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
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. New claims 21-40 have been added. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 21-40 as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 16th, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 06/04/2024 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 § 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.
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 21-22, 24-25, 27-28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Xie (US 2016/0133623, hereinafter as Xie ‘623).
Regarding Claim 21, Xie ‘623 teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a gate stack (Fig. 2R, (114/132); [0026] and [0032]) disposed over a substrate (102; [0025]), the gate stack including a gate electrode layer (114; [0026]) and a first dielectric layer (132; [0032]) disposed over the gate electrode layer;
a sidewall spacer (118; [0026]) disposed along a sidewall of the gate stack;
a first contact (134; [0034]) disposed over a source/drain region (120; [0026]) in the substrate;
a protection layer (136; [0036]) extending from a sidewall of the first dielectric layer (132) to the first contact (134); and
a contact feature (150; [0025]) extending through the protection layer (136) to the first contact (134) such that the contact feature (150) physically contacts the protection layer (136) and the first contact (134) (see Fig. 2R).
PNG
media_image1.png
416
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2R (Xie ‘623)
Regarding Claim 37, Xie ‘623 teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a gate stack (Fig. 2R, (114/132); [0026] and [0032]) disposed over a substrate (102; [0025]), the gate stack including a gate electrode layer (114; [0026]) and a first dielectric layer (132; [0032]) disposed over the gate electrode layer;
a sidewall spacer (118; [0026]) disposed along a sidewall of the gate stack;
a first contact (134; [0034]) disposed over a source/drain region (120; [0026]) in the substrate;
a protection layer (136; [0036]) extending from the first dielectric layer (132) to the first contact (134); and
a contact feature (150; [0025]) extending through the protection layer (136) to the first contact (134) such that the contact feature (150) physically contacts the protection layer (136) and the first contact (134) (see Fig. 2R).
Regarding Claim 22, Xie ‘623 teaches the first contact (134; [0034]) includes a metal (e.g. tungsten).
Regarding Claim 24, Xie ‘623 teaches the metal is tungsten (see para. [0034]).
Regarding Claims 25 and 38, Xie ‘623 teaches the protection layer (136) contacts a top surface of the first contact (134) (see Fig. 2R).
Regarding Claim 27, Xie ‘623 teaches the first contact (134) is adjacent to the sidewall spacer (118).
Regarding Claim 28, Xie ‘623 teaches the contact feature (150) is a via (see Fig. 2R).
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.
Claims 23, 26, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie ‘623 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Frohberg (US 2016/0099321, hereinafter as Froh ‘321).
Regarding Claim 26, Xie ‘623 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the metal is cobalt”.
Froh ‘321 teaches the metal is cobalt (see para. [0008]).
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 Xie ‘623 by having the metal is cobalt for the purpose of improving the electrical characteristic of the contact (see para. [0007]) as suggested by Froh ‘321.
Regarding Claim 25, Froh ‘321 teaches the first contact (155; [0007]) directly contacts the S/D feature (153; [0007]).
Regarding Claim 29, Xie ‘623 teaches the contact structure (150) may be made of any desired material (see para. [0045]).
Xie ‘623 and Froh ‘321 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the contact feature includes cobalt”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select cobalt material for the contact feature on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select cobalt material for the contact feature in order to improve the electrical characteristic of the contact.
Regarding Claim 30, Froh ‘321 teaches the contact feature (211a; [0049]) includes tungsten.
Claims 31-36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie ‘623 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Fan (US 2013/0168749, hereinafter as Fan ‘749).
Regarding Claims 31 and 39, Xie ‘623 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a gate contact extending through the first dielectric layer and contacting the gate electrode”.
Fan ‘749 teaches a gate contact (Fig. 13, (90A); [0064]) extending through the first dielectric layer (56; [0033]) and contacting the gate electrode (52; [0044]).
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 Xie ‘623 by having a gate contact extending through the first dielectric layer and contacting the gate electrode in order to provide a reliable and electrical-short-proof method of forming contact structures for integrated semiconductor device circuit structures (see para. [0004]) as suggested by Fan ‘749.
Regarding Claims 32 and 40, Fan ‘749 teaches the gate contact (90A) extends through the protection layer (60; [0036]). Examiner considers the etch stop layer (60) is the protection layer.
Regarding Claim 33, Fan ‘749 teaches the protection layer (60) comprises aluminum oxynitride (see para. [0037]).
Regarding Claim 34, Fan ‘749 teaches the protection layer (60; [0037]) comprises an aluminum oxide.
Regarding Claim 35, Fan ‘749 teaches the protection layer (60) is a metal oxide (see para. [0037]).
Regarding Claim 36, Fan ‘749 teaches a thickness of the protection layer (60; [0036]) is a value ranging from about 1 nm to 30 nm which overlap the claim range of 10 angstrom (A) to about 200 A.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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:
Schultz et al. (US 2012/0313148 A1)
Haran et al. (US 2012/0032275 A1)
Mayuzumi (US 2011/0042752 A1)
Shimizu et al. (US 2003/0127678 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
Prosecution Insights