Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Examiner conducted a comprehensive analysis of obviousness analysis including the Graham v. Deere analysis for each claim by (A) determining the scope and content of a reference claim relative to the claim in the application at issue; (B) determining the differences between the scope and content of the reference claim as determined in (A) and the claim in the application at issue; (C) determining the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (D) evaluation any objective indicia of nonobviousness.
The examiner has concluded that there is issue of double patenting rejection in the current application. This is because the claims in this application are deemed to be patentably does not distinct from any claims in a potential double patenting reference. Moreover, the examined application's claim is either anticipated or obvious over the reference claim(s).
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11626495 (hereinafter Pat-495). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Regarding claim 1. The instant application is a continuation of the application that matured into Pat-495. Accordingly, claim 1 must define subject matter that is patentably distinct from the invention claimed in Pat-495.
Pat-495 claim 1 recites a semiconductor device comprising a source/drain component, a source/drain contact disposed over the source/drain component, and a protective liner disposed on side surfaces of the upper portion of the source/drain contact but not on side surfaces of the lower portion of the source/drain contact. Pat-495 claim 2 further recites a gate structure adjacent the source/drain component, a gate contact disposed over the gate structure, wherein the protective liner is disposed between the source/drain contact and the gate contact.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed "first conductive component" is reasonably interpreted as the source/drain contact because it is recited as being located over the source/drain component. Likewise, the claimed "second conductive component" is reasonably interpreted as the gate contact because it is recited as being located over the gate. The claimed "liner" is reasonably interpreted as the protective liner because it is recited as being disposed on a sidewall of the first conductive component and is further defined by its positional relationship with respect to the second conductive component. These interpretations are consistent with the instant specification.
Accordingly, Pat-495 claims 1 and 2 recite:
• a source/drain component;
• a source/drain contact disposed over the source/drain component;
• a protective liner disposed on a sidewall of the source/drain contact;
• a gate adjacent the source/drain component; and
• a gate contact disposed over the gate.
The remaining limitation of instant claim 1 recites:
"wherein a bottommost portion of the liner has a lower vertical elevation than a bottom surface of the second conductive component in a cross-sectional side view."
Pat-495 claim 4 recites:
"wherein a depth of the protective liner is deeper than a depth of the gate contact in the vertical direction."
Pat-495 claim 4 requires the protective liner to extend farther in the vertical direction than the gate contact. As a result, the bottommost portion of the protective liner necessarily extends below the bottom surface of the gate contact. Therefore, the instant limitation merely identifies the terminal points of the same two structures to describe the same relative vertical relationship already recited in Pat-495 claim 4.
Specifically, Pat-495 claim 4 defines the relative vertical relationship between the protective liner and the gate contact by comparing the respective vertical extents of the two structures, whereas instant claim 1 defines that same relationship by reciting the relative positions of the bottommost portion of the liner and the bottom surface of the gate contact. Both limitations require the protective liner to extend vertically below the gate contact and therefore define the same structural arrangement. The instant claim does not require any additional structural feature or different device configuration beyond that already required by Pat-495 claim 4.
Furthermore, the remaining differences between instant claim 1 and Pat-495 claims 1-2 and 4 are merely differences in terminology. The generic terms "first conductive component," "second conductive component," and "liner" are reasonably interpreted as the previously claimed source/drain contact, gate contact, and protective liner, respectively, and do not impose any additional structural limitation over the patented claims.
Accordingly, the differences between instant claim 1 and Pat-495 claims 1-2 and 4 merely constitute an obvious variation of the patented invention and do not render the claimed subject matter patentably distinct. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4 of Pat-495.
Regarding claim 4. The claims 1-2 and 4 of Pat-495 discloses the claim 4. As discussed in the rejection of instant claim 1, Pat-495 claims 1-2 and 4 collectively recite the limitations of instant claim 1.
Instant claim 4 further recites:
"further comprising an active region from which the source/drain component protrudes vertically outwards, wherein the active region extends in a first horizontal direction in the cross-sectional side view."
The additional limitations of instant claim 4 correspond to the following limitations recited in Pat-495 claim 1:
"one or more active region structures that each protrude vertically out of a substrate in a vertical direction and extend horizontally in a first horizontal direction; a source/drain component disposed over the one or more active region structures in the vertical direction."
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed active region reasonably corresponds to the active region structures recited in Pat-495 claim 1, and the claimed source/drain component reasonably corresponds to the source/drain component recited therein.
Pat-495 claim 1 recites active region structures extending in the first horizontal direction with the source/drain component disposed thereover in the vertical direction. The additional limitation that the source/drain component protrudes vertically outwards from the active region does not require a structural relationship different from that already recited in Pat-495 claim 1, but instead characterizes the same positional relationship between the source/drain component and the active region using different terminology.
Likewise, Pat-495 claim 1 expressly recites that the active region structures extend horizontally in the first horizontal direction. The further recitation that "the active region extends in a first horizontal direction in the cross-sectional side view" merely specifies the orientation of the claimed cross-sectional view and does not impose any additional structural limitation on the semiconductor device.
Accordingly, the additional limitations of instant claim 4 do not require any structural feature or device configuration beyond those already recited in Pat-495 claim 1. Rather, the additional limitations merely characterize the previously claimed structural relationships using different terminology and by specifying the orientation of the claimed cross-sectional view.
Therefore, the additional limitations of instant claim 4 would have constituted obvious modifications of the subject matter recited in Pat-495 claim 1 and do not impart patentable distinctness over the invention claimed in Pat-495.
Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 4 of Pat-495.
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the claim initially recites "a plurality of active regions," but subsequently recites "the active region" in the limitation:
"a source/drain component formed over the active region in the first cross-sectional side view..."
Claim 18 further recites:
"...wherein the source/drain component partially wraps around the plurality of active regions in the second cross-sectional side view."
Accordingly, claim 18 inconsistently refers to "a plurality of active regions" and "the active region" when describing the location of the source/drain component. Consequently, it is unclear whether the source/drain component is formed over one of the plurality of active regions or over the plurality of active regions. As a result, the metes and bounds of claim 18 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Therefore, claim 18 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention and is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may amend claim 18 to consistently refer to the previously introduced active region(s). For example, if Applicant intends that the source/drain component is formed over the previously recited plurality of active regions, the limitation may be amended to recite:
"a source/drain component formed over the plurality of active regions in the first cross-sectional side view...".
The foregoing amendment is provided as example only. Applicant may amend the claim in any manner that clearly and consistently identifies the intended active region(s) and distinctly sets forth the intended scope of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 19-20, because of their dependency on claim 18, these claims are also rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 18.
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.
(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 1-4 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 20220246528).
Regarding claim 1. Choi discloses a structure (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a source/drain component (source/drain region 120);
a first conductive component located over the source/drain component (first contact structure including conductive component 156 disposed over source/drain component 120);
a liner disposed on a sidewall of the first conductive component (liner 154 disposed along the sidewalls of first conductive component 156);
a gate located adjacent to the source/drain component (gate structure including gate electrode 132/135a/135b disposed adjacent to source/drain component 120);
a second conductive component located over the gate (second gate contact structure including conductive component 182 disposed over the gate structure); and
wherein a bottommost portion of the liner has a lower vertical elevation than a bottom surface of the second conductive component in a cross-sectional side view (Fig. 2, cross-sectional view taken along line I-I' of Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 2, liner 154 extends downward along the sidewall of first conductive component 156 to the bottom of the first conductive component adjacent to source/drain component 120, whereas second conductive component 182 is disposed over the gate and terminates at a higher vertical position. Accordingly, the bottommost portion of liner 154 is located below the bottom surface of second conductive component 182, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 2. Choi discloses the structure of claim 1, further comprising a metal layer 166 ([0036]; Fig. 2) disposed between the gate structure (132/135a/135b) and the second conductive component 182. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, metal layer 166 is disposed directly on the gate structure (132/135a/135b), and second conductive component 182 is disposed directly on metal layer 166. Thus, metal layer 166 is physically interposed between the gate structure and second conductive component 182, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation of a metal layer disposed between the gate and the second conductive component.
Choi further discloses that the second conductive component 182 is disposed on a portion, but not all, of an upper surface of metal layer 166. As shown in Fig. 2, second conductive component 182 is formed on only a central portion of the upper surface of metal layer 166, while opposite lateral portions of the upper surface of metal layer 166 remain exposed and are not covered by second conductive component 182. Accordingly, second conductive component 182 is disposed on a portion, but not all, of the upper surface of metal layer 166, as claimed.
Regarding claim 3. Choi discloses the structure of claim 2, wherein the bottommost portion of the liner has a lower vertical elevation than a bottom surface of the metal layer (Fig. 2, cross-sectional view taken along line I-I' of Fig. 1). Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, liner 154 extends downward along the sidewall of first conductive component 156 to the bottom of first conductive component 156 adjacent to source/drain component 120. In contrast, metal layer 166 is disposed over gate structure 132/135a/135b and is positioned at a higher vertical elevation than the bottommost portion of liner 154. Accordingly, the bottommost portion of liner 154 is located below the bottom surface of metal layer 166 in the cross-sectional side view, thereby satisfying the limitation that the bottommost portion of the liner has a lower vertical elevation than the bottom surface of the metal layer.
Regarding claim 4. Choi discloses the structure of claim 1, further comprising an active region 105 ([0020]; Figs. 1 and 2) from which the source/drain component 120 protrudes vertically outwards. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2 (cross-sectional view taken along line II-II' of Fig. 1), source/drain component 120 is formed directly on active region 105 and extends upwardly therefrom in the vertical direction. Accordingly, source/drain component 120 protrudes vertically outward from active region 105, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation.
Choi further discloses that active region 105 extends in a first horizontal direction in the cross-sectional side view. As shown in Fig. 2 (cross-sectional view II-II') and described in paragraph [0020], active region 105 extends laterally in the first horizontal direction while source/drain component 120 is disposed thereon. Accordingly, active region 105 extends in the first horizontal direction in the claimed cross-sectional side view, as recited.
Regarding claim 9. Choi discloses the structure of claim 1, further comprising a gate spacer structure 134 ([0027]; Fig. 2) located between the gate structure (132/135a/135b) and the first conductive component 156. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, gate spacer structure 134 is disposed adjacent to the sidewall of the gate structure and is positioned between the gate structure and first conductive component 156, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation.
Choi further discloses that gate spacer structure 134 separates liner 154 from second conductive component 182. As shown in Fig. 2, liner 154 is disposed on the sidewall of first conductive component 156, while second conductive component 182 is disposed over the gate structure. Gate spacer structure 134 is interposed between liner 154 and second conductive component 182 in the lateral direction, such that liner 154 and second conductive component 182 are physically separated from one another by gate spacer structure 134. Accordingly, Choi teaches that the gate spacer structure further separates the liner from the second conductive component, as recited.
Regarding claim 10. Choi discloses the structure of claim 9, wherein an upper surface of the second conductive component has a greater vertical elevation than an upper surface of the gate spacer structure. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, second conductive component 182 extends vertically above gate spacer structure 134 and projects upward beyond the upper surface of gate spacer structure 134. Consequently, the upper surface of second conductive component 182 is located at a greater vertical elevation than the upper surface of gate spacer structure 134. Accordingly, Choi teaches that the upper surface of the second conductive component has a greater vertical elevation than the upper surface of the gate spacer structure, as recited.
Regarding claim 11, Choi discloses the structure of claim 9, further comprising a dielectric layer 192 ([0039]; Fig. 2) located over the gate spacer structure 134, liner 154, and first conductive component 156. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, dielectric layer 192 overlies gate spacer structure 134, liner 154, and first conductive component 156, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation.
Choi further discloses that second conductive component 182 extends through dielectric layer 192 in the vertical direction. As shown in Fig. 2, second conductive component 182 extends vertically through dielectric layer 192 to electrically contact the underlying gate structure. Accordingly, Choi teaches that the second conductive component extends through the dielectric layer vertically, as recited.
Regarding claim 12. Choi discloses a structure (Figs. 2 and 5), comprising:
an active region (active region 105) ([0020]);
a source/drain component disposed partially in the active region, wherein an upper surface of the source/drain component has a higher vertical elevation than the active region (source/drain component 120) ([0020]). Specifically, as shown in Fig. 5, source/drain component 120 is partially embedded within active region 105 while an upper portion of source/drain component 120 protrudes vertically above the upper surface of active region 105. Accordingly, the upper surface of source/drain component 120 has a higher vertical elevation than the active region.
a source/drain contact disposed on the source/drain component (source/drain contact 156a) ([0032]);
a gate disposed over the active region (gate structure including 132/135a/135b) ([0020]); and
a gate spacer structure and a liner disposed between the gate and the source/drain contact, wherein a bottommost surface of the liner is located farther from an upper surface of the active region than a bottommost surface of the gate spacer structure in a cross-sectional side view (gate spacer structure 134 and liner 154a) ([0027], [0032]). Specifically, as shown in Figs. 2 and 5, gate spacer structure 134 and liner 154a are both disposed between the gate structure and source/drain contact 156a. Furthermore, liner 154a extends downward to contact layer 152 adjacent to source/drain component 120, whereas gate spacer structure 134 terminates at a higher vertical elevation above contact layer 152. Consequently, the bottommost surface of liner 154a is located farther from the upper surface of active region 105 than the bottommost surface of gate spacer structure 134 in the cross-sectional side view. Accordingly, Choi teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 13. Choi discloses the structure of claim 12, wherein the bottommost surface of the liner is located closer to the upper surface of the active region than an upper surface of the gate in the cross-sectional side view. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, liner 154 is disposed on the sidewall of source/drain contact 156 and extends downward to a location adjacent to source/drain component 120. In contrast, the upper surface of gate structure 132/135a/135b is positioned at a higher vertical elevation above active region 105. Consequently, the bottommost surface of liner 154 is located closer to the upper surface of active region 105 than the upper surface of gate structure 132/135a/135b in the cross-sectional side view. Accordingly, Choi teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 14. Choi discloses the structure of claim 12, wherein a portion of the source/drain component separates the source/drain contact from the active region in the cross-sectional side view. Specifically, as shown in Figs. 2 and 5, source/drain contact 156a is disposed over source/drain component 120, while source/drain component 120 is partially disposed within active region 105. Accordingly, an upper portion of source/drain component 120 is interposed between source/drain contact 156a and active region 105, thereby separating source/drain contact 156a from active region 105 in the cross-sectional side view. Although contact layer 152 is disposed between source/drain component 120 and source/drain contact 156a, source/drain component 120 nevertheless remains interposed between source/drain contact 156a and active region 105. Accordingly, Choi teaches that a portion of the source/drain component separates the source/drain contact from the active region, as recited.
Regarding claim 15, Choi discloses the structure of claim 12, further comprising:
a conductive layer disposed over the gate (conductive layer 160) ([0020]). Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, conductive layer 160 is disposed over gate structure 132/135a/135b, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation; and
a gate contact disposed over a portion, but not all, of the conductive layer (gate contact 182) ([0047]). Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, gate contact 182 is disposed on only a portion of the upper surface of conductive layer 160, while lateral portions of the upper surface of conductive layer 160 remain uncovered by gate contact 182. Accordingly, gate contact 182 is disposed over a portion, but not all, of conductive layer 160, as recited.
Regarding claim 16. Choi discloses the structure of claim 15, wherein the gate spacer structure and the liner are disposed between the gate contact and the source/drain contact in the cross-sectional side view. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, gate contact 182 is disposed over conductive layer 160 and gate structure 132/135a/135b, while source/drain contact 156 is disposed over source/drain component 120. Gate spacer structure 134 is positioned adjacent to the gate structure, and liner 154 is disposed on the sidewall of source/drain contact 156. As further shown in Fig. 2, gate spacer structure 134 and liner 154 are interposed between gate contact 182 and source/drain contact 156 in the cross-sectional side view, thereby physically separating gate contact 182 from source/drain contact 156. Accordingly, Choi teaches that the gate spacer structure and the liner are disposed between the gate contact and the source/drain contact, as recited.
Regarding claim 17. Choi discloses the structure of claim 15, wherein the gate contact has a more vertically elevated upper surface than the source/drain contact. Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, gate contact 182 extends vertically above conductive layer 160 and gate structure 132/135a/135b, while source/drain contact 156 extends vertically above source/drain component 120. Furthermore, the upper surface of gate contact 182 is positioned at a higher vertical elevation than the upper surface of source/drain contact 156. Accordingly, Choi teaches that the gate contact has a more vertically elevated upper surface than the source/drain contact, as recited.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20210066453).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses a structure (Figs. 1, 2, and 4), comprising:
a plurality of active regions each spanning in a first horizontal direction in a first cross-sectional side view defined by a vertical direction and the first horizontal direction (active regions AF1) (Fig. 1; ¶ [0024]). Specifically, Fig. 1 illustrates a plurality of active regions AF1 extending in the first horizontal direction,
wherein the active regions are separated from one another in a second horizontal direction in a second cross-sectional side view defined by the vertical direction and the second horizontal direction (Figs. 1 and 2). Specifically, the plurality of active regions AF1 are spaced apart from one another in the second horizontal direction and are illustrated in the second cross-sectional side view of Fig. 2,
a source/drain component formed over the active region in the first cross-sectional side view, wherein the source/drain component partially wraps around the plurality of active regions in the second cross-sectional side view (Figs. 1 and 2). Specifically, as shown in Fig. 2, the source/drain component is formed over the plurality of active regions AF1 and extends around the upper portions of the active regions such that opposite side portions of the source/drain component are positioned along opposite side surfaces of the active regions. Accordingly, the source/drain component partially wraps around the plurality of active regions in the second cross-sectional side view,
a source/drain contact disposed on the source/drain component in the first cross-sectional side view and the second cross-sectional side view (source/drain contact 170) (¶ [0024]; Figs. 2 and 4),
wherein the source/drain contact has different profiles in the first cross-sectional side view and the second cross-sectional side view. Specifically, Fig. 2 (cross-sectional view A-A of Fig. 1) and Fig. 4 (cross-sectional view B-B' of Fig. 1) illustrate source/drain contact 170 in two different orthogonal cross-sectional side views. As shown in these figures, source/drain contact 170 has different cross-sectional profiles in the respective cross-sectional side views. Accordingly, Lee teaches that the source/drain contact has different profiles in the first cross-sectional side view and the second cross-sectional side view, as recited.
Regarding claim 19. Lee discloses the structure of claim 18, wherein the source/drain contact has laterally protruding bottom segments in the second cross-sectional side view, but not in the first cross-sectional side view. Specifically, Fig. 2 (cross-sectional view A-A of Fig. 1) illustrates source/drain contact 170 having a bottom portion that laterally protrudes beyond an upper portion of the source/drain contact on opposite sides, thereby defining laterally protruding bottom segments in the second cross-sectional side view. In contrast, Fig. 4 (cross-sectional view B-B' of Fig. 1) illustrates source/drain contact 170 without laterally protruding bottom segments. Accordingly, Lee teaches that the source/drain contact has laterally protruding bottom segments in the second cross-sectional side view, but not in the first cross-sectional side view, as recited.
Regarding claim 20. Lee discloses the structure of claim 18, further comprising a liner disposed on a portion, but not all, of a side surface of the source/drain contact in both the first cross-sectional side view and the second cross-sectional side view. Specifically, Figs. 2 and 4 and paragraph [0062] disclose liner 170a disposed on side surfaces of source/drain contact 170. As shown in Fig. 2 (cross-sectional view A-A of Fig. 1), liner 170a covers only an upper portion of the side surface of source/drain contact 170 while a lower portion of the side surface remains uncovered. Likewise, Fig. 4 (cross-sectional view B-B' of Fig. 1) illustrates liner 170a covering only a portion of the side surface of source/drain contact 170 while leaving the remaining portion of the side surface uncovered. Accordingly, Lee teaches a liner disposed on a portion, but not all, of a side surface of the source/drain contact in both the first cross-sectional side view and the second cross-sectional side view, as recited.
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Choi et al. (US 20220246528) in view of Lee et al. (US 20210066453).
Regarding claim 5, Choi discloses the structure of claim 4. However, Choi does not expressly disclose that, in a second cross-sectional side view defined by a vertical direction and a second horizontal direction different from the first horizontal direction, the first conductive component has a non-flat side surface.
Lee discloses this limitation. Specifically, Fig. 2 shows first conductive component 172 having opposing side surfaces (172sa, 172sb) that include alternating concave and convex portions, such that the side surfaces are non-flat.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first conductive component of Choi to include the non-flat side surface taught by Lee because Lee teaches that such a contact profile increases the surface area between the conductive component and surrounding materials while maintaining the same electrical contact function. The modification merely substitutes one known contact geometry for another to achieve predictable improvements in contact interface characteristics without changing the principle of operation of Choi.
Regarding claim 6, Choi discloses the structure of claim 5 as modified by Lee. Lee further discloses that the non-flat side surface of the first conductive component is curved. Specifically, Fig. 2 illustrates first conductive component 172 having curved side surfaces (172sa and 172sb) formed by alternating concave and convex portions. It would have been obvious to configure the non-flat side surface of Choi's first conductive component with the curved profile taught by Lee for the reasons set forth with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Choi discloses the structure of claim 5 as modified by Lee. However, Choi does not expressly disclose that the bottommost portion of the liner stops before reaching the non-flat side surface.
Lee discloses this limitation. Specifically, Fig. 2 and paragraph [0062] disclose liner 170a disposed on side surfaces of first conductive component 170. As shown in Fig. 2, liner 170a terminates above the curved side surfaces 172sa and 172sb of upper conductive portion 172. Thus, the bottommost portion of liner 170a stops before reaching the curved (non-flat) side surfaces of first conductive component 170. Accordingly, Lee teaches that the bottommost portion of the liner stops before reaching the non-flat side surface, as recited.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liner of Choi to terminate before reaching the non-flat side surface as taught by Lee because Lee teaches a liner configuration in which the liner covers only an upper portion of the conductive component sidewall while leaving the lower curved contact region uncovered. Applying Lee's liner configuration to Choi's conductive component merely substitutes one known liner arrangement for another to obtain a predictable structure without changing the principle of operation of Choi.
Regarding claim 8, Choi discloses the structure of claim 5 as modified by Lee. However, Choi does not expressly disclose that the non-flat side surface is a side surface of a bottom segment of the first conductive component, or that a maximum lateral dimension of the bottom segment of the first conductive component exceeds a dimension of an uppermost surface of the first conductive component in the second horizontal direction.
Lee discloses these limitations. Specifically, Fig. 12 illustrates first conductive component 170 including a bottom segment located below upper surface 171us. As shown in Fig. 12, the bottom segment includes curved side surface 172sa, which constitutes the claimed non-flat side surface. Furthermore, the bottom segment laterally projects beyond the upper portion of first conductive component 170. Consequently, the maximum lateral dimension of the bottom segment is greater than the lateral dimension of the uppermost surface of first conductive component 170 in the second horizontal direction. Accordingly, Lee teaches that the non-flat side surface is a side surface of the bottom segment of the first conductive component, and that the maximum lateral dimension of the bottom segment exceeds the dimension of the uppermost surface of the first conductive component, as recited.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first conductive component of Choi to include the bottom segment geometry taught by Lee because Lee teaches a conductive contact structure having a laterally enlarged bottom segment with a curved non-flat side surface while maintaining the same electrical contact function. Incorporating Lee's known contact geometry into the conductive component of Choi merely substitutes one known conductive contact configuration for another to obtain a predictable contact structure without changing the principle of operation of Choi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is (571)270-7799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10A-3P.
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 on 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.
/Changhyun Yi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights