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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following subject matter must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 6 recites “a fourth spacer located over the third spacer and having a dielectric constant of 3-6,” which is not illustrated by the drawings. The only features identified within the specification as having a dielectric constant of 3-6 are the second and fourth spacers (126, 146), and neither of the second and fourth spacers are illustrated as being disposed over (e.g., above) the third spacer (124).
Claim 16, lines 7 and 8, recites “a plurality of first spacers, extending over the multi-layered spacer and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions,” which is not illustrated by the drawings. Instead, Fig. 3I, for example, illustrates spacers (146) extending along a multi-layered spacer (114, 124, 126) and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions (130).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 6-9, recites “a second spacer, laterally next to the first spacer, … and a third spacer, interposed between the first spacer and the second spacer,” which is indefinite because: (1) “next” is defined as “nearest in space or position” and (2) the third spacer cannot be interposed between the first and second spacers if the second spacer is nearer to the first spacer than is the third spacer. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application, this will be interpreted as “a second spacer, lateral to the first spacer, … and a third spacer, interposed between the first spacer and the second spacer.” Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 1, line 7, recites “wherein along a stacking direction of the gate and the fin,” which is indefinite because its meaning is indiscernible because it is a prepositional phrase existing in the absence of a phrase to which it should be prepositioned. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application, this quoted material will be omitted. Claims 2-11 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 6 recites “a fourth spacer located over the third spacer and having a dielectric constant of 3-6,” which is not indefinite because it is not disclosed by the application. The only features identified within the specification as having a dielectric constant of 3-6 are the second and fourth spacers (126, 146), and neither of the second and fourth spacers are illustrated as being disposed over the third spacer (124). For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application, this will be interpreted as “a fourth spacer located lateral to the third spacer and having a dielectric constant of 3-6.” Claims 7-9 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 6.
Claim 12, line 9, recites “the third spacer further covers a sidewall of the source/drain regions,” which is indefinite because there is no discernible sidewall common to all of the source/drain regions. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application, this will be interpreted as “the third spacer further covers a sidewall of a respective one of the source/drain regions.” Claims 13-15 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 12.
Claim 12, lines 9-11, recites “the fourth spacer standing on a surface of each of the source/drain regions being free from the gate stack,” which is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the fourth spacer being free from the gate stack. More specifically, no discernible definition of “free” seems to impart meaning to the recited subject matter. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application, this will be interpreted as “the fourth spacer standing on a surface of each of the source/drain regions.” Claims 13-15 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 12.
Claim 16, lines 5 and 6, recites “a plurality of source/drain regions, interposed between the gate stacks and prop against the multi-layered spacers,” which is indefinite because the noun “prop” is being used as a verb and its meaning does not comport with its usage in the phrase. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application, this will be interpreted as “a plurality of source/drain regions, interposed between the gate stacks and propped against the multi-layered spacers.” Claims 17-20 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 16.
Claim 16, lines 7 and 8, recites “a plurality of first spacers, extending over the multi-layered spacer and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions,” which is indefinite because the application does not disclose first spacers (146) disposed over (e.g., above) a multi-layered spacer (114, 124, 126). Instead, Fig. 3I, for example, illustrates spacers (146) extending along a multi-layered spacer (114, 124, 126) and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions (130). For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the application, this will be interpreted as “a plurality of first spacers, extending along the multi-layered spacer and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions.” Claims 17-20 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 16.
Claim 16, line 7, recites “the multi-layered spacer,” which is indefinite because it lacks a proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of the claim, this will be interpreted as “the multi-layered spacers.” Claims 17-20 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 16.
Claim 16, lines 9 and 10, recites “an inter-layer dielectric layer, located on the surfaces of the source/drain regions and spaced apart from the first spacer, the multi-layered spacer and the gate stack,” which is indefinite because each of “the first spacer,” “the multi-layered spacer,” and “the gate stack” lacks a proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of the claim, this will be interpreted as “an inter-layer dielectric layer, located on the surfaces of the source/drain regions and spaced apart from the plurality of first spacers, the plurality of multi-layered spacers, and the plurality of gate stacks.” Claims 17-20 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 16.
Claim 17 recites “the multi-layered spacer comprises a second spacer, a third spacer, and a fourth spacer, and the third spacer is sandwiched between the second spacer and the fourth spacer,” which is indefinite because “the multi-layered spacer” lacks a proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of the claim, this will be interpreted as “each of the multi-layered spacers comprises a second spacer, a third spacer, and a fourth spacer, and the third spacer is sandwiched between the second spacer and the fourth spacer.” Claims 18 and 19 are rejected due to their dependence from claim 17.
Claim 20 recites “the multi-layered spacer comprises a second spacer and a third spacer, and the first spacer is directly in contact with the third spacer,” which is indefinite because “the multi-layered spacer” lacks a proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the remainder of the claim, this will be interpreted as “each of the multi-layered spacers comprises a second spacer and a third spacer, and the first spacer is directly in contact with the third spacer.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 does not include a limitation further limiting the scope of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,950,710 in view of Lu et al. (US20160020110A1).
Claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of 10,950,710 by the recitations of: a material of the third spacer comprises SiCON, SiCO or SiOF, wherein in a vertical projection along a stacking direction, the first spacer, the second spacer and the third spacer are enclosed by a perimeter of a respective fin of the fins. Lu teaches in Figs. 1C and 1D a material of the third spacer (112a) comprises SiCON, SiCO or SiOF {[0036]}, wherein in a vertical projection along a stacking direction, the first spacer (110a), the second spacer (114a) and the third spacer (112a) are enclosed by a perimeter of a respective fin of the fins (portions of 100 between adjacent 116s/118s) {Figs. 1C, 1D}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 10,950,710 by the teachings of Lu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements were known and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Claims 2-11 of the instant application are substantially the same in scope as claims 2-11 of 10,950,710.
Claims 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,950,710 in view of Lu and Kuo et al. (US9685533B1).
Claim 12 of the instant application differs from claim 12 of 10,950,710 by the recitations of: a fourth spacer, vertically lining a third outer sidewall of the third spacer; and source/drain regions, disposed at opposite sides of the gate stack, wherein the third spacer further covers a sidewall of the source/drain regions, and the fourth spacer standing on a surface of each of the source/drain regions. Lu teaches in Figs. 1C and 1D a fourth spacer (120), vertically lining a third outer sidewall of the third spacer (114a) {0049]}; and source/drain regions (118), disposed at opposite sides of the gate stack (108), wherein the fourth spacer (120) [is] standing on a surface of each of the source/drain regions (118) {[0047]}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 10,950,710 by the teachings of Lu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements were known and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Claim 12 of 10,950,710 as modified by Lu does not necessarily teach the third spacer further covers a sidewall of the source/drain regions. Kuo teaches a third spacer (131a/132a) further covers a sidewall of a respective one of the source/drain regions (region of 140) {Fig. 8 and col. 4, l. 53, through col. 5, l. 4}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 10,950,710 as modified by Lu based on the teachings of Kuo, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to provide etch protection and/or a desired dielectric constant with regard to parasitic capacitance. Kuo col. 4, l. 53, through col. 5, l. 4. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., third spacer, sidewall, source/drain regions) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kuo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Claims 13-15 of the instant application are substantially the same in scope as claims 13-15 of 10,950,710.
Claim 16 of the instant application differs from claim 16 of 10,950,710 by the recitations whereby each of the gate stack, multi-layered spacer, and source/drain regions are recited as pluralities and the recitations of: a plurality of first spacers, extending over the multi-layered spacer and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions; and an inter-layer dielectric layer, located on the surfaces of the source/drain regions and spaced apart from the first spacer, the multi-layered spacer and the gate stack. Lu teaches in Figs. 1C and 1D a plurality of gate stacks (108), multi-layered spacers (110a-114a), and source/drain regions (118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 10,950,710 based on the teachings of Lu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements were known and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Still further, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B). Claim 16 of 10,950,710 as modified by Lu does not necessarily teach a plurality of first spacers, extending over the multi-layered spacer and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions; and an inter-layer dielectric layer, located on the surfaces of the source/drain regions and spaced apart from the first spacer, the multi-layered spacer and the gate stack. Kuo teaches a first spacer (150), extending along a multi-layered spacer (130) and landed on a surface of a source/drain region (140); and an inter-layer dielectric layer (160/180), located on the surface of the source/drain region (140) and spaced apart from the first spacer (150), the multi-layered spacer (130), and a gate stack (170) {Fig. 8 and col. 8, ll. 15-33, and col. 7, ll. 31-33 and 61-66}. Kuo’s inter-layer dielectric layer (160/180) is necessarily spaced apart from the other features because they are distinct features and not occupying the same space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 10,950,710 as modified by Lu based on the teachings of Kuo – such that each of Kuo’s interfaces between a gate stack and a source/drain region has the above-identified features – because all the claimed elements were known and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kuo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Claims 17-20 of the instant application are substantially the same in scope as claims 17-20 of 10,950,710.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,046,661 in view of Lu.
Claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of 12,046,661 by the recitation of: wherein in a vertical projection along a stacking direction, the first spacer, the second spacer and the third spacer are enclosed by a perimeter of a respective fin of the fins. Lu teaches in a vertical projection along a stacking direction, the first spacer (110a), the second spacer (114a) and the third spacer (112a) are enclosed by a perimeter of a respective fin of the fins (portions of 100 between adjacent 116s/118s) {Figs. 1C, 1D; [0032, 0036]}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify 12,046,661 by the teachings of Lu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements were known and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Claims 2-4 of the instant application are substantially the same in scope as claims 2-4 of 12,046,661.
Claim 5 of the instant application does not differ from claim 1 of 12,046,661 except with respect to the features mentioned immediately above with respect to claim 1 of the instant application.
Claims 6-11 of the instant application are substantially the same in scope as claims 5-10 of 12,046,661.
Claims 12-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,046,661 in view of Kuo.
Claim 12 of the instant application differs from claim 11 of 12,046,661 by the recitation of: wherein the third spacer further covers a sidewall of the source/drain regions, and the fourth spacer standing on a surface of each of the source/drain regions. Kuo teaches a third spacer (131a/132a) further covers a sidewall of a respective one of the source/drain regions (region of 140) {Fig. 8 and col. 4, l. 53, through col. 5, l. 4}, and the fourth spacer (150) standing on a surface of each of the source/drain regions (region of 140) {Fig. 8 and col. 8, ll. 15-33, and col. 7, ll. 31-33 and 61-66}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 12,046,661 based on the teachings of Kuo, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements were known and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kuo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Claims 13-15 of the instant application are substantially the same in scope as claims 12-14 of 12,046,661.
Claims 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,046,661 in view of Lu and Kuo.
Claim 16 of the instant application differs from claim 15 of 12,046,661 by the recitations whereby each of the gate stack, multi-layered spacer, and source/drain regions are recited as pluralities and the recitation of: a plurality of first spacers, extending over the multi-layered spacer and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions. Lu teaches in Figs. 1C and 1D a plurality of gate stacks (108), multi-layered spacers (110a-114a), and source/drain regions (118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 12,046,661 based on the teachings of Lu, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because all the claimed elements were known and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kuo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Still further, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B). Claim 16 of 12,046,661 as modified by Lu does not necessarily teach a plurality of first spacers, extending over the multi-layered spacer and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions. Kuo teaches a first spacer (150), extending along a multi-layered spacer (130) and landed on a surface of a source/drain region (140) {Fig. 8 and col. 8, ll. 15-33, and col. 7, ll. 31-33 and 61-66}. Kuo’s inter-layer dielectric layer (160/180) is necessarily spaced apart from the other features because they are distinct features and not occupying the same space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Luo’s device based on the teachings of Kuo – such that each of Kuo’s interfaces between a gate stack and a source/drain region has the above-identified features – because all the claimed elements were known and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kuo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Claims 17-20 of the instant application are substantially the same in scope as claims 16-19 of 12,046,661.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US20160020110A1) in view of Ching et al. (US20140312398A1).
Regarding claim 1, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejections, Lu teaches in Figs. 1C and 1D a fin-type field effect transistor, comprising:
a plurality of fins (portions of 100 between adjacent 116s/118s) {[0032, 0046, 0047]};
a gate (104) {[0032]};
a first spacer (110a), vertically lining the gate (104) {[0032, 0036]};
a second spacer (114a), lateral to the first spacer (110a), wherein the first spacer (110a) and the second spacer (114a) comprise carbon {[0036]}; and
a third spacer (112a), interposed between the first spacer (110a) and the second spacer (114a), wherein a material of the third spacer (112a) comprises SiCON, SiCO or SiOF {[0036]},
wherein in a vertical projection along a stacking direction, the first spacer (110a), the second spacer (114a) and the third spacer (112a) are enclosed by a perimeter of a respective fin of the fins (portions of 100 between adjacent 116s/118s) {Figs. 1C, 1D}.
Lu does not teach a plurality of insulators, between the fins; and a gate, intersected with the fins and over the insulators.
In an analogous art, Ching teaches in Figs. 8B and 21A and paragraphs [0023, 0057] a plurality of insulators (22), between fins (48); and a gate (52), intersected with the fins (48) and over the insulators (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s device based on the teachings of Ching, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to form a FinFET. Ching [0011, 0057]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., insulators, fins, gate) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Ching) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 2, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 1, and Lu further teaches wherein a material of the first spacer (110a) has a dielectric constant of 4-7 {[0036]}.
Regarding claim 3, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 1, and Lu further teaches wherein a material of the first spacer (110a) comprises SiCN {[0036]}.
Regarding claim 4, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 3, and Lu further teaches wherein the material of the first spacer (110a) has a carbon concentration of 1-12 at % {[0036]}.
Examiner’s Note: Paragraph [0019] of the published application discloses the seal spacer 114 [i.e., first spacer] is formed of SiCN with a carbon concentration of 1-12 at % (atomic percent) to retain … a dielectric constant of 4-7. Because SiCN must have a carbon concentration of 1-12 at % (atomic percent) to retain … a dielectric constant of 4-7, it necessarily follows that Lu’s SiCN first spacer, which has a dielectric constant of 6.9, must have a carbon concentration of 1-12 at %.
Regarding claim 5, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 1, and Lu further teaches wherein a material of the third spacer (112a) comprises SiCON, SiCO or SiOF {[0036]}.
Regarding claim 6, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 1, and Lu further teaches further comprising a fourth spacer (120) located lateral to the third spacer (112a) and having a dielectric constant of 3-6 {[0049]}.
Examiner’s Note: Lu teaches spacer 120 may be silicon oxide, which has a dielectric constant of 3.7 to 3.9.
Regarding claim 9, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 6, and Lu further teaches wherein the second spacer (114a) has a dielectric constant of 5-7 {[0036]}.
Regarding claim 10, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 1, and Lu further teaches wherein a material of the second spacer (114a) comprises SiCN {[0036]}.
Regarding claim 11, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 10, and Lu further teaches wherein the material of the second spacer (114a) has a carbon concentration of 0.5-2 at % {[0036]}.
Examiner’s Note: Paragraph [0021] of the published application discloses the dummy spacer 126 is formed of SiCN with a carbon concentration of 0.5-2 at % to help retain … a dielectric constant of 5-7. Because SiCN must have a carbon concentration of 0.5-2 at % (atomic percent) to retain … a dielectric constant of 5-7, it necessarily follows that Lu’s SiCN second spacer, which has a dielectric constant of 6.9, must have a carbon concentration of 0.5-2 at %.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Ching as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yaegashi et al. (US20130248876A1).
Regarding claim 7, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 6, but Lu does not teach wherein a material of the fourth spacer has a dangling bond concentration less than 1*1011 cm−3.
However, Lu teaches in Fig. 1D and paragraph [0049] performing a CMP operation, which includes etching, on the fourth spacer (120).
In an analogous art, Yaegashi teaches in Figs. 8A and 8B and paragraph [0073] that passivation of dangling bonds within an etched material is a result-effective parameter for decreasing leakage current through the material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s device as modified by Ching based on the teachings of Yaegashi for discovering an optimum or workable range of leakage current within an etched material of a fourth spacer – such that the material of the fourth spacer has a dangling bond concentration less than 1*1011 cm−3 – because 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. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Ching as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (US20170133274A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lu as modified by Ching teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 6, but Lu does not teach further teaches wherein a material of the fourth spacer comprises SiCN or SiC.
However, Lu teaches in paragraph [0049] the material of the fourth spacer (120) may be SiO, SiN, or SiON.
In an analogous art, Lu ‘274 teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0013] that SiO, SiN, SiON, and SiCN are alternative materials for a spacer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s device as modified by Ching based on the teachings of Lu ‘274, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Furthermore, all the claimed elements (e.g., spacer, SiCN, SiC) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu ‘274) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 12, 13, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US20160020110A1) in view of Kuo et al. (US9685533B1).
Regarding claim 12, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejections, Lu teaches in Figs. 1C and 1D a fin-type field effect transistor, comprising:
a plurality of fins (portions of 100 between adjacent 116s/118s) {[0032, 0046, 0047]};
a gate stack (108), over the fins (portions of 100 between adjacent 116s/118s) {[0032]};
a first spacer (110a), vertically lining a sidewall of the gate stack (108) {[0032, 0036]};
a second spacer (112a), vertically lining a first outer sidewall of the first spacer (110a) {[0036]};
a third spacer (114a), vertically lining a second outer sidewall of the second spacer (112a) {[0036]};
a fourth spacer (120), vertically lining a third outer sidewall of the third spacer (114a) {0049]}; and
source/drain regions (118), disposed at opposite sides of the gate stack (108) {[0047]},
wherein the fourth spacer (120) [is] standing on a surface of each of the source/drain regions (118).
Lu does not teach the third spacer further covers a sidewall of a respective one of the source/drain regions.
Kuo teaches, in Fig. 8 and col. 4, l. 53, through col. 5, l. 4, a third spacer (131a/132a) further covers a sidewall of a respective one of the source/drain regions (region of 140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s fin-type field effect transistor based on the teachings of Kuo, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, to provide etch protection and/or a desired dielectric constant with regard to parasitic capacitance. Kuo col. 4, l. 53, through col. 5, l. 4. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., third spacer, sidewall, source/drain regions) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kuo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 13, Lu as modified by Kuo teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 12, and Lu further teaches wherein a material of the second spacer (112a) comprises SiCON, SiCO or SiOF {[0036]}.
Regarding claim 16, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejections, Lu teaches in Figs. 1C and 1D a fin-type field effect transistor, comprising:
a plurality of fins (portions of 100 between adjacent 116s/118s) {[0032, 0046, 0047]};
a plurality of gate stacks (108), intersected with and disposed over the fins (portions of 100 between adjacent 116s/118s) {[0032]};
a plurality of multi-layered spacers (115), lining sidewalls of the gate stacks (108) {[0036, 0040]};
a plurality of source/drain regions (118), interposed between the gate stacks (108) and propped against the multi-layered spacers (115) {[0047]}.
Lu does not necessarily teach a plurality of first spacers, extending along the multi-layered spacers and landed on surfaces of the source/drain regions; and an inter-layer dielectric layer, located on the surfaces of the source/drain regions and spaced apart from the plurality of first spacers, the plurality of multi-layered spacers, and the plurality of gate stacks.
Kuo teaches, in Fig. 8 and col. 8, ll. 15-33, and col. 7, ll. 31-33 and 61-66, a first spacer (150), extending along a multi-layered spacer (130) and landed on a surface of a source/drain region (140); and an inter-layer dielectric layer (160/180), located on the surface of the source/drain region (140) and spaced apart from the first spacer (150), the multi-layered spacer (130), and a gate stack (170). Kuo’s inter-layer dielectric layer (160/180) is necessarily spaced apart from the other features because they are distinct features and not occupying the same space. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Luo’s device based on the teachings of Kuo – such that each of Kuo’s interfaces between a gate stack and a source/drain region has the above-identified features – because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Kuo) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Moreover, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 17, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lu as modified by Kuo teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 16, and Lu further teaches wherein each of the multi-layered spacers (115) comprises a second spacer (110a), a third spacer (112a), and a fourth spacer (114a), and the third spacer (112a) is sandwiched between the second spacer (110a) and the fourth spacer (114a) {[0032, 0036]}.
Regarding claim 18, Lu as modified by Kuo teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 17, and Lu further teaches wherein a material of the second spacer (110a) and a material of the fourth spacer (114a) comprise SiCN {[0036]}.
Regarding claim 19, Lu as modified by Kuo teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 18, and Lu further teaches wherein the material of the second spacer (110a) has a carbon concentration of 1-12 at % and the material of the fourth spacer (114a) has a carbon concentration of 0.5-2 at % {[0036]}.
Examiner’s Note: Paragraph [0019] of the published application discloses the seal spacer 114 [i.e., first spacer] is formed of SiCN with a carbon concentration of 1-12 at % (atomic percent) to retain … a dielectric constant of 4-7. Because SiCN must have a carbon concentration of 1-12 at % (atomic percent) to retain … a dielectric constant of 4-7, it necessarily follows that Lu’s SiCN second spacer, which has a dielectric constant of 6.9, must have a carbon concentration of 1-12 at %.
Examiner’s Note: Paragraph [0021] of the published application discloses the dummy spacer 126 is formed of SiCN with a carbon concentration of 0.5-2 at % to help retain … a dielectric constant of 5-7. Because SiCN must have a carbon concentration of 0.5-2 at % (atomic percent) to retain … a dielectric constant of 5-7, it necessarily follows that Lu’s SiCN fourth spacer, which has a dielectric constant of 6.9, must have a carbon concentration of 0.5-2 at %.
Regarding claim 20, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Lu as modified by Kuo teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 16, but Lu does not necessarily teach wherein each of the multi-layered spacers comprises a second spacer and a third spacer, and the first spacer is directly in contact with the third spacer.
Kuo teaches in, in Fig. 8 and col. 8, ll. 15-33, that a multi-layered spacer (130) comprises a second spacer (131a) and a third spacer (132a), and the first spacer (150) is directly in contact with the third spacer (132a). The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to base claim 16.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Kuo as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yaegashi.
Regarding claim 14, Lu as modified by Kuo teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 12, but Lu does not teach wherein a material of the fourth spacer has a dangling bond concentration less than 1*1011 cm−3.
However, Lu teaches in Fig. 1D and paragraph [0049] performing a CMP operation, which includes etching, on the fourth spacer (120).
In an analogous art, Yaegashi teaches in Figs. 8A and 8B and paragraph [0073] that passivation of dangling bonds within an etched material is a result-effective parameter for decreasing leakage current through the material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s device as modified by Kuo based on the teachings of Yaegashi for discovering an optimum or workable range of leakage current within an etched material of a fourth spacer – such that the material of the fourth spacer has a dangling bond concentration less than 1*1011 cm−3 – because 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. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Kuo as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lu ‘274.
Regarding claim 15, Lu as modified by Kuo teaches the fin-type field effect transistor of claim 12, but Lu does not teach wherein a material of the fourth spacer comprises SiCN or SiC.
However, Lu teaches in paragraph [0049] the material of the fourth spacer (120) may be SiO, SiN, or SiON.
In an analogous art, Lu ‘274 teaches in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0013] that SiO, SiN, SiON, and SiCN are alternative materials for a spacer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lu’s device as modified by Kuo based on the teachings of Lu ‘274, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Furthermore, all the claimed elements (e.g., spacer, SiCN, SiC) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Lu ‘274) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tak et al. (US20170222014A1) teaches a device includes: a gate line on an active region of a substrate, a pair of source/drain regions in the active region on both sides of the gate line, a contact plug on at least one source/drain region out of the pair of source/drain regions; and a multilayer-structured insulating spacer between the gate line and the contact plug. The multilayer-structured insulating spacer may include an oxide layer, a first carbon-containing insulating layer covering a first surface of the oxide layer adjacent to the gate line, and a second carbon-containing insulating layer covering a second surface of the oxide layer, opposite to the first surface of the oxide layer, adjacent to the contact plug.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights