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
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1-9 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/24/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-2, 4-8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartier (US 2006/0237796, hereinafter as Cart ‘796) in view of Niimi (US 2012/0228715, hereinafter as Niim ‘715).
Regarding Claim 1, Cart ‘796 teaches a method for improving performance of a MOS device, at least comprising:
step I, providing a work function layer (Fig. 1A, (16); [0040]);
step II, forming a barrier layer (Fig. 1A, (18); [0042]) on the work function layer;
step III, forming a polysilicon layer (Fig. 1A, (20); [0046]) on the barrier layer, and the thickness of the polysilicon layer is 70-100 nm (700-1000A);
step IV, etching the polysilicon layer, the barrier layer, and the work function layer to form a gate structure (see Fig. 1B; [0047]).
Thus, Cart ‘796 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a metal layer (266; [0042]), the material of the metal layer is tungsten (see para. [0042]); the thickness of the metal layer is 3000 Angstrom”
However, Niim ‘715 teaches a metal layer () the material of the metal layer is tungsten.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cart ‘796 by having the material of the metal layer is tungsten for the purpose of improving the performance of the IC (e.g. low electrical resistivity; see para. [0042]) as suggested by Niim ‘715.
Thus, Cart ‘796 and Niim ‘715 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the thickness of the metal layer is 3000 Angstrom”.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the metal layer is 3000 Angstrom, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding Claim 2, Cart ‘796 teaches the work function layer (16) in step I is a work function layer for forming a gate structure of an NMOS device (see para. [0022] and [0027]).
Regarding Claim 4, Cart ‘796 teaches the barrier layer (18) in step II is a TiN layer (see para. [0042]).
Regarding Claim 5, Cart ‘796 teaches the thickness of the barrier layer (18) in step II is 5-30 nm (50-300 Angstrom) (see para. [0044]).
Cart ‘796 and Niim ‘715 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the thickness of the barrier layer in step II is 25 Angstrom”.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the barrier layer is 25 Angstrom, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding Claim 6, Cart ‘796 teaches the polysilicon layer (20) in step III is used for forming a gate (20) in the gate structure (gate stack; (12’); [0047]) of the MOS device (see para. [0027] and [0031]).
Niim ‘715 teaches a metal gate (266; see para. [0042]).
Regarding Claim 7, Cart ‘796 teaches thickness of the polysilicon gate layer (20) is 70-100 nm (700-1000A) (see para. [0046]).
Cart ‘796 and Niim ‘715 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the thickness of the metal layer in step III is 3000 Angstrom”.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the metal layer is 3000 Angstrom, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Regarding Claim 8, Cart ‘796 and Niim ‘715 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the method is applicable to a process for a MOS gate at the 22 nm technology node”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the method is applicable to a process for a MOS gate at the 22 nm technology node on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 8 contains functional limitation “applicable to a process for a MOS gate at the 22 nm technology node” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. " the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “applicable to a process for a MOS gate at the 22 nm technology node” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
Regarding Claim 9, Niim ‘715 the method is used to reduce a gate resistance of the MOS device (or low electrical resistivity; see para. [0042]). Since the metal gate is tungsten (see para. [0042]), it would obviously appear that it enhances a tensile stress of a channel.
Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the metal gate to enhance a tensile stress of a channel on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 9 contains functional limitation “to enhance a tensile stress of a channel” (emphasis added). According to MPEP 2173(05) g. " the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. In the instant case, “to enhance a tensile stress of a channel” is nothing else than the result achieved by the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cart ‘796 and Niim ‘715 as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lu (US 2013/0295759, hereinafter as Lu ‘759).
Regarding Claim 3, Cart ‘796 teaches the thickness of the work function layer (16) is from about 0.5 to about 5 nm (5-50 Angstrom) (see para. [0041]).
Cart ‘796 and Niim ‘715 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the work function layer in step I is TiAl, and the thickness of the work function layer is 70 Angstrom”.
Lu ‘759 teaches the work function layer is TiAl (see abstract),
Cart ‘796, Niim ‘715 and Lu ‘759 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the thickness of the work function layer is 70 Angstrom”.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the thickness of the work function layer is 70 Angstrom, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim would have been obvious in the absence of a showing that the claimed range(s) achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges of a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Ando et al. (US 2014/0001516 A1)
Scheiper et al. (US 2013/0270645 A1)
Park et al. (US 2005/0064653 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights