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
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made the instant application is a continuation of US Patent application number 17459494 filed on 08/27/2021.
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.
Claims 15, 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites:
“wherein top surfaces of the trench conductor layer and the dielectric layer are substantially coplanar”.
Claim 15 depends from claim 8. Claim 8 recites “a gate structure on a fin structure; a source/drain (S/D) region on the fin structure and adjacent to the gate structure; a dielectric layer over the gate structure and the S/D region; a S/D contact layer on the S/D region and extending through the dielectric layer, wherein the S/D contact layer comprises a layer of platinum-group metallic material in contact with the dielectric layer; and a trench conductor layer on the S/D contact layer”. Therefore, it is not understood how the top surfaces of the trench conductor layer and the dielectric layer can be coplanar.
Claim 20 has similar issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claims 1, 7-8, 14, 16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 20220059534 A1 – hereinafter Choi).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches a semiconductor structure (see the entire document; Fig.3C; specifically, [0041]-[0054], and as cited below), comprising:
a source drain region (right SD1 – Fig. 3C – [0029]) over a substrate (100 – [0027]);
a dielectric layer (110 – [0041]) above the S/D region (right SD1);
a S/D contact layer (FM – [0051]) on the S/D region (right SD1) and extending through the dielectric layer (110), wherein the S/D contact layer (FM) comprises a layer of platinum-group metallic material ([0051] teaches FM is of platinum group) and a silicide layer (SC – [0049]) formed between the substrate (100) and the layer of platinum-group metallic material (FM), wherein a top width of a top portion of the layer of platinum-group metallic material (FM) is greater than or substantially equal to a bottom width of a bottom portion of the layer of platinum-group metallic material (Fig. 3C shows top width of (FM) is substantially equal to the bottom width of (FM); and
a trench conductor layer (VI1 – [0054]) on the S/D contact layer (FM).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches the semiconductor structure of claim 1, further comprising a metal oxide liner (BM – [0051]) between the S/D contact layer (FM) and the dielectric layer (110 – Note: Applicant’s specification in [0034] teaches oxide liner can be a metallic element).
Claims 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 20220059534 A1 – hereinafter Choi).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document; Fig.3; specifically, [0041]-[0054], and as cited below), comprising:
a gate structure ({GP, GE, GI} – Fig. 3A – [0036], [0043], [0045]) on a fin structure (AP1 as shown in Fig. 3C0;
a source/drain (S/D) region (right SD1 – Fig. 3A – [0029]) on the fin structure (AP1) and adjacent to the gate structure ({GP, GE, GI});
a dielectric layer (110 – [0041]) over the gate structure ({GP, GE, GI}) and the S/D region (right SD1 – see also Fig. 3C);
a S/D contact layer (AC – [0051]) on the S/D region (right SD1) and extending through the dielectric layer (110),
wherein the S/D contact layer (AC) comprises a layer of platinum-group metallic material ([0051] teaches FM is of platinum group) in contact with the dielectric layer (110); and
a trench conductor layer (VI1 – [0054]) on the S/D contact layer (AC).
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi.
Regarding claim 14, Choi teaches the semiconductor device of claim 8, further comprising an additional trench conductor layer (via between left BL1 and left AC in Fig. 3C) on the gate structure, wherein top surfaces of the trench conductor layer (VA1) and the additional trench conductor layer (via between left BL1 and left AC) are substantially coplanar (as is seen Fig. 3C).
Regarding Claim 16, Choi teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document; Fig.3C; specifically, [0041]-[0054], and as cited below), comprising:
a transistor (SD1, gate comprising a transistor in Fig. 3A) on a substrate (100), wherein the transistor comprises a source/drain (S/D) region (right SD1 – Fig. 3A – [0029]) and a gate structure ({GP, GE, GI} – Fig. 3A – [0036], [0043], [0045]);
a dielectric layer (110 – [0041]) on the transistor;
a S/D contact layer (AC – [0051]) on the S/D region (right SD1) and extending through the dielectric layer (110),
wherein the S/D contact layer (SD1) comprises a layer of platinum-group metallic material ([0051] teaches FM is of platinum group) in contact with the dielectric layer (110); and
a trench conductor layer (VI1 – [0054]) on the S/D contact layer (AC).
Regarding claim18, Choi teaches the semiconductor device of claim 16, further comprising an additional dielectric layer (Choi – 120 – [0052] and Fig. 3C) on the dielectric layer (110) and the S/D contact layer (AC), wherein: the trench conductor layer (VA1) extends through the additional dielectric layer (120); the trench conductor layer comprises a platinum-group metallic material; and the platinum-group metallic material is in contact with the additional dielectric layer (120).
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Park et al. (US 20220005934 A1 - hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein the layer of platinum-group metallic material comprises a layer of ruthenium, and wherein side surfaces of the layer of ruthenium are in contact with the dielectric layer.
However, in a related art, Park teaches in Fig. 5 and [0045] that source/drain contacts are formed of ruthenium.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the layer of platinum-group metallic material comprises a layer of ruthenium as taught by Park into Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Park structure into Choi structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefit of durability of ruthenium.
Furthermore, since Fig. 3C show FM is in contact with dielectric layer 110, so will the combination of Choi and Park.
Claims 3-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Tsai et al. (US 20200365698 A1 - hereinafter Tsai).
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein the top width of the top portion of the layer of platinum-group metallic material is from about 13 nm to about 20 nm.
However, in a related art, Tsai teaches in Fig. 11 and [0076] that a source/drain via contact width ranges from about 8 nm to about 20nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the top width of the top portion of the layer of platinum-group metallic material is from about 13 nm to about 20 nm which is also taught by Tsai into Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Tsai structure into Choi structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefit of forming source/drain contact that meets a specific design rule.
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of a height of the S/D contact layer to the top width of the S/D contact layer is from about 3 to about 6.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative ratio i.e., “wherein a ratio of a height of the S/D contact layer to the top width of the S/D contact layer is from about 3 to about 6” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a ratio of a height of the S/D contact layer to the top width of the S/D contact layer is from about 3 to about 6, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Balakrishnan et al. (US 20190189745 A1 - hereinafter Balakrishnan).
Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches claim 1 from which claim 5 depends. But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein the trench conductor layer comprises a platinum-group metallic material in contact with the S/D contact layer.
However, it is well known in the art to form a via or a plug with platinum as is also taught by Balakrishnan (Balakrishnan – [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the trench conductor layer comprises a platinum-group metallic material in contact with the S/D contact layer as is also taught by Balakrishnan into Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Balakrishnan structure into Choi structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefit of lowering contact resistance.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Choi and Balakrishnan teaches further comprising an additional dielectric layer (Choi – 120 – [0052] and Fig. 3C) on the dielectric layer (110) and the S/D contact layer (FM), wherein the trench conductor layer (VI1) extends through the additional dielectric layer (120) and the platinum-group metallic material in the trench conductor layer is in contact with the additional dielectric layer (120).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Park.
Regarding Claim 9, Choi teaches claim 8 from which claim 9 depends. But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein the layer of platinum-group metallic material comprises a layer of ruthenium, and wherein side surfaces of the layer of ruthenium are in contact with the dielectric layer.
However, in a related art, Park teaches in Fig. 5 and [0045] that source/drain contacts are formed of ruthenium.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the layer of platinum-group metallic material comprises a layer of ruthenium as taught by Park into Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Park structure into Choi structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefit of durability of ruthenium.
Furthermore, since Fig. 3C show FM is in contact with dielectric layer 110, so will the combination of Choi and Park.
Claims 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Tsai.
Regarding claim 10, Choi teaches claim 8 from which claim 10 depends. But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein the top width of the top portion of the layer of platinum-group metallic material is from about 13 nm to about 20 nm.
However, in a related art, Tsai teaches in Fig. 11 and [0076] that a source/drain via contact width ranges from about 8 nm to about 20nm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the top width of the top portion of the layer of platinum-group metallic material is from about 13 nm to about 20 nm which is also taught by Tsai into Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Tsai structure into Choi structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefit of forming source/drain contact that meets a specific design rule.
Regarding claim 11, Choi teaches claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of a height of the S/D contact layer to the top width of the S/D contact layer is from about 3 to about 6.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative ratio i.e., “wherein a ratio of a height of the S/D contact layer to the top width of the S/D contact layer is from about 3 to about 6” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a ratio of a height of the S/D contact layer to the top width of the S/D contact layer is from about 3 to about 6, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Balakrishnan.
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches claim 8 from which claim 12 depends. But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein the trench conductor layer comprises a platinum-group metallic material in contact with the S/D contact layer.
However, it is well known in the art to form a via or a plug with platinum as is also taught by Balakrishnan (Balakrishnan – [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the trench conductor layer comprises a platinum-group metallic material in contact with the S/D contact layer as is also taught by Balakrishnan into Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Balakrishnan structure into Choi structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefit of lowering contact resistance.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Choi and Balakrishnan teaches further comprising an additional dielectric layer (Choi – 120 – [0052] and Fig. 3C) on the dielectric layer (110) and the S/D contact layer (FM), wherein the trench conductor layer (VI1) extends through the additional dielectric layer (120) and the platinum-group metallic material in the trench conductor layer is in contact with the additional dielectric layer (120).
Claims 17, 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Park.
Regarding Claim 17, Choi teaches claim 16 from which claim 17 depends. But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein the layer of platinum-group metallic material comprises a layer of ruthenium, and wherein side surfaces of the layer of ruthenium are in contact with the dielectric layer.
However, in a related art, Park teaches in Fig. 5 and [0045] that source/drain contacts are formed of ruthenium.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to integrate the forming wherein the layer of platinum-group metallic material comprises a layer of ruthenium as taught by Park into Choi.
An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to integrate Park structure into Choi structure in the manner set forth above for, at least, for obvious benefit of durability of ruthenium.
Furthermore, since Fig. 3C show FM is in contact with dielectric layer 110, so will the combination of Choi and Park.
Regarding claim 19, Choi teaches claim 16 from which claim 19 depends.
But Choi does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of a height of the S/D contact layer to the top width of the S/D contact layer is from about 3 to about 6.
The instant application specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed relative ratio i.e., “wherein a ratio of a height of the S/D contact layer to the top width of the S/D contact layer is from about 3 to about 6” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Applicant has not disclosed that having wherein a ratio of a height of the S/D contact layer to the top width of the S/D contact layer is from about 3 to about 6, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. "Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies." - In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.05.III.A.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights