DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
The prior arts cited in PTO-892 but not used in the current rejection are related to the claimed novelty.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of minor error and the examiner suggests the following amendments:
Replace ‘an’ by ‘a’ in line 1 of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20190287851 A1, hereinafter Chen’851).
Regarding independent claim 1, Chen’851 teaches, “A device (fig. 1-13; ¶ [0001] - ¶ [0059]) comprising:
a first insulating layer (80, fig. 12);
a first metallic line (90/100) disposed in the first insulating layer (80),
the first metallic line (90/100) laterally surrounded by the first insulating layer (80),
the first metallic line (90/100) having an upper surface which is level with an upper surface of the first insulating layer (80),
the first metallic line (90/100) including a first depression (201/202) in the upper surface of the first metallic line (90/100),
the first depression (201/202) extending from a first end of the first metallic line (90/100);
a second insulating layer (112) disposed over the first insulating layer (80); and
a first metallic contact (206/207) disposed in the second insulating layer (112) and extending below the second insulating layer (80) into the first depression (201/202),
the first metallic contact (206/207) having an interface with the first metallic line (90/100) in the first depression (201/202).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barth et al. (US 20020086523 A1, hereinafter Barth’523).
Regarding independent claim 1, Barth’523 teaches, “
a first insulating layer (304, fig. 7);
a first metallic line (308) disposed in the first insulating layer (304),
the first metallic line (308) laterally surrounded by the first insulating layer (304),
the first metallic line (308) having an upper surface which is level with an upper surface of the first insulating layer (304),
the first metallic line (308) including a first depression (see annotation) in the upper surface of the first metallic line (308),
the first depression extending from a first end (top end) of the first metallic line (308);
a second insulating layer (312) disposed over the first insulating layer (304); and
a first metallic contact (see annotation) disposed in the second insulating layer (304) and extending below the second insulating layer (312) into the first depression,
the first metallic contact having an interface with the first metallic line in the first depression (see annotation).
PNG
media_image1.png
575
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Barth’523 further teaches, “The device of claim 1, wherein the first metallic contact (see annotated fig. 7) includes a first upper portion surrounded by the second insulating layer (312) and a first lower portion disposed in the first depression, wherein a side-to-side center of the first lower portion is askew of a side-to-side center of the first upper portion”.
Regarding claim 3, Barth’523 further teaches, “The device of claim 2, wherein a first distance (almost zero) from the first end of the first metallic line (308) to the first upper portion of the first metallic contact is less than a second distance from the first upper portion of the first metallic contact to a lateral extent of the first lower portion of the first metallic contact in the first depression”.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20200135562 A1, hereinafter Chen’562).
Regarding independent claim 8, Chen’562 teaches, “A device (fig. 1-15; ¶ [0001] - ¶ [0056]) comprising:
a source/drain region (102, fig. 10, ¶ [0014]) of a transistor;
a first inter-layer dielectric (105) over the source/drain region (102);
a first source/drain contact plug (115) over and electrically coupled to the source/drain region (102),
wherein the first source/drain contact plug (115) comprises a metal region (¶ [0021]);
a second inter-layer dielectric (121) over the first inter-layer dielectric (105); and
a second source/drain contact plug (129) over and electrically coupled to the first source/drain contact plug (115) at a first end of the first source/drain contact plug (115),
the second source/drain contact plug (129) having a first upper portion laterally surrounded by the second inter-layer dielectric (121),
the second source/drain contact plug (129) having a first lower portion extending below the second inter-layer dielectric (121) into the first source/drain contact plug (115),
wherein the first lower portion has a sidewall which is aligned to a sidewall of the first source/drain contact plug (115).
PNG
media_image2.png
689
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Chen’562 further teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein the first upper portion has a center offset from a center of the first lower portion (fig. 10)”.
Claims 13, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beck (US 20060194430 A1, hereinafter Beck’430).
Regarding independent claim 13, Beck’430 teaches, “A device (fig. 1-11; ¶ [0001] - ¶ [0070]) comprising:
a metallic region (220, fig. 11) in a first insulating layer (206);
a second insulating layer (206’) over the metallic region (220) and the first insulating layer (206); and
a first contact plug (216’, 218’, 216),
the first contact plug having a first portion (216) in the metallic region (220) and a second portion (218’) in the second insulating layer (206’),
the first portion (216) having greater lateral extents than a bottom of the second portion (218’),
a side-to-side center of the first portion (216) being offset from a side-to-side center of the second portion (218’)”.
Regarding claim 15, Beck’430 further teaches, “The device of claim 13, further comprising: a second contact plug in the second insulating layer, the second contact plug having a first portion in the metallic region and a second portion in the second insulating layer, a side-to-side center of the first portion of the second contact plug centered to a side-to-side center of the second portion of the second contact plug (fig. 2)”.
Regarding claim 16, Beck’430 further teaches, “The device of claim 15, wherein the first portion of the first contact plug than is thicker than the first portion of the second contact plug (fig. 11 and fig. 2)“.
Regarding claim 17, Beck’430 further teaches, “The device of claim 15, wherein: a first distance corresponds to a width of the second insulating layer that overhangs the first portion of the first contact plug on a side of the first contact plug opposite a line end of the metallic region, a second distance corresponds to a width of the second insulating layer that overhangs the first portion of the first contact plug on a side of the first contact plug near the line end of the metallic region, a third distance corresponds to a width of the second insulating layer that overhangs the first portion of the second contact plug from an edge of a bottom of the second portion of the second contact plug, wherein the first distance is greater than the third distance, and wherein the third distance is greater than the second distance (fig. 11 and fig. 2)”.
Regarding claim 18, Beck’430 further teaches, “The device of claim 15, wherein a volume of the first portion of the first contact plug (fig. 11) is greater than a volume of the first portion of the second contact plug (fig. 2)”.
Regarding claim 20, Beck’430 further teaches, “The device of claim 13, an upper surface of the first contact plug is level with an upper surfaces of the second insulating layer (fig. 11)”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barth’523.
Regarding claim 4, “The device of claim 3, further comprising: a second metallic contact disposed in the second insulating layer and extending below the second insulating layer into a second depression of the first metallic line, wherein the second metallic contact has a second upper portion laterally surrounded by the second insulating layer, wherein the second metallic contact has a second lower portion laterally surrounded by the first metallic line, wherein the second lower portion of the second metallic contact has lateral extents which extend beyond lateral extents of the second upper portion of the second metallic contact”, Barth’523 teaches a metallic contact structure meeting all the limitations of the instant claim. Barth’523 shows one structure. However, duplicating the structure made by Barth’523 to accommodate more contact structures next to each other is usual operation and will not be a novelty or hindsight reconstruction. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Regarding claim 5, Barth’523 further teaches, “The device of claim 4, wherein a lateral center of the second upper portion and a lateral center of the second lower portion of the second metallic contact are aligned with each other (fig. 5)”.
Regarding claim 6, Barth’523 further teaches, “The device of claim 4, wherein the first metallic contact extends into the first metallic line deeper than the second metallic contact (see fig. 1-2 and 5-7, the depth of the first metallic contact into the second metallic contact can be different)”.
Regarding claim 7, Barth’523 further teaches, “The device of claim 4, wherein a volume of the first lower portion is greater than a volume of the second lower portion (see fig. 1-2 and 5-7, the volumes can be different)”.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen’562 as applied to claim 9 as above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20050032304 A1, hereinafter Park’304).
Regarding claims 9, Chen’562 teaches all the limitations described in claim 8.
But Chen’562 is silent upon the provision of wherein the device of claim 8, further comprising a third source/drain contact plug having a second lower portion extending below the second inter-layer dielectric into the first source/drain contact plug, wherein the first lower portion has a greater volume than the second lower portion.
However, Park’304 teaches a similar device (fig. 13), wherein multiple source/drain contact plugs are formed wherein the lower undercuts are of different volume.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Chen’562 and Park’304 to form s/d contact plugs of different shape and undercut volume according to the teachings of Park’304 with a general motivation of meeting needs for different current carrying capabilities needed for different S/D.
Regarding claim 10, Chen’562 modified with Park’304 further teaches, “The device of claim 9, wherein the first lower portion extends further into the first source/drain contact plug than the second lower portion (fig. 13, 123a-123c and 123d-123e have different undercuts, Park’304)”.
Regarding claim 11, Chen’562 modified with Park’304 further teaches, “The device of claim 9, wherein the first upper portion has a center offset from a center of the first lower portion, wherein the third source/drain contact plug has a second upper portion extending through the second inter-layer dielectric to the second lower portion, wherein the second upper portion has a center aligned with a center of the second lower portion (fig. 13, 123a-123c and 123d-123e have different center offset for upper and lower portions, Park’304)”.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck’430 as applied to claim 13 and further in view Liu (US 20190229015 A1, hereinafter Liu’015).
Regarding claim 19, Beck’430 teaches all the limitations described in claim 13.
Beck’430 further teaches, wherein the first contact plug (220’) comprises tungsten (¶ [0034])
But Beck’430 is silent upon the provision of wherein the metallic region comprises cobalt.
However, Liu’015 teaches the use of Cobalt as barrier layer.
The selection of a known element based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parikh et al. (US 20030194872 A1, hereinafter Parikh’872) in view Fujisawa (US 20030160331 A1, hereinafter Fujisawa’331).
Regarding independent claim 13, Parikh’872 teaches, “ A device (fig. 1-15; ¶ [0001]- ¶ [0045]) comprising:
a metallic region (122, fig. 15) in a first insulating layer (120);
a second insulating layer (124) over the metallic region (122) and the first insulating layer (120); and
a first contact plug (142),
the first contact plug (142) having a first portion (132) in the metallic region (122) and a second portion (128) in the second insulating layer (124),
the first portion (132) having greater lateral extents than a bottom of the second portion (128),
a side-to-side center of the first portion (132) being offset from a side-to-side center of the second portion (128)”.
In the above rejection, element ‘a first insulating layer’ is mapped to substrate 120. But Parikh’872 may not explicitly mention the substrate (20) is an insulating substrate.
However, Fujisawa’331 teaches a similar structure formed on an insulating substrate (1, fig. 1).
Parikh’872 and Fujisawa’331 are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Parikh’872 with the features of Fujisawa’331 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to combine the teachings of Parikh’872 and Fujisawa’331 to form the metal structure in an insulating substrate according to the teachings of Fujisawa’331 as this is conventional to form interconnection structure in and surrounded by insulating material to protect the structure.
Regarding claim 11, Parikh’872 modified with Fujisawa’331 further teaches, “The device of claim 13, wherein the first portion of the first contact plug has a sidewall which is continuous with a sidewall of the metallic region (fig. 15, Parikh’872)”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-6266 and email address is mohammad.hoque@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-7PM 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached on (571) 272-5055. 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.
/MOHAMMAD M HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights