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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 08/29/2024, in which claims 8-20 were added, has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “the gate contact is a butted contact in electrical contact with the gate contact layer and a source/drain plug” of claim 13, “wherein the butted contact extends into the source/drain plug more than the butted contact extends into the gate contact layer” of claim 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claims 13 and 14 recites the limitation “the gate contact is a butted contact in electrical contact with the gate contact layer and a source/drain plug”; “wherein the butted contact extends into the source/drain plug more than the butted contact extends into the gate contact layer”. However, the specification does not describe the above claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, claim 13 recites the limitation “the gate contact is a butted contact in electrical contact with the gate contact layer and a source/drain plug” and claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the butted contact extends into the source/drain plug more than the butted contact extends into the gate contact layer”. However, the specification does not describe the above claimed subject matter. As shown in Fig. 14, the butted contact 1103 is not the gate contact 1101. The butted contact 1103 does not in electrical contact with the gate contact layer 501 and does not extend into the gate contact layer 501. Further, there is no description of any such steps whether conventional or inventive that demonstrates possession thereof or therefor. Accordingly, claim 13, claim 14 and all claims depending therefrom were not in possession of Applicant at the time of filing.
Claims depending from the rejected claims noted above are rejected at least on the same basis as the claim(s) from which the dependent claims depend.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, Applicant uses different claim term for the same thing would create confusion. For example, claim 1 recites “a gate electrode comprising a gate portion and a gate contact layer” while claim 8 recites “a gate contact layer over the gate electrode”. Thus, it appears “a gate portion” of claim 1 and “a gate electrode” of claim 8 both refers to same gate electrode 401. “a metal feature” recited in claim 15, “a gate contact layer” recited in claim 1 and claim 8 refer to same gate contact layer 501. It also appears “a gate electrode plug”, “a gate contact” and “a first contact” referring to same gate electrode contact 1101.
Per MPEP 608.01 (o), “A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description… The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.”
Per MPEP 2173.05 (a) “The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Applicants need not confine themselves to the terminology used in the prior art, but are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained.” “Until the meaning of a term or phrase used in a claim is clear, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7-9, 11, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 20190164829) in view of Jian et al. (US Pub. 20190157102).
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al. discloses in Fig. 13B a semiconductor device comprising:
a gate electrode [113 and 115] comprising a gate portion [113] and a gate contact layer [115][paragraph [0052]-[0053]];
a dielectric layer [201] over the gate electrode [113 and 115][paragraph [0055]]; and
a gate electrode plug [1303] extending through the dielectric layer [201] and interfacing with the gate electrode [113 and 115][paragraph [0092]-[0093]].
Yang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the gate contact layer has a nitrogen concentration greater than o atoms per cubic centimeter and less than about 1E+21 atoms per cubic centimeter.
Yang et al. discloses the gate contact layer is a tungsten layer.
Jian et al. discloses in paragraph [0027] a tungsten layer can be a substantially pure tungsten or tungsten metals containing any nitrogen concentration greater than 0, for example tungsten, tungsten nitride of a low nitrogen concentration (WNx, 0<x≤0.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Jian et al. into the method of Yang et al. to include wherein the gate contact layer has a nitrogen concentration greater than o atoms per cubic centimeter and less than about 1E+21 atoms per cubic centimeter. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable nitrogen concentration in tungsten layer.
In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Yang et al. and Jian et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain tungsten layer having desired property, i.e., desired resistance. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 2-3, and 7, Yang et al. discloses in Fig. 13B, paragraph [0067], [0092]-[0093]
wherein the gate electrode plug [1303] comprises tungsten;
a source/drain plug [601], wherein the source/drain plug [601] comprises cobalt.
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al. discloses in Fig. 13B, paragraph [0067]
a source/drain plug [601] with a first height, wherein the gate electrode [113 and 115] has a second height, and wherein the first height is greater than the second height.
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al. discloses in Fig. 13B a semiconductor device comprising:
a gate electrode [113][paragraph [0052]-[0053]];
a gate contact layer [115] over the gate electrode [113][paragraph [0052]-[0053]];
a dielectric layer [201] over the gate contact layer [115][paragraph [0055]]; and
a gate contact [1303] extending through the dielectric layer [201] to the gate contact layer [115][paragraph [0092]-[0093]].
Yang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the gate contact layer has a nitrogen concentration greater than o atoms per cubic centimeter and less than about 1E+21 atoms per cubic centimeter at an interface between the gate contact layer and the gate contact.
Yang et al. discloses the gate contact layer is a tungsten layer interfacing with the gate electrode.
Jian et al. discloses in paragraph [0027] a tungsten layer can be a substantially pure tungsten or tungsten metals containing any nitrogen concentration greater than 0, for example tungsten, tungsten nitride of a low nitrogen concentration (WNx, 0<x≤0.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Jian et al. into the method of Yang et al. to include wherein the gate contact layer has a nitrogen concentration greater than o atoms per cubic centimeter and less than about 1E+21 atoms per cubic centimeter at an interface between the gate contact layer and the gate contact. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable nitrogen concentration in tungsten layer.
In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Yang et al. and Jian et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain tungsten layer having desired property, i.e., desired resistance. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Yang et al. discloses in Fig. 13B,
wherein the gate contact layer [115] comprises tungsten [paragraph [0053]];
wherein the gate contact [1303] comprises tungsten [paragraph [0092]-[0093]].
Regarding claim 15, Yang et al. discloses in Fig. 13B a semiconductor device comprising:
a metal feature [115][paragraph [0052]-[0053]];
a dielectric layer [201] or [803] over the metal feature [115][paragraph [0055]]; and
a first contact [1303] extending through the dielectric layer [201] or [803] to the metal feature [115][paragraph [0092]-[0093]],
a surface of the metal feature [115] facing the first contact [1303]
Yang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the metal feature has a nitrogen concentration greater than 0 atoms per cubic centimeter and less than about 1E+21 atoms per cubic centimeter at the surface of the metal feature.
Yang et al. discloses the metal feature is a tungsten layer.
Jian et al. discloses in paragraph [0027] a tungsten layer can be a substantially pure tungsten or tungsten metals containing any nitrogen concentration greater than 0, for example tungsten, tungsten nitride of a low nitrogen concentration (WNx, 0<x≤0.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Jian et al. into the method of Yang et al. to include wherein the metal feature layer has a nitrogen concentration greater than o atoms per cubic centimeter and less than about 1E+21 atoms per cubic centimeter at the surface of the metal feature. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable nitrogen concentration in tungsten layer.
In addition, Applicant has not provided criticality of the claimed range. It would have been obvious to modify Yang et al. and Jian et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation to obtain tungsten layer having desired property, i.e., desired resistance. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 16, Yang et al. discloses in Fig. 13B
wherein the metal feature [115] is part of a gate electrode structure.
Regarding claim 17, Yang et al. discloses in Fig. 13B, paragraph [0053], [0092]-[0093] wherein the metal feature [115] and the first contact [1303] comprise tungsten.
Regarding claims 19-20, Yang et al. discloses in Fig. 13B, paragraph [0092]-[0093]
a second contact [1305] extending through the dielectric layer [803], wherein the second contact [1305] comprises cobalt;
wherein a height of the first contact [1303] is greater than a height of the second contact [1305].
Claims 5,10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 20190164829) in view of Jian et al. (US Pub. 20190157102) as applied to claim 1, claim 9 and claim 15 above and further in view of Huang et al. (US Pub. 20200243385).
Regarding claim 5, claim 10, and claim 18, Yang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the gate contact layer/the metal feature comprises fluorine-free tungsten.
Huang et al. discloses in Fig. 2Q, paragraph [0023]
wherein the gate contact layer/the metal feature [128] comprises fluorine-free tungsten.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang et al. into the method of Yang et al. to include wherein the gate contact layer/the metal feature comprises fluorine-free tungsten. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of tungsten gate contact layer [paragraph [0023] of Huang et al.].
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 20190164829) in view of Jian et al. (US Pub. 20190157102) as applied to claim 1 and claim 8 above and further in view of Yamaguchi et al. (US Pub. 20150263124).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 12, Yang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the gate contact layer comprises tungsten oxide compounds.
Yang et al. discloses the gate contact layer is a tungsten layer resulting from an atomic layer deposition process.
Jian et al. discloses in paragraph [0027] tungsten layer resulting from a CVD and/or ALD processing may include tungsten oxide film.
Yamaguchi et al. discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0058]
wherein the gate contact layer [6d] comprises tungsten oxide compounds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Jian et al. and Yamaguchi et al. into the method of Yang et al. to include wherein the gate contact layer comprises tungsten oxide compounds. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable material of tungsten gate contact layer [paragraph [0027] of Jian et al., paragraph [0058] of Yamaguchi et al.].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Pub. 20190164829) in view of Jian et al. (US Pub. 20190157102) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Su et al. (US Pub. 20200279774)
Regarding claim 13, Yang et al. fails to disclose
wherein the gate contact is a butted contact in electrical contact with the gate contact layer and a source/drain plug.
Su et al. discloses in Fig. 1J, paragraph [0037]
wherein the gate contact [152] is a butted contact in electrical contact with the gate contact layer [114] and a source/drain plug [134].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Su et al. into the method of Yang et al. to include wherein the gate contact is a butted contact in electrical contact with the gate contact layer and a source/drain plug. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Yang et al. in the above manner for the purpose of electrically connecting both the gate structure and the source/drain plug to a drain potential [paragraph [0037] of Su et al.].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights