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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on January 21st, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention, claims 12-18 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-11 as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on April 15th, 2025, August 14th, 2025 and November 12th, 2025, have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/13/2023 are acceptable.
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.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheiper (US 2012/0156837, hereinafter as Sche ‘837) in view of Min (US 2021/0226030, hereinafter as Min ‘030).
Regarding Claim 1 Sche ‘837 teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1h, (101); [0026]);
a gate electrode (163; [0027]) disposed on the substrate;
a first metal contact (180; [0040]) disposed in the gate electrode;
a first spacer (Fig. 1g, (165); [0037]) disposed on a sidewall of the gate electrode; and
a second spacer (Fig. 1g, (166); [0037]) covering the first spacer.
Sche ‘837 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the first spacer comprises dopants”.
Min ‘030 teaches the first spacer (Fig. 1J, (112); [0027]) comprises dopants (Fig. 2C, (115); [0027] and [0029]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sche ‘837 by having the first spacer comprises dopants for the purpose of reducing the gate effective capacitance (see para. [0029]) and improving device performance (see para. [0038]) as suggested by Min ‘030.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1h (Sche ‘837)
PNG
media_image2.png
410
420
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1J (Min ‘030)
Regarding Claim 2, Sche ‘837 teaches a first lightly doped region (151E; [0035]) disposed within the substrate and adjacent to the gate electrode; and a second lightly doped region (152; [0035]) disposed within the substrate, wherein a dimension of the first lightly doped region is different from a dimension of the second lightly doped region (see Fig. 1h).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a dimension of the first lightly doped region is different from a dimension of the second lightly doped region on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a dimension of the first lightly doped region is different from a dimension of the second lightly doped region in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
Regarding Claim 3, Sche ‘837 teaches the dimension of the second lightly doped region (152) is determined by a thickness of the first spacer (165) (see Fig. 1h).
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the dimension of the second lightly doped region is determined by a thickness of the first spacer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the dimension of the second lightly doped region determined by a thickness of the first spacer in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
Regarding Claim 4, Sche ‘837 teaches a portion of the first spacer (165) is free from vertically overlapping the second lightly doped region (152) (see Fig. 1h).
Regarding Claim 5, Sche ‘837 teaches a heavily doped region (151D; [0031]) disposed within the substrate and adjacent to the second spacer (166) (see Fig. 1h).
Regarding Claim 6, Min ‘030 teaches the dopants (115) are located adjacent to an interface between the first spacer (112) and the second spacer (114).
Regarding Claim 7, Min ‘030 teaches the second spacer (114) has an external surface facing away from the first spacer (112).
Thus, Sche ‘837 and Min ‘030 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a surface roughness of the interface between the first spacer and the second spacer is greater than a surface roughness of the external surface of the second spacer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a surface roughness of the interface between the first spacer and the second spacer is greater than a surface roughness of the external surface of the second spacer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image3.png
18
19
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a surface roughness of the interface between the first spacer and the second spacer is greater than a surface roughness of the external surface of the second spacer in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
Regarding Claim 8, Min ‘030 teaches a conductive via (170; [0037]) penetrating the second spacer (114).
Regarding Claim 9, Sche ‘837 teaches a second metal contact (154; [0040]) disposed in the substrate and in the heavily doped region (151D) (see Fig. 1h).
Regarding Claim 10, Sche ‘837 and Min ‘030 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a material of the first spacer is the same as that of the second spacer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material of the first spacer is the same as that of the second spacer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (see para. [0081] and [0086] of Ouyang (US 2009/0174002) as evidence. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a material of the first spacer is the same as that of the second spacer when this allows a good flow with the other steps in the fabrication process.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sche ‘837 and Min ‘030 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haran (US 2013/0015509, hereinafter as Hara ‘509).
Regarding Claim 11, Sche ‘837 and Min ‘030 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a first dielectric structure disposed over the substrate and over the second spacer, wherein the first metal contact is exposed by the first dielectric structure”.
Hara ‘509 teaches a first dielectric structure (Fig. 10, (90); [0056]) disposed over the substrate (8; [0029]) and over the second spacer (66; [0054]), wherein the first metal contact (85; [0057]) is exposed by the first dielectric structure (90).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sche ‘837 and Min ‘030 by having a first dielectric structure for the purpose of forming metal interconnect structures (see para. [0056]) as suggested by Hara ‘509.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Liaw et al. (US 2020/0343359 A1)
Kwon et al. (US 2017/0194493 A1)
Ouyang et al. (US 2009/0174002 A1)
Sato et al. (US 2009/0085123 A1)
Cheng et al. (US 2007/0128786 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893