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 without traverse of Species 2 and sub-species B (claims 1, 4-15, and 17-20 read on the elected species) in the reply filed on August 5, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20220190168).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches, in Fig. 15, a semiconductor device ([0019]) comprising:
an active pattern (AP1, [0035]-[0036]) extending in a first direction (D1, [0150]);
a plurality of gate structures (GS1) on the active pattern (AP1) and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (D1) ([0054]); and
a source/drain pattern (150, [0033]) between adjacent ones of the gate structures (GS1);
wherein the source/drain pattern (150, [0097]) includes a semiconductor liner film (151) in contact with the active pattern (AP1), a lower semiconductor filling film (152) on the semiconductor liner film (151), an upper semiconductor filling film (154) on the lower semiconductor filling film (152), and a semiconductor buffer film (153) between the lower semiconductor filling film (152) and the upper semiconductor filling film (154) (see Fig. 15, [0097]),
wherein each of the semiconductor liner film (151, [0104]), the lower semiconductor filling film (152, [0111]), the upper semiconductor filling film (154, [0117]), and the semiconductor buffer film (153, [0115]) includes silicon-germanium,
wherein a germanium fraction of the semiconductor buffer film (153) is smaller than a germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (154) and a germanium fraction of the lower semiconductor filling film (152) (see Fig. 11, [0121]),
wherein the semiconductor buffer film (153) and the upper semiconductor filling film (154) are in a lower filling film recess defined by the lower semiconductor filling film (152) (see Fig. 15), and
wherein the semiconductor buffer film (153) extends along a part of the lower filling film recess (see Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 4, Kim further teaches, in Fig. 11, that a germanium fraction of the semiconductor liner film (151) is smaller than the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (154) and the germanium fraction of the lower semiconductor filling film (152) ([0121]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim further teaches, in Fig. 11, that the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (154) is greater than or equal to the germanium fraction of the lower semiconductor filling film (152) ([0121]).
Regarding claim 8, Kim further teaches, in Fig. 15, that the source/drain pattern (150) further includes a semiconductor capping film (155, [0118]) on the upper semiconductor filling film (154), and
that a germanium fraction of the semiconductor capping film (155) is smaller than the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (154) ([0119], because 151’s germanium fraction is less than 154’s germanium fraction in Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 9, Kim further teaches, in Fig. 15, that the active pattern (AP1) includes a lower pattern (BP1) extending in the first direction (D1) ([0150]), and a plurality of sheet patterns (NS1, [0036]) spaced apart from the lower pattern (BP1) in a second direction (D3) perpendicular to the first direction (D1) (see Fig. 15), and
that the semiconductor liner film (151) is in contact with the lower pattern (BP1) and each of the sheet patterns (SN1) (see Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches, in Fig. 15, a semiconductor device ([0019]) comprising:
an active pattern (AP1, [0035]-[0036]) that includes a lower pattern (BP1) extending in a first direction (D1) ([0150]), and a plurality of sheet patterns (NS1, [0036]) spaced apart from the lower pattern (BP1) in a second direction (D3) perpendicular to the first direction (D1) (see Fig. 15);
a plurality of gate structures that are on the lower pattern (BP1) and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (D1) ([0054]), and include a gate electrode (120) and a gate insulating film (130) ([0057]); and
a source/drain pattern (150, [0033]) between adjacent ones of the gate structures (GS1),
wherein the source/drain pattern (150, [0097]) includes a semiconductor liner film (151) in contact with the lower pattern (BP1) and the sheet patterns (NS1), a lower semiconductor filling film (152) on the semiconductor liner film (151), an upper semiconductor filling film (154) on the lower semiconductor filling film (152), and a semiconductor buffer film (153) between the lower semiconductor filling film (152) and the upper semiconductor filling film (154) (see Fig. 15, [0097]),
wherein the semiconductor liner film (151, [0104]), the lower semiconductor filling film (152, [0111]), the upper semiconductor filling film (154, [0117]), and the semiconductor buffer film (153, [0115]) each include silicon-germanium,
wherein a germanium fraction of the semiconductor buffer film (153) is smaller than a germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (154) and a germanium fraction of the lower semiconductor filling film (152) (see Fig. 11, [0121]),
wherein the semiconductor buffer film (153) extends along a profile of a lower filling film recess defined by the lower semiconductor filling film (152) (see Fig. 15),
wherein the semiconductor buffer film (153) includes a bottom portion (153BP), and a side portion (153SP) extending in the second direction (D3) from the bottom portion (153BP) ([0113]), and
wherein a thickness (t12) of the side portion (153SP) is greater than a thickness (t11) of the bottom portion (153BP) ([0150]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim further teaches that the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (154) is greater than the germanium fraction of the lower semiconductor filling film (152) (see Fig. 11, [0121]).
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.
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.
Claims 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190168) in view of Hsu et al. (US 20200168723).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kim does not teach wherein the lower semiconductor filling film includes a first lower semiconductor filling film and a second lower semiconductor filling film, wherein the first lower semiconductor filling film is between the semiconductor liner film and the second lower semiconductor filling film, and wherein a germanium fraction of the first lower semiconductor filling film is smaller than a germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hsu teaches, in Fig. 23B, that the lower semiconductor filling film (84A/82B) includes a first lower semiconductor filling film (84A, [0043]) and a second lower semiconductor filling film (82B, [0040]),
that the first lower semiconductor filling film (84A) is between the semiconductor liner film (82A, [0040]) and the second lower semiconductor filling film (82B) (see Fig. 23B), and
that a germanium fraction of the first lower semiconductor filling film (84A) is smaller than a germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film (82B) ([0043], [0045], 84A has a Ge concentration of 0-15% while 82B has a Ge concentration of 30-70%),
in order to “improve the epitaxial growth of source/drain structures” ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the semiconductor device of Kim with lower semiconductor filling film of Hsu, in order to improve the epitaxial growth of the source/drain structures. ([0043]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Hsu teaches the limitations of claim 6. Hsu further teaches that the germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film (82B) has the same range as the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (82C) ([0045], [0048], both have a Ge concentration of 30-70%).
However, Kim in view of Hsu does not explicitly teach that the germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film is equal to the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that that germanium fractions of the semiconductor filling films would impact the epitaxial growth of the source/drain structures (Hsu, [0043]).
The specific claimed concentrations, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” concentrations disclosed by Kim in view of Hsu that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired epitaxial growth, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film being equal to the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film is used, as already suggested by Kim in view of Hsu.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the concentrations stated and since these concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Kim in view of Hsu.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentrations or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches the limitations of claim 18. Kim does not teach wherein the lower semiconductor filling film includes a first lower semiconductor filling film and a second lower semiconductor filling film, wherein the first lower semiconductor filling film is between the semiconductor liner film and the second lower semiconductor filling film, and wherein a germanium fraction of the first lower semiconductor filling film is smaller than a germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hsu teaches, in Fig. 23B, that the lower semiconductor filling film (84A/82B) includes a first lower semiconductor filling film (84A, [0043]) and a second lower semiconductor filling film (82B, [0040]),
that the first lower semiconductor filling film (84A) is between the semiconductor liner film (82A, [0040]) and the second lower semiconductor filling film (82B) (see Fig. 23B), and
that a germanium fraction of the first lower semiconductor filling film (84A) is smaller than a germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film (82B) ([0043], [0045], 84A has a Ge concentration of 0-15% while 82B has a Ge concentration of 30-70%),
in order to “improve the epitaxial growth of source/drain structures” ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the semiconductor device of Kim with lower semiconductor filling film of Hsu, in order to improve the epitaxial growth of the source/drain structures. ([0043]).
Claims 10-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190168) in view of Liu et al. (US 20230197852, cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 4/15/2024).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches, in Fig. 15, a semiconductor device ([0019]) comprising:
a plurality of gate structures that are on the lower pattern (BP1) and spaced apart from each other in the first direction (D1) ([0054]), and include a gate electrode (120) and a gate insulating film (130) ([0057]); and
a source/drain pattern (150, [0033]) between adjacent ones of the gate structures (GS1),
wherein the source/drain pattern (150, [0097]) includes a semiconductor liner film (151) in contact with the lower pattern (BP1) and the sheet patterns (NS1), a lower semiconductor filling film (152) on the semiconductor liner film (151), an upper semiconductor filling film (154) on the lower semiconductor filling film (152), and a semiconductor buffer film (153) between the lower semiconductor filling film (152) and the upper semiconductor filling film (154) (see Fig. 15, [0097]),
wherein the semiconductor liner film (151, [0104]), the lower semiconductor filling film (152, [0111]), the upper semiconductor filling film (154, [0117]), and the semiconductor buffer film (153, [0115]) each include silicon-germanium,
wherein a germanium fraction of the semiconductor buffer film (153) is smaller than a germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (154) and a germanium fraction of the lower semiconductor filling film (152) (see Fig. 11, [0121]),
wherein the semiconductor buffer film (153) extends along a profile of a lower filling film recess defined by the lower semiconductor filling film (152) (see Fig. 15), and
wherein the semiconductor buffer film (153) includes a bottom portion (153BP), and a side portion (153SP) extending in the second direction (D3) from the bottom portion (153BP) ([0113]).
Kim does not teach that a germanium fraction of the side portion is different from a germanium fraction of the bottom portion.
In a similar field of endeavor, Liu teaches that a germanium fraction of the side portion (of 223, see annotated Fig. 8 below) is different from a germanium fraction of the bottom portion (of 223, see annotated Fig. 8 below) ([0043], 223 has a concentration gradient of Ge that decreases in a direction away from top surface 215, so the annotated side portion has a germanium fraction different from the annotated bottom portion), in order to “improve the device performance affected by a short channel effect (SCE) and a drain-induced barrier lowering (DIBL) effect” ([0054]).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu Fig. 8
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the semiconductor device of Kim with the germanium fractions of the buffer film of Liu, in order to improve the device performance affected by a short channel effect (SCE) and a drain-induced barrier lowering (DIBL) effect ([0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claim 10. Liu further teaches that the germanium fraction of the side portion (of 223) is smaller than the germanium fraction of the bottom portion (of 223) (see annotated Fig. 8 above, the lowest part of the side portion has a smaller germanium fraction than the topmost part of the annotated bottom portion).
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claim 10. Kim further teaches that a thickness (t12) of the side portion (153SP) is greater than a thickness (t11) of the bottom portion (153BP) ([0150]).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claim 10. Kim further teaches that, in Fig. 11, that the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (154) is greater than or equal to the germanium fraction of the lower semiconductor filling film (152) ([0121]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claim 10. Kim further teaches, in Fig. 15, that the semiconductor buffer film (153) includes a first (bottom) portion extending in the first direction (31), and a second (side) portion extending in the second direction (D3).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20220190168) in view of Liu et al. (US 20230197852, cited by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 4/15/2024), and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 20200168723).
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Liu teaches the limitations of claim 10. Kim in view of Liu does not teach wherein the lower semiconductor filling film includes a first lower semiconductor filling film and a second lower semiconductor filling film, wherein the first lower semiconductor filling film is between the semiconductor liner film and the second lower semiconductor filling film, and wherein a germanium fraction of the first lower semiconductor filling film is smaller than a germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hsu teaches, in Fig. 23B, that the lower semiconductor filling film (84A/82B) includes a first lower semiconductor filling film (84A, [0043]) and a second lower semiconductor filling film (82B, [0040]),
that the first lower semiconductor filling film (84A) is between the semiconductor liner film (82A, [0040]) and the second lower semiconductor filling film (82B) (see Fig. 23B), and
that a germanium fraction of the first lower semiconductor filling film (84A) is smaller than a germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film (82B) ([0043], [0045], 84A has a Ge concentration of 0-15% while 82B has a Ge concentration of 30-70%),
in order to “improve the epitaxial growth of source/drain structures” ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the semiconductor device of Kim with lower semiconductor filling film of Hsu, in order to improve the epitaxial growth of the source/drain structures. ([0043]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Liu and Hsu teaches the limitations of claim 14. Hsu further teaches that the germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film (82B) has the same range as the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film (82C) ([0045], [0048], both have a Ge concentration of 30-70%).
However, Kim in view of Liu and Hsu does not explicitly teach that the germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film is equal to the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that that germanium fractions of the semiconductor filling films would impact the epitaxial growth of the source/drain structures (Hsu, [0043]).
The specific claimed concentrations, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” concentrations disclosed by Kim in view of Liu and Hsu that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired epitaxial growth, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the germanium fraction of the second lower semiconductor filling film being equal to the germanium fraction of the upper semiconductor filling film is used, as already suggested by Kim in view of Liu and Hsu.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the concentrations stated and since these concentrations are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Kim in view of Liu and Hsu.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentrations or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA HEERA SON whose telephone number is 703-756-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30-9:30 PM 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, Yara Green can be reached on 571-270-3035. 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.
/ERIKA H SON/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights