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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant: Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 18 June 2024. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 form have been considered.
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 3-5 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 3 recites at lines 3-5 “wherein the first dielectric layer is on the second conductive contact, and wherein a top surface of the second conductive contact is concave” which is unclear. The second conductive contact is already defined in claim 1 to be extending through the first dielectric layer and have a convex bottom surface. There is no disclosure of the second conductive contact having both a convex bottom surface and a concave top surface. These instances could just be a typo, does the applicant mean to refer to the newly introduced “third conductive contact” recited earlier at line 3 in claim 3?
Similarly claim 3 recites at line 8, “wherein a bottom surface of the second conductive contact is convex” is already recited in claim 1. This instance could just be a typo, does the applicant mean to refer to the newly introduced “fourth conductive contact” recited at line 6 in claim 3?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0051858).
Referring to Claim 1, Chen teaches in Fig. 12, a semiconductor device, comprising: a first gate electrode (76 left); a first conductive contact (92) on the first gate electrode (76 left; par. 17 and 27); a first dielectric layer (112) on the first conductive contact (92), wherein a top surface (202) of the first conductive contact (92) is concave (par. 41); and a second conductive contact (204) extending through the first dielectric layer (112), wherein a bottom surface (222) of the second conductive contact (204) is convex (par. 46), and wherein the top surface (202) of the first conductive contact (92) is in contact with the bottom surface (222) of the second conductive contact (204).
Referring to Claim 2, Chen further teaches wherein the second conductive contact (204) is in contact with a bottom surface (222) of the first dielectric layer (112).
Referring to Claim 6, Chen further teaches wherein the first conductive contact (92) comprises cobalt (par. 41), and wherein the second conductive contact (204) comprises tungsten (par. 46).
Referring to Claim 7, Chen teaches in Fig. 12 for example a semiconductor device, comprising: a first gate electrode (76 left) over a semiconductor substrate (42); a first conductive contact (92) on the first gate electrode (76 left), wherein the first conductive contact (92) has a first width; and a second conductive contact (204) on the first conductive contact (92), wherein the second conductive contact (204) has a rounded bottom portion (222) protruding into the first conductive contact (92), wherein the second conductive contact (204) has a second width, and wherein the first width is larger than the second width.
Referring to Claim 8, Chen further teaches a dielectric layer (112) is on a top surface (202) of the first conductive contact (92), wherein the second conductive contact (204) extends through the dielectric layer (112), and wherein a portion of the second conductive contact (204) is directly underneath a bottom surface of the dielectric layer (112).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0051858) in view of Chuang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0021672).
As insofar as Claim 3 is definite, Chen further teaches a second gate electrode (76 right), but does not explicitly show a third conductive contact on the second gate electrode (76 right), wherein the first dielectric layer (112) is on the second [third] conductive contact, wherein a top surface of the second [third] conductive contact is concave; and a fourth conductive contact extending through the first dielectric layer (112), wherein the fourth conductive contact is in contact with a bottom surface of the first dielectric layer (112), wherein a bottom surface of the second [fourth] conductive contact is convex, and wherein the top surface of the third conductive contact is in contact with the bottom surface of the fourth conductive contact. In other words, Chen does not show the same type of electrical connection for the gate electrode (76 right) as shown for the gate electrode (76 left).
In the same field of endeavor, Chaung teaches the well-known concept of applying contacts to each gate in order to utilize the transistors function as intended.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide the same electrical connection as taught by Chen for each gate electrode as taught by Chuang in order to obtain a better interface management and electrical properties and so better manufacturing control and device structures and performance may be obtained and achieved (Chen; par. 56).
Referring to Claim 9, Chen further teaches a second gate electrode (76 right) over the semiconductor substrate (42), but does not explicitly show a third conductive contact on the second gate electrode, wherein the third conductive contact has a third width; and a fourth conductive contact on the third conductive contact, wherein the fourth conductive contact has a rounded bottom portion protruding into the third conductive contact, wherein the fourth conductive contact has a fourth width, and wherein the third width is larger than the fourth width. In other words, Chen does not show the same type of electrical connection for the gate electrode (76 right) as shown for the gate electrode (76 left).
In the same field of endeavor, Chaung teaches the well-known concept of applying contacts to each gate in order to utilize the transistors function as intended.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to provide the same electrical connection as taught by Chen for each gate electrode as taught by Chuang in order to obtain a better interface management and electrical properties and so better manufacturing control and device structures and performance may be obtained and achieved (Chen; par. 56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-20 are allowable.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As insofar as Claim 4 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device, comprising the semiconductor device wherein the third conductive contact is wider than the first conductive contact in combination with all of the limitations of Claims 1, 3 and 4.
As insofar as Claim 5 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device wherein the first conductive contact is longer than the third conductive contact in combination with all of the limitations of Claims 1, 3 and 5.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device wherein the first distance is larger than the second distance in combination with all of the limitations of Claims 7, 9 and 10.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device wherein the fourth width is larger than the second width in combination with all of the limitations of Claims 7, 9 and 11.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device wherein the second gate electrode is taller than the first gate electrode in combination with all of the limitations of Claims 7, 9 and 12.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device, comprising: wherein the second conductive feature has a second bottom surface wider than the first bottom surface in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 13. Claims 14-20 includes the limitations of claim 13
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights