DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 7/31/2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement
The applicants’ amendments filed on 7/31/2023, are acknowledged. The present office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0067013) in view of Adusumilli (US 2018/0308952).
With respect to Claim 14, Wang shows (Fig. 10A-10E,17) most aspects of the current invention including a structure comprising:
a fin (24) over a substrate (20)
a source/drain region (42) over the fin
a gate structure (50) over the fin
a dielectric structure (72) over the fin and source/drain region
a conductive feature (comprising layer 64,68,74 and 80/82) extending through the dielectric structure, the conductive feature comprising:
a barrier layer (80) comprising a metal nitride (see Fig 17; par 44 and 53-54)
a silicide region (64) between the epitaxial source/drain region and the barrier layer,
a metal layer (68) between the barrier layer and an isolation region (22) adjacent the fin, the silicide region comprising a silicide of the metal layer
a conductive fill material (82) over the barrier layer (see Fig 17; par 44 and 53-54)
Furthermore, although Wang discloses the filling metal 82 and metal nitride layer (barrier layer) 80 are in combination referred to as a contact plug 74 of Figs 10A-10E that is filled in the opening, Wang does not explicitly disclose the barrier layer directly contacting sidewalls of the dielectric structure, wherein a thickness of the barrier layer on an upper surface of the epitaxial source/drain region is greater than a thickness of the barrier layer on a sidewall of the epitaxial source/drain region.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Adusumilli teaches (Fig. 10) a structure comprising a fin (30) over a substrate (15), a source/drain region (28) over the substrate, a dielectric structure (34) over the fin and source/drain region, and having a sidewall, a conductive feature comprising a barrier layer (42) along the sidewall of the dielectric structure, the barrier layer directly contacting sidewalls of the dielectric structure, and further wherein a thickness of the barrier layer on an upper surface of the epitaxial source/drain region is equal to a thickness of the barrier layer on a sidewall of the epitaxial source/drain region. Adusumilli teaches the barrier layer is used to prevent metal from the conductive fill to inject into the source drain region and further to assist the device in reducing the contact resistance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the arrangement of the barrier layer directly contacting sidewalls of the dielectric structure in the device of Wang, as taught by Adusumilli because the barrier layer is used to prevent metal from the conductive fill to inject into the source drain region and further to assist the device in reducing the contact resistance.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having a thickness of the barrier layer on an upper surface of the epitaxial source/drain region is greater than a thickness of the barrier layer on a sidewall of the epitaxial source/drain region, as claimed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 14, the courts have held, differences in thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of having a thickness of the barrier layer on an upper surface of the epitaxial source/drain region is greater than a thickness of the barrier layer on a sidewall of the epitaxial source/drain region, as claimed by the applicant, and similar arrangements are known in the art (see Adusumilli), it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement in the device of Wang in view of Adusumilli.
Criticality: The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement of thicknesses 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, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
With respect to Claim 15, Wang shows (Fig. 10A-10E,17) wherein the dielectric structure comprises an interlayer dielectric (ILD) layer (72) and an etch stop layer (70), the etch stop layer interposed between the ILD layer and the source/drain region
With respect to Claim 16, Wang shows (Fig. 10A-10E,17) wherein discloses the filling metal 82 and metal nitride layer (barrier layer) 80 are in combination referred to as a contact plug 74 of Figs 10A-10E that is filled in the opening, and the contact plug 74 layer directly contacts both the ILD layer and the etch stop layer.
With respect to Claim 17, Adusumilli teaches (Fig. 10) an isolation region (22) adjacent the fin (30), wherein the barrier layer (42) extends over the isolation region.
With respect to Claim 18, Wang shows (Fig. 10A-10E,17) wherein the silicide region extends along sidewalls of the epitaxial source/drain region.
With respect to Claim 20, Wang shows (Fig. 10A-10E,17) wherein the metal layer (68) directly contacts the isolation region (22), and the barrier layer is spaced apart from the isolation region by the metal layer.
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0067013) in view of Adusumilli (US 2018/0308952) and in further view of Lin (US 2015/0072494)
With respect to claim 19, Wang in view of Adusumilli shows most aspects of the present invention. However, the combination of references do not show wherein a thickness of the barrier layer on a sidewall of the epitaxial source/drain region is between 0.5 nm and 4 nm.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches a first fin (21) protruding from a substrate, a source/drain region (30) above the fin, a dielectric structure over the fin and source/drain region, a barrier layer (40) along the sidewall of the dielectric structure, wherein a thickness of the barrier layer ranges between 1 nm and 2 nm.
However, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having a thickness of the barrier layer on a sidewall of the epitaxial source/drain region is between 0.5 nm and 4 nm, as claimed in the instant application.
Regarding claim 19, the courts have held, differences in thicknesses will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such thicknesses are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality of having a thickness of the barrier layer on a sidewall of the epitaxial source/drain region is between 0.5 nm and 4 nm as claimed by the applicant, and similar arrangements are known in the art (see Lin), it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement in the device of Wang in view of Adusumilli and Lin.
Criticality: The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed arrangement of thicknesses 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, 1578, 16 USPQ 2d 1934, 1936 (Fed Cir. 1990).
Claims 7, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2015/0072494) in view of Yin (US 8,039,391) and in further view of Enda (US 2009/0053867)
With respect to Claim 7, Lin shows (Fig. 1-13) most aspects of the current invention including a structure comprising:
forming a source/drain region (30) over a substrate (20)
forming one or more dielectric layers (36) over the source/drain region
forming an opening (38) through one or more dielectric layers to expose the source/drain region
depositing a metal layer (40) along sidewalls and a bottom of the opening
Filling the opening with a conductive material (51)
Furthermore, although Lin shows a portion of the metal layer is nitridated through an annealing process to form a silicide region (50), Lin fails to show method steps of performing a first plasma process using a first nitrogen-containing plasma on the metal layer to form a first nitridated layer, wherein a thickness of the first nitridated layer is uniform along the sidewalls and bottom of the opening; after the first plasma process, performing a second plasma process using a second nitrogen-containing plasma on the metal layer to form a second nitridated layer, wherein a thickness of the second nitridated layer along the sidewalls is less than a thickness of the second nitridated layer along the bottom; reacting an un-nitridated portion of the metal layer with the source/drain region to form a silicide region.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Yin teaches (Fig 4-9) a method of comprising depositing a metal layer (52) in an opening through one or more dielectric layers (44), performing a first plasma process using a first nitrogen-containing plasma process on the metal layer to form a first nitridated layer (54), wherein a thickness of the first nitridated layer is uniform along sidewalls and bottom of the opening. Yin teaches doing so to allow the tuning of the plasma treatment by appropriate control of the plasma treatment time to ensure preservation of the titanium thickness to the largest extent possible.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method steps of performing a first plasma process using a first nitrogen-containing plasma on the metal layer to form a first nitridated layer, wherein a thickness of the first nitridated layer is uniform along the sidewalls and bottom of the opening in the device of Lin, as taught by Yin to allow the tuning of the plasma treatment by appropriate control of the plasma treatment time to ensure preservation of the titanium thickness to the largest extent possible.
However, Yin does not disclose after the first plasma process, performing a second plasma process using a second nitrogen-containing plasma on the metal layer to form a second nitridated layer, wherein a thickness of the second nitridated layer along the sidewalls is less than a thickness of the second nitridated layer along the bottom; reacting an un-nitridated portion of the metal layer with the source/drain region to form a silicide region.
On the other hand, and in the same field of endeavor, Enda teaches (Fig 2a-2c) a method of comprising performing a first plasma process (Fig 2b) to form a first nitridated layer (36), disclose after the first plasma process, performing a second plasma process (Fig 2C) using a second nitrogen-containing plasma on the metal layer to form a second nitridated layer (34), wherein a thickness of the second nitridated layer along the sidewalls is less than a thickness of the second nitridated layer along the bottom; reacting an un-nitridated portion of a metal layer (34) with a source/drain region (24) to form a silicide region (38). Enda teaches the method steps to make it possible to form a more stable metal silicide layer while suppressing the variation in its resistance value.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the method steps of after the first plasma process, performing a second plasma process using a second nitrogen-containing plasma on the metal layer to form a second nitridated layer, wherein a thickness of the second nitridated layer along the sidewalls is less than a thickness of the second nitridated layer along the bottom; reacting an un-nitridated portion of the metal layer with the source/drain region to form a silicide region, in the device of Lin and Yin, as taught by Enda because the method steps make it possible to form a more stable metal silicide layer while suppressing the variation in its resistance value.
With respect to Claim 11, Yin discloses (Fig 4-9) wherein depositing the metal layer, performing the first and second plasma processes and reaction to form the silicide region do not use any carbon containing or fluorine containing precursors.
With respect to Claim 12, Lin shows (Fig. 1-13) wherein forming the source/drain region (30) over the substrate comprises epitaxially growing the source/drain region.
With respect to Claim 13, Lin shows (Fig. 1-13) wherein the metal layer (40) comprises titanium, tantalum, cobalt, nickel, nickel platinum, or ruthenium.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,031,286. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter claimed in the instant application is anticipated by the patent that was granted.
Claim 1 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 1 of the instant invention.
Claims 1-3 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 2 of the instant invention.
Claims 1 and 4 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 3 of the instant invention.
Claims 1 and 6 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 4 of the instant invention.
Claims 1 and 7 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 5 of the instant invention.
Claims 1 and 8 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 6 of the instant invention.
Claim 14 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 7 of the instant invention.
Claims 14 and 17 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 8 of the instant invention.
Claims 14 and 18 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 9 of the instant invention.
Claims 14 and 19 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 10 of the instant invention.
Claims 14 and 20 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 11 of the instant invention.
Claim 21 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 7 of the instant invention.
Claims 21 and 22 of patent No. 11,502,134 anticipates claim 8 of the instant invention.
Claim 9 of patent No. 12,046,510 anticipates claim 14 of the instant invention.
Claims 9 and 10 of patent No. 12,046,510 anticipates claim 15 of the instant invention.
Claims 9 and 10 of patent No. 12,046,510 anticipates claim 17 of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTON A BRASFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-0804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
/Q. B./
Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights