1B).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
1073
media_image1.png
Greyscale
reference character “170” has been used to designate both a contact metal (see Figure 1A) and a stack of ILD layers (see Figure 1A).
PNG
media_image2.png
356
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Figures 1A, 2A, 5, 7, 9A, 9B, and 10B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Figure 1A: See applicants’ specification, page 8, paragraph 40, line 2.
Figure 2A: See applicants’ specification, page 11, paragraph 44.
Figure 5: See applicants’ specification, page 35, paragraph 184, line 1.
Figure 7: See applicants’ specification, page 36, paragraph 187, line 1.
Figure 9A: See applicants’ specification, page 30, paragraph 166, line 2.
Figure 9B: See applicants’ specification, page 32, paragraph 179, line 2.
Figure 10B: See applicants’ specification, page 33, paragraph 180, line 3.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
308 in Figure 3B. (See the Specifications objections section for a suggested edit.)
PNG
media_image3.png
296
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
S/B in Figures 5, 6.
PNG
media_image4.png
327
1071
media_image4.png
Greyscale
962 in Figure 9B.
PNG
media_image5.png
304
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 because of the following informalities:
Label tips 230 in Figure 2B. Compare with Figure 2A. See page 12, paragraph 47, line 3.
PNG
media_image6.png
323
978
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Label oxide 320 in Figure 3H to be clear as to its presence. Compare with Figure 3I.
PNG
media_image7.png
277
1069
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Add a reference line from reference number 346 to the fin in Figure 3N. Compare with Figure 3M.
PNG
media_image8.png
328
956
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Label stump 346, SiGe epitaxial layer 348, and metal silicide 350 in Figure 3W. See applicants’ specification, page 30, paragraph 165, lines 6-7. Compare with Figure 3V.
PNG
media_image9.png
358
1057
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 14, paragraph 58, line 1: Add “308” after “mask” if this is a suitable location for the reference number to address the drawing objection.
Page 16, paragraph 57, line 2: Change “figure 3d” to “Figure 3D”.
Page 16, paragraph 57, line 4: Change “figure 3c” to “Figure 3C”.
Page 16, paragraph 71, line 2: Change “stamps” to “stumps”.
Page 17, paragraph 73, line 1: Add “316” after “an oxide”.
Page 18, paragraph 81: It is unclear from this paragraph whether the oxide layer described—and shown, per line 6—in this paragraph is layer 321. It appears that it might be layer 320. Please clarify.
Page 19, paragraph 85, line 1: Add “been” after “has”.
Page 19, paragraph 87: See note regarding paragraph 81—is this the same as “as shown” in paragraph 81, line 6? This layer might be oxide 320 instead of oxide 321. See page 23, paragraph 115, and Figures 3G and 3H.
Page 23, paragraph 115, line 1: Change “sectionof” to “section of”.
Page 24, paragraph 121, line 1: Add “348” after SiGe, if this is a suitable location for this reference number.
Page 24, paragraph 125, lines 1, 2, and page 25, paragraph 125, line 1 of the page: Where are “steps 31 to 37”? These numbers do not appear in the drawings or the specification except for here, and a brief reference to step 37 later in the specification.
Page 24, paragraph 125, line 3: Change “etch” to “etched”.
Page 25, paragraph 125, line 2 of the page: Add “be” after “only”.
Page 27, paragraph 147, line 2: Change “regions, The” to “regions. The”.
Page 29, paragraph 161, line 1: Change 358 to 359. Compare with Figures 3U and 3V.
Page 29, paragraph 161, line 6: Change “ILD 1” to “ILD1”.
Page 31, paragraph 167, line 2: With the exception of paragraph 125, there is no other reference to “step 37”. What is this step?
Page 32, paragraph 174, line 2: Change “device the trench” to “device. The trench”.
Page 33, paragraph 179, line 2 of the page: Change “compare” to “compared”.
Page 33, paragraph 180, line 3: Change “Figures” to “figures”.
Page 33, paragraph 181, line 7: Change 10b to 10B.
Page 33, paragraph 181, line 9: Delete the comma before “shape”.
Page 34, paragraph 182, line 3: Change “region. And” to “region, and”.
Page 35, paragraph 185, line 1: Change “Figures” to “figures”.
Page 35, paragraph 185, line 7: Is after “connection” a good place for reference number “S/B”?
Page 35, paragraph 185, line 9: Change “Figure s” to “Figures”.
Page 35, paragraph 186, line 2: Change “Figures” to “figures” and change “Figure” to “figure”.
Page 36, paragraph 188, line 2: Change “Figures” to “figures”.
Page 36, paragraph 188: Add a period at the end of the paragraph.
Page 38, paragraph 196, lines 1-2 of the page: Consider deleting the text in brackets.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9: Please add “elongate” before “fins” and provide antecedent basis for “the gate region”. Line 7 refers to a gate contact.
Claims 2-10 stand objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 1.
Claim 10, line 2: Change “body contact” to “body-contact”. Compare with claim 1, line 14.
Claim 11, line 8: Please add “elongate” before “fins” and provide antecedent basis for “the gate region”. Line 6 refers to a gate contact.
Claims 12-19 stand objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 11: This claim requires “providing a gate contact extending across and partially surrounding the plurality of elongate fins; providing a dielectric material, between the fins and the gate region and providing galvanic isolation therebetween;….” For purposes of this rejection, the Office interprets “the fins” as the elongate fins defined earlier in the claim, and interprets “the gate region” as “the gate contact”, also defined earlier in the claim. In typical arrangements involving forming a gate structure on a semiconductor fin, the gate dielectric layer, any work function layer, or similar, are formed prior to forming the gate electrode. Here, the claim language indicates that the gate region/contact has already been formed, and this step is followed by providing the dielectric material between the fins and the gate region/contact. Applicants do not disclose how this step can take place. Because there is no disclosed step for providing the dielectric material between the fins and the gate region/contact, claim 11 is rejected for lack of enablement.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is "undue." These factors include, but are not limited to:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
(A) The breadth of the claims: As discussed above, the breadth of the claims encompasses that the gate region/contact has already been formed, and the gate formation step is followed by providing the dielectric material between the fins and the gate region/contact. An interpretation that the dielectric material is formed before the gate is not within the scope of the claim.
(B) The nature of the invention: The invention is a method for making a finFET semiconductor device.
(C) The state of the prior art: The prior art discloses the formation of the dielectric material (gate dielectric layer) on the fins prior to the formation of the gate region/contact. See, e.g., Tsai, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0118994, Figures 12A-14B. The prior art does not disclose the formation of a dielectric material between the fins and the gate region/contact, that is, the formation of the dielectric material between an existing fin and an existing gate region/contact.
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill: One having ordinary skill in the art would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or materials science and 5 years of experience in the semiconductor industry.
(E) The level of predictability in the art: The level of predictability is low due to the difficulty in accurately providing a dielectric material that provides galvanic isolation between an existing fin and an existing gate region/contact because there is no space between the fin and the gate region/contact, or the space is minute.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor: The inventor has provided no examples for forming the dielectric material between the fins and the gate region/contact.
(G) The existence of working examples: The disclosure has no working examples for this feature.
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure: Given the information provided by the inventor, the state of the prior art, and the scope of the claims, the quantity of experimentation is undue. For these reasons, claim 11 is rejected for lack of enablement.
Claims 12-19 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 11.
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.
Claims 1-19 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.
Regarding claim 1: Claim 1, line 9, refers to “the gate region”. However, the gate region has not been defined. Because the gate region has not been defined, claim 1 is rejected for lack of antecedent basis.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 1: This claim is rejected on two bases. First, the claim requires that the elongate metal contact comprise a first seed metal in contact with the metal silicide and “a second metal, elsewhere.” The location of “elsewhere” is vague. For this reason, claim 4 is rejected as indefinite.
Second, the claim refers to contact with “metal silicide”. However, the location of the metal silicide is undefined. Because the location of the metal silicide is undefined, claim 4 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 5-7 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 5, which depends from claim 4, which depends from claim 1: This claim is rejected on two bases. First, claim 6 includes the following language “the elongate drain region is one of a plurality of such drain regions, the plurality of elongate drain regions is of a plurality of such drain regions….” This language is confusing. If the elongate drain region is one of a plurality of such drain regions, there is no need for a repeat definition. Because the language is confusing, claim 6 is rejected as indefinite.
Second, claim 6 refers to “a drain-gate-source-gate-drain-gate-source configuration”, but the source has not been defined. Because the source has not been defined, claim 6 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 7 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 6.
Regarding claim 11: This claim is rejected on two bases. First, claim 1, line 8, refers to “the gate region”. However, the gate region has not been defined. Because the gate region has not been defined, claim is rejected for lack of antecedent basis.
Second, claim 11 requires a dielectric material to be provided between the fins and the gate region/contact. Given the context of this step in the process, the step appears to be directed to providing a gate dielectric layer between the fins and the gate region/contact. However, due to the impossibility of placing a gate dielectric layer between an existing gate region/contact and existing fins, the claim is unclear what this dielectric material is. Because the claim is vague on this point, claim 11 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 12-19 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, which depends from claim 11: This claim is rejected on two bases. First, the claim requires that the elongate metal contact be deposited as a first seed metal in contact with metal silicide and “a second metal, elsewhere.” The location of “elsewhere” is vague. For this reason, claim 14 is rejected as indefinite.
Second, the claim refers to contact with “metal silicide”. However, the location of the metal silicide is undefined. Because the location of the metal silicide is undefined, claim 14 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 17, which depends from claim 16, which depends from claim 11: This claim is rejected on two bases. First, claim 17 includes the following language “the elongate drain region is one of a plurality of such drain regions, the plurality of elongate drain regions is of a plurality of such drain regions….” The elongate drain region is undefined. Because the elongate drain region is undefined, claim 17 is rejected as indefinite. Second, the cited language is confusing. If the elongate drain region is one of a plurality of such drain regions, there is no need for a repeat definition. Because the language is confusing, claim 17 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 18 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 17.
Claim Interpretation
The claim term “body-contact” is interpreted as requiring a contact to the body-region of independent claims 1 and 11. Contact with any region of the substrate is insufficient to meet the claim requirements.
The claim term “a plurality of elongate partial fins” in claim 1 does not require the plurality of elongate partial fins to be in the body-region. These fins are separate from the plurality of elongate fins which are required to be in the body-region.
The claim term “subset of the elongate fins” of claim 11 is required to be in the body-region because this subset if a part of the plurality of elongate fins that is defined to be in the body-region.
The claim term “dielectric material” in claim 1 is interpreted as a gate dielectric, given its location and purpose. For purposes of examination, the claim term “dielectric material” in claim 11 is interpreted as a gate dielectric layer that is provided before the gate region/contact is provided, instead of after the gate region/contact is formed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action, and if the informalities were addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
PNG
media_image10.png
847
820
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1: Cheng, U.S. Pat. No. 9,716,086, Figures 1-6 disclose a finFet semiconductor device, comprising: a substrate (10) having therein a body-region (14B) of a first conductivity type (n), a plurality of elongate fins (14F, 18) at a first major surface of the substrate (10) and within the body-region (14B); an oxide layer (20) on the first major surface and partially surrounding a lower portion (14F) of the elongate fins (14F, 18); a gate contact (gate conductor portion of second functional gate structure (22R)) extending across and partially surrounding an upper portion (18) of the plurality of elongate fins (14F, 18); a dielectric material (gate dielectric of portion of second functional gate structure (22R)), between the [elongate] fins (14F, 18) and the gate [contact] (22R) and providing galvanic isolation therebetween; a plurality of elongate partial fins (15R), parallel to the plurality of elongate fins (14F, 18), and having a height which is less than a height of the plurality of elongate fins (14F, 18); and an elongate silicon germanium contact (26), extending into the substrate (10) and in electrical contact with the plurality of elongate partial fins (15F), and forming a body-contact for the finFET; wherein the elongate silicon germanium contact (26) extends between a two of the plurality of elongate partial fins (18) and below an upper surface thereof and fills a space therebetween. Cheng specification, col. 3, l. 47 – col. 10, l. 10. Cheng does not disclose that the elongate contact (26) is or can be a metal elongate contact, because the silicon-germanium contact (26) is a part of an ESD region and forms a PN diode. Cheng also does not disclose that the elongate silicon germanium contact (26) forms a body-contact for the finFET. No other suitable art was identified that could be used with Cheng to render obvious claim 1. For these reasons, claim 1 is allowable.
Regarding claim 11: Cheng Figures 1-6 disclose a method of manufacturing a finFET device, the method comprising: providing a substrate (10) having therein a body-region (14B) of a first conductivity type (n), and having a plurality of elongate fins (14F, 18) at a first major surface of the substrate (10) and within the body-region (14B); providing an oxide (20) on the first major surface and partially surrounding a lower portion (14F) of the elongate fins (14F, 18); providing a gate contact (gate conductor portion of second functional gate structure (22R)) extending across and partially surrounding the plurality of elongate fins (14F, 18) and providing a dielectric material, on the fins (14F, 18) prior to the gate [contact] (gate conductor portion of second functional gate structure (22R)) being provided on the [elongate] fins (14F, 18) and providing galvanic isolation therebetween; etching a set of other elongate fins (19, 15F) to form a plurality of elongate partial fins (15F), having a height which is less than a height of the plurality of elongate fins (14F, 18), and an upper surface at approximately the same height as an upper surface of the oxide layer (10); removing the oxide layer between a two of the plurality of elongate partial fins (15F) prior to etching the other elongate fins (19, 15F); and depositing an elongate silicon germanium contact (26), extending into the substrate (10) and in electrical contact with the plurality of elongate partial fins (15F), wherein the elongate silicon germanium contact (26) extends between the two of the plurality of elongate partial fins (15F) and below an upper surface thereof and fills a space therebetween. Id. Cheng does not disclose after forming the gate contact, providing a dielectric material, between the [elongate] fins and the gate [contact] and providing galvanic isolation therebetween; etching a subset of the elongate fins to form a plurality of elongate partial fins, having a height which is less than a height of the plurality of elongate fins, and an upper surface at a same height as an upper surface of the oxide layer; removing the oxide layer between a two of the plurality of elongate partial fins; and depositing an elongate metal contact, extending into the substrate and in electrical contact with the plurality of elongate partial fins, to form a body-contact for the finFET, wherein the elongate metal contact extends between the two of the plurality of elongate partial fins and below an upper surface thereof and fills a space therebetween. No other suitable prior art has been identified that could be combined with Cheng to render obvious claim 11. For these reasons, claim 11 is allowable.
With regard to claim 1: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “an elongate metal contact, extending into the substrate and in electrical contact with the plurality of elongate partial fins, and forming a body-contact for the finFET; wherein the elongate metal contact extends between a two of the plurality of elongate partial fins and below an upper surface thereof and fills a space therebetween”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 2-10: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 11: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “etching a subset of the elongate fins to form a plurality of elongate partial fins, having a height which is less than a height of the plurality of elongate fins, and an upper surface at a same height as an upper surface of the oxide layer; removing the oxide layer between a two of the plurality of elongate partial fins; and depositing an elongate metal contact, extending into the substrate and in electrical contact with the plurality of elongate partial fins, to form a body-contact for the finFET, wherein the elongate metal contact extends between the two of the plurality of elongate partial fins and below an upper surface thereof and fills a space therebetween”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 12-19: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897