DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tsao (2019/0080969).
Re claim 1, Tsao discloses (Fig. 3H) an isolation feature (220) disposed over a substrate (210); a fin structure (20) extending from the substrate (210) and rising above the isolation feature; a source/drain feature (25) disposed over the fin structure (20); a first fill fin (230-left) and a second fill fin (230-center) over the isolation feature (220) such that the source/drain feature (25) is disposed between the first fill fin and a second fill fin (Fig. 3H); a conductive feature (40) disposed between the second fill fin (230-center) and the isolation feature (220); and a source/drain contact (50a) disposed over and electrically coupled to the source/drain feature (25), wherein the source/drain contact (50a) comprises a vertical portion that extends downward along a sidewall of the source/drain feature (25) to physically contact a top surface of the conductive feature (40).
Re claim 2, Tsao discloses wherein the fin structure rises from a doped well region (10_1/15_1) of a substrate.
Re claim 3, Tsao discloses wherein the isolation feature (220) is disposed over the doped well region (10_1/15_1).
Re claim 4, Tsao discloses wherein the doped well region (15_1) comprises a p-type well region ([0018]).
Re claim 5, Tsao discloses wherein a top surface of the conductive feature (40) is lower than a top surface of the isolation feature (220).
Re claim 9, Tsao discloses wherein the source/drain feature (25) is spaced apart from the second fill fin by the vertical portion of the source/drain feature (Fig. 3H).
Re claim 12, Tsao discloses (Fig. 3H) a substrate (210); an isolation feature (220) disposed over the substrate; a first fin (20) structure extending from the substrate and rising above the isolation feature; a metal line (40) disposed over the isolation feature (220) and spaced apart from the first fin structure (20) by the isolation feature (220); a first source/drain feature (25) disposed over the first fin structure (20); a fill fin (230) disposed over the metal line (40) and adjacent the first source/drain feature (25); a first source/drain contact (50a) disposed over and electrically coupled to the first source/drain feature (25); and a second source/drain contact (50a-right side of 230) having a vertical component extending along a sidewall of the fill fin to land on the metal line (40) (Fig. 3H).
Re claim 13, Tsao discloses further comprising: a second fin structure (20) extending from the substrate (210) and rising above the isolation feature (220); and a second source/drain feature (27) disposed over the first fin structure (20), wherein the second source/drain contact (50a-right side in Fig. 3H) comprises lateral component extending continuously from the vertical component, wherein the second source/drain contact (50a) engages a top surface and a sidewall of the second source/drain feature (27) (Fig. 3H).
Re claim 15, Tsao discloses wherein the vertical component extends between the sidewall of the second source/drain feature (27) and a sidewall of the fill fin (230) as well as between a sidewall of the isolation feature (220) and the sidewall of the fill fin (230).
Re claim 18, Tsao discloses an isolation feature (220) disposed over a substrate (210); an active region (20) extending from the substrate and rising above the isolation feature (220); a source/drain feature (25) disposed over the active region; a first fill fin (230) and a second fill fin (230) over the isolation feature (220) such that the source/drain feature (25) is disposed between the first fill fin (230) and a second fill fin (230); a conductive feature (40) disposed between the second fill fin and the isolation feature (220) along a vertical direction; and a source/drain contact (50a) disposed over and electrically coupled to the source/drain feature (25), wherein the source/drain contact (50a) comprises a lateral component engaging a top surface of the source/drain feature (25) and a vertical component that extends downward along a sidewall of the source/drain feature (25) to physically contact the top surface of the conductive feature (40) (Fig. 3H).
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.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsao as applied to claims 1-5, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 18 above, and further in view of Ohtou et al. (2018/0151494).
Re claim 6, Tsao discloses wherein the conductive feature (40) comprises a barrier layer (45), and a conductive material (40) over the barrier layer (45).
Tsao does not disclose wherein the conductive feature comprises a seed layer over the barrier layer.
However, employing a seed layer over the barrier layer was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a seed layer over the barrier layer to promote selective deposition of the conductive material.
Re claim 7, Tsao discloses wherein the conductive material (40) is spaced apart from the isolation feature (220) by the barrier layer (45) and the seed layer (seed layer of the combination).
Re claim 8, Tsao does not disclose wherein the barrier layer comprises titanium (Ti), titanium nitride (TiN), tantalum (Ta), or tantalum nitride (TaN),wherein the seed layer comprises tungsten (W), copper (Cu), or a copper alloy, wherein the conductive material comprises tungsten (W), aluminum (Al), copper (Cu), tungsten nitride (WN), platinum (Pt), ruthenium (Ru), silver (Ag), gold (Au), rhodium (Rh), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn), or a combination thereof.
Ohtou et al. discloses wherein the barrier layer comprises SiOx, SiN, SiC, SiON, SiOC, SiONC, or a combination thereof ([0068]); and wherein the conductive material comprises tungsten (W), aluminum (Al) ([0066]).
It would have been within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Tsao and Ohtou et al. to enable the barrier and conductive material of Tsao. to be the same according to the teachings of Ohtou et al. because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to alternative suitable materials for the disclosed etch stop material of Tsao and art recognized suitability for an intended purpose has been recognized to be motivation to combine. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claims 10 and 11, using a silicide to couple a source/drain feature with a source/drain contact waws well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a silicide layer to couple the features for its own intended purpose. Re claim 11, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Re claim 14, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited height through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of height, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges 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 or 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 or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen height is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claims 16, 17, 19 and 20, Tsao discloses wherein the metal line comprises a barrier layer (45), and a conductive material (40) over the barrier layer.
Tsao does not disclose wherein the conductive feature comprises a seed layer over the barrier layer.
However, employing a seed layer over the barrier layer was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a seed layer over the barrier layer to promote selective deposition of the conductive material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 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 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights