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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weng et al (U.S. Pub #2016/0064485).
With respect to claim 1, Weng teaches a structure, comprising:
a first fin structure (Fig. 4, portion 46 in region 20) on a substrate (Fig. 4, 12), wherein a top surface of the first fin structure has a first crystal orientation (Fig. 4, <100> ); and
a second fin structure on the substrate and comprising: a bottom portion comprising a first material (Fig. 4, upper portion of 12 in region 22);
a dielectric layer (Fig. 4, 14 and Paragraph 16) on the bottom portion; and
a top portion (Fig. 4, 46) on the dielectric layer and comprising a second material, wherein a top surface of the top portion has a second crystal orientation (Fig. 4, <110> ).
With respect to claim 2, Weng teaches that the first fin structure comprises a lower portion (Fig. 4, upper portion of 12 in region 20) and an upper portion (Fig. 4, portion 46 in region 20), and wherein an interface between the lower portion and the upper portion is coplanar with an interface between the bottom portion (Fig. 4, upper portion of 12 in region 22) of the second fin structure and the dielectric layer.
With respect to claim 3, Weng teaches that the upper portion of the first fin structure comprises silicon germanium (Paragraph 15).
With respect to claim 4, Weng teaches that the lower portion of the first fin structure comprises the first material (Fig. 4, i.e. the material of substrate 12).
With respect to claim 15, Weng teaches a structure, comprising:
a first fin structure on a substrate, wherein the first fin structure comprises a lower portion (Fig. 4, upper portion of 12 in region 20) and an upper portion (Fig. 4, upper portion of 46 in region 20) on the lower portion, and wherein an interface between the upper and lower portions has a first crystal orientation (Fig. 4, <100> ); and
a second fin structure on the substrate, wherein the second fin structure comprises a dielectric layer (Fig. 4, 14 and Paragraph 16) and a top portion (Fig. 4, portion of 46 in region 22) on the dielectric layer, and wherein a top surface of the top portion has a second crystal orientation (Fig. 4, <110> ).
With respect to claim 16, Weng teaches that the upper portion of the first fin structure comprises silicon germanium (Paragraph 15) and the lower portion of the first fin structure comprises silicon (Paragraph 12).
With respect to claim 17, Weng teaches the interface between the upper and lower portions (Fig. 4, upper surface of portion 12) of the first fin structure is coplanar with a bottom surface of the dielectric layer (Fig. 4, bottom surface of 14).
With respect to claim 18, Weng teaches that a side surface of the dielectric layer (Fig. 4, 14) is coplanar with a side surface of the top portion of the second fin structure (Fig. 4, 46).
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 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng, in view of Sung et al (U.S. Pub #2017/0154990).
With respect to claim 5, Weng does not teach a first epitaxial source/drain structure on the first fin structure and comprising p-type dopants; and a second epitaxial source/drain structure on the second fin structure and comprising n-type dopants.
Sung teaches a first epitaxial source/drain structure on the first fin structure (Paragraph 25) and comprising p-type dopants (Paragraph 41); and a second epitaxial source/drain structure on the second fin structure and comprising n-type dopants (Paragraph 41, the dopants can be selected for respective p-type and n-type devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide first and second epitaxial source/drain structures comprising dopants on the respective first and second fin structures of Weng as taught by Sung in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a source/drain region for the FET device and for improving the carrier mobility of the devices (Paragraph 22, etc.).
With respect to claim 8, Weng teaches a structure, comprising:
a first fin structure (Fig. 4, portion 46 in region 22) on a substrate (Fig. 4, 12);
wherein a first surface of the first fin structure has a first crystal orientation (Fig. 4, <110>);
a second fin structure (Fig. 4, portion in region 20) on the substrate; and
wherein a second surface of the second fin structure has a second crystal orientation (Fig. 4, <100>) different from the first crystal orientation.
Weng does not teach
a first epitaxial source/drain structure on the first fin structure, wherein a first interface between the first fin structure and the first epitaxial source/drain structure has a first crystal orientation;
a second epitaxial source/drain structure on the second fin structure, wherein a second interface between the second fin structure and the second epitaxial source/drain structure has a second crystal orientation different from the first crystal orientation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide first and second epitaxial source/drain structures having an interface with the first and second fin structures of Weng as taught by Sung in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a source/drain region for the FET device and for improving the carrier mobility of the devices (Paragraph 22, etc.).
With respect to claim 10, Weng teaches that the first crystal orientation is (100) and the second crystal orientation is (110) (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 11, Weng does not teach that the first fin structure comprises first type dopants; and the second fin structure comprises second type dopants different from the first type dopants.
Sung teaches that a fin structure can comprise dopants (Paragraph 34, LDD regions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide respective first and second dopants in the first and second fin structures of Weng as taught by Sung in order to provide LDD regions in the devices (Paragraph 34).
With respect to claim 13, Weng teaches that the first fin structure comprises an upper portion (Fig. 4, 46), a lower portion (Fig. 4, 12), and a dielectric layer (Fig. 4, 14) between the upper and lower portions, and wherein a top surface of the lower portion has the second crystal orientation.
With respect to claim 14, Weng teaches the second fin structure comprises a layer of silicon (Paragraph 12) and a layer of silicon germanium (SiGe) (Paragraph 15) on the layer of silicon, and wherein an interface between the layer of silicon and the layer of SiGe is coplanar with the top surface of the lower portion (Fig. 4, portion 12 in region 20) of the first fin structure.
With respect to claim 19, Weng does not teach a first epitaxial source/drain structure on the first fin structure and a second epitaxial source/drain structure on the second fin structure.
Sung teaches a first epitaxial source/drain structure on the first fin structure (Paragraph 25) and comprising p-type dopants (Paragraph 41); and a second epitaxial source/drain structure on the second fin structure and comprising n-type dopants (Paragraph 41, the dopants can be selected for respective p-type and n-type devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide first and second epitaxial source/drain structures comprising dopants on the respective first and second fin structures of Weng as taught by Sung in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a source/drain region for the FET device and for improving the carrier mobility of the devices (Paragraph 22, etc.).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng, in view of Sung et al (U.S. Pub 2017/0133286)
With respect to claim 6, Weng does not teach that the first and second epitaxial source/drain structures have a diamond shape, and wherein a side corner of the first epitaxial source/drain structure is lower than a side corner of the second epitaxial source/drain structure.
Sung-2 teaches first and second epitaxial source/drain structures have a diamond shape, and wherein a side corner of the first epitaxial source/drain structure (Fig. 1B, 144a) is lower than a side corner of the second epitaxial source/drain structure (Fig. 1B, 154a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the side corners of the source/drain regions as taught by Sung-2 in order to adjust and optimize the strain in each respective device (Paragraph 18).
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weng and Sung, in view of Sung et al (U.S. Pub 2017/0133286).
With respect to claim 9, Weng does not teach that a first distance between the first interface and a top surface of the substrate is greater than a second distance between the second interface and the top surface of the substrate.
Sung-2 teaches a first distance between the first interface (Fig. 1B, interface between 152/120b) and a top surface of the substrate (Fig. 1B, 110) is greater than a second distance between the second interface (Fig. 1B, interface between 142/120a) and the top surface of the substrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the interfaces such that the first distance is greater than a second distance as taught by Sung-2 in order to adjust and optimize the strain in each respective device (Paragraph 18).
With respect to claim 12, Weng does not teach that a side corner of the first epitaxial source/drain structure is above a side corner of the second epitaxial source/drain structure.
Sung-2 teaches that a side corner of the first epitaxial source/drain structure (Fig. 1B, 154a) is above a side corner of the second epitaxial source/drain structure (Fig. 1B, 144a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the side corners of the source/drain regions as taught by Sung-2 in order to adjust and optimize the strain in each respective device (Paragraph 18).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN P SANDVIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)-272-1945. 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.
/BENJAMIN P SANDVIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights