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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (as shown in Figs. 1-16B) in the reply filed on 8/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) from PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11, the claim recites, “second source/drain feature a second depth..”. Examiner believes that it should read, “second source/drain feature -- extending -- a second depth..”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 25 is 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.
Claim 25 recites “The device of claim 21, The device of claim 1, wherein..” It is unclear if claim 25 depends from claim 21 or claim 1. Hence, the claim is indefinite and therefore rejected. For examination purposes, claim 25 will depend from claim 21.
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.
(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 1-6, 14-17 and 19-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ching et al. (US 2017/0005011 A1).
Re Claim 1, Ching teaches a device, comprising:
a first fin (fin in region 300, Fig. 11, para [0022]) and a second fin (fin in region 400, Fig. 11, para [0022]) extending lengthwise along a direction (see Fig. 11);
a first gate structure disposed on the first fin and a second gate structure disposed on the second fin (gate stacks 56 disposed on both fins, Fig. 12, para [0050]);
a first source/drain feature (52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16, para [0060]) extending within the first fin (fin in 300 region) to a first depth (1st depth “80” which can be 40 nm, Fig. 16, para [0061], also shown in annotated Fig. 16 below; Examiner notes that the thickness in Fig. 16 of Ching is mistakenly marked as element “118”, the thickness should be marked as “80” as shown in annotated Fig. 16 below, para [0061], while element “118” refers to a thickness in Fig. 20, para [0069]), the first source/drain feature including a first epitaxial layer (52a”) and a second epitaxial layer (52b”) disposed on the first epitaxial layer (52a”, see Fig. 16); and
a second source/drain feature (50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20, para [0068]) extending within the second fin (fin in region 400) to a second depth (2nd depth is “114”+ “116” + “118” + “122”, see Fig. 20, total 2nd depth can be 5+5+45+5 = 60 nm, see para [0069]) that is different than the first depth (1st depth is 40 nm, see above, different from 2nd depth), the second source/drain feature including a third epitaxial layer (50b”) and a fourth epitaxial layer (50c”) disposed on the third epitaxial layer (50b”, see Fig. 20),
wherein the first source/drain feature (52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16) comprises a first width (1st width is “62” which is “84” – 2(“78”) and gives a value of
40 - 2(7.5) = 25 nm, para [0061]),
wherein the second source/drain feature (50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20) comprises a second width (2nd width is “120” – 2(“112”) and gives a value of 40 - 2(4) = 32 nm, para [0069]) greater than the first width (1st width is 25 nm, smaller than 2nd width).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 2, Ching teaches the device of claim 1, wherein a first ratio of a height of the first epitaxial layer (height of 52a” is equal to the dimension “80” which is 40 nm, para [0061], also see claim 1 above) to the first depth of the first source/drain feature (1st depth is 40 nm, see claim 1 above, thus giving a 1st ratio = 40/40 = 1.0) is greater than a second ratio of a height of the third epitaxial layer (a height of 50b” can be equal to the thickness “116” which is 5 nm, see claim 1 above, also see Fig. 20, para [0069]) to the second depth of the second source/drain feature (2nd depth is 60 nm, see claim 1 above, giving the 2nd ratio = 5/60 = 0.08, which is less than the 1st ratio).
Re Claim 3, Ching teaches the device of claim 2, wherein a third ratio of a height of the second epitaxial layer (height of layer 52b” can be 10 nm, Fig. 16, para [0061]) to the first depth of the first source/drain feature (1st depth is 40 nm, see claim 1 above, thus giving a 3rd ratio = 10/40 = 0.25) is less than a fourth ratio of a height of the fourth epitaxial layer (height of layer 50c” is equal to the dimension “118” and is 45 nm, see claim 1 above, also see Fig. 20, para [0069]) to the second depth of the second source/drain feature (2nd depth is 60 nm, see claim 1 above, giving the 4th ratio = 45/60 = 0.75, which is greater than the 3rd ratio).
Re Claim 4, Ching teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the second depth is greater than the first depth (2nd depth is 60 nm while 1st depth is 40 nm, see claim 1 above).
Re Claim 5, Ching teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the first source/drain feature (52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16) includes a p-type dopant (includes p-type dopant like boron, para [0060]) and the second source/drain feature (50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20) includes an n-type dopant (includes n-type dopant like phosphorus, para [0068]).
Re Claim 6, Ching teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the first epitaxial layer (52a”, Fig. 16) includes a first concentration of germanium (1st concentration of Germanium in 52a” can be 30%, para [0060]) and the second epitaxial layer (52b”, Fig. 16) includes a second concentration of germanium (2nd concentration of Germanium in 52b” can be 60%, para [0060]) that is different than the first concentration of germanium.
Re Claim 14, Ching teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a first active region over a first region of a substrate (active fin in region 300 on substrate 20, Fig. 11, para [0022]) and a second active region over a second region of the substrate (active fin in region 400 on substrate 20, Fig. 11, para [0022]);
a first metal gate structure over the first active region and a second metal gate structure over the second active region (gate stacks 56 disposed on both fins, Fig. 12, para [0050]);
a first spacer along a sidewall of the first metal gate structure and a second spacer along a sidewall of the second metal gate structure (gate spacers 48 on sidewalls of both gate stacks, Fig. 12, para [0047]); and
a first epitaxial feature (52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16, para [0060]) over the first active region and a second epitaxial feature (50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20, para [0068]) over the second active region,
wherein the first active region and the second active region extend lengthwise along a direction (see Fig. 11),
wherein the first epitaxial feature (52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16) comprises a first width along the direction (1st width is “62” which is “84” – 2(“78”) and gives a value of 40 - 2(7.5) = 25 nm, see Fig. 16, para [0061]),
wherein the second epitaxial feature (50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20) comprises second width along the direction (2nd width is “120” – 2(“112”) and gives a value of 40 - 2(4) = 32 nm, see Fig. 20, para [0069]),
wherein the second width is greater than the first width (2nd width is 32 nm while 1st width is 25 nm), and
wherein the first region is for p-type field-effect transistor (PFET) (region 300 is p-type device, para [0022]) and the second region is for n-type field-effect transistor (NFET) (region 400 is n-type device, para [0022]).
Re Claim 15, Ching teaches the semiconductor device of claim 14,
wherein the first epitaxial feature (52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16) includes a first epitaxial layer (52a”) and a second epitaxial layer (52b”) formed over the first epitaxial layer (52a”),
wherein the second epitaxial feature (50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20) includes a third epitaxial layer (50b”) and a fourth epitaxial layer (50c”) formed over the third epitaxial layer (50b”), and
wherein a first ratio of a height of the second epitaxial layer (height of layer 52b” can be 10 nm, Fig. 16, para [0061]) to a height of the first epitaxial feature (height of 52a”+52b” can be 20+10 = 30 nm, where 52a” can have a height of 20 nm, para [0061], thus giving a 1st ratio = 10/30 = 0.33) is less than a second ratio of a height of the fourth epitaxial layer (height of layer 50c” can be 40 nm, see Fig. 20, para [0069]) to a height of the second epitaxial feature (height of 50a”+50b”+50c” can be 5+5+40 = 50 nm, where 50a” and 50b” can have a height of 5 nm each, para [0069], thus giving a 2nd ratio = 40/50 = 0.8, which is greater than the 1st ratio above).
Re Claim 16, Ching teaches the semiconductor device of claim 15, wherein a height of the second epitaxial layer (height of layer 52b” is 10 nm, see claim 15 above) is less than a height of the fourth epitaxial layer (height of layer 50c” is 40 nm, see claim 15 above, greater than the height of 52b”).
Re Claim 17, Ching teaches the semiconductor device of claim 15, wherein a first distance (1st distance “78” which is 7.5 nm, see claim 14 above, Fig. 16, para [0062]) between a sidewall of the first epitaxial feature (sidewall of 52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16) and a sidewall of the first spacer (sidewall of 48, Fig. 16) is greater than a second distance (2nd distance “112” which is 4 nm, see claim 14 above, Fig. 20, para [0069]) between a sidewall of the second epitaxial feature (sidewall of 50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20) and a sidewall of the second spacer (sidewall of 48, Fig. 20).
Re Claim 19, Ching teaches the semiconductor device of claim 15, wherein the second ratio is about 70% to about 90% (2nd ratio is 0.8, which is 80%, see claim 15 above).
Re Claim 20, Ching teaches the semiconductor device of claim 15,
wherein the first epitaxial layer (52a”, Fig. 16) has a first dopant concentration (1st boron dopant concentration can be 7 × 1020 cm-3, para [0060]) and the second epitaxial layer (52b”, Fig. 16) has a second dopant concentration (2nd boron dopant concentration can be 2 × 1021 cm-3, para [0060]) greater than the first dopant concentration, and
wherein the third epitaxial layer (50b”, Fig. 20) has a third dopant concentration (1st phosphorus dopant concentration can be 2 × 1020 cm-3, para [0068]) and the fourth epitaxial layer (50c”, Fig. 20) has a fourth dopant concentration (2nd phosphorus dopant concentration can be 3 × 1021 cm-3, para [0068]) greater than the third dopant concentration.
Re Claim 21, Ching teaches a device, comprising:
a first fin extending from a substrate and lengthwise along a direction (fin in region 300 on substrate 20, Fig. 11, para [0022]);
a second fin extending from the substrate and lengthwise along the direction (fin in region 400 on substrate 20, Fig. 11, para [0022]));
an isolation feature over the substrate and surrounding lower portions of the first fin and the second fin (isolation features 40 surrounding the lower portions of fins, see Fig. 11, para [0073]);
a first gate structure wrapping over the first fin (gate stack 56 wrapping around the fin in region 300, Fig. 12, para [0050]);
a second gate structure wrapping over the second fin (gate stack 56 wrapping around the fin in region 400, Fig. 12, para [0050]);
a first source/drain feature (52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16, para [0060]) extending a first depth (1st depth “80” which can be 40 nm, Fig. 16, para [0061]) into the first fin, the first source/drain feature including a first epitaxial layer (52a”) and a second epitaxial layer (52b”) disposed on the first epitaxial layer (52a”); and
a second source/drain feature (50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20, para [0068]) extending a second depth into the second fin (2nd depth is “114”+ “116” + “118” + “122”, see Fig. 20, total 2nd depth can be 5+5+45+5 = 60 nm, see para [0069]), the second source/drain feature including a third epitaxial layer (50b”) and a fourth epitaxial layer (50c”) disposed on the third epitaxial layer (50b”),
wherein the first source/drain feature (52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16) comprises a first width along the direction (1st width is “62” which is “84” – 2(“78”) and gives a value of 40 - 2(7.5) = 25 nm, para [0061]),
wherein the second source/drain feature (50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20) comprises a second width along the direction (2nd width is “120” – 2(“112”) and gives a value of 40 - 2(4) = 32 nm, para [0069]),
wherein the second width is greater than the first width (2nd width is 32 nm while 1st width is 25 nm).
Re Claim 22, Ching teaches the device of claim 21, wherein a first ratio of a height of the first epitaxial layer (height of 52a” is equal to the dimension “80” which is 40 nm, para [0061], also see claim 21 above) to the first depth of the first source/drain feature (1st depth is 40 nm, see claim 21 above, thus giving a 1st ratio = 40/40 = 1.0) is greater than a second ratio of a height of the third epitaxial layer (a height of 50b” can be equal to the thickness “116” which is 5 nm, see claim 21 above, also see Fig. 20, para [0069]) to the second depth of the second source/drain feature (2nd depth is 60 nm, see claim 21 above, giving the 2nd ratio = 5/60 = 0.08, which is less than the 1st ratio).
Re Claim 23, Ching teaches the device of claim 21, wherein a third ratio of a height of the second epitaxial layer (height of layer 52b” can be 10 nm, Fig. 16, para [0061]) to the first depth of the first source/drain feature (1st depth is 40 nm, see claim 1 above, thus giving a 3rd ratio = 10/40 = 0.25) is less than a fourth ratio of a height of the fourth epitaxial layer (height of layer 50c” is equal to the dimension “118” and is 45 nm, see claim 21 above, also see Fig. 20, para [0069]) to the second depth of the second source/drain feature (2nd depth is 60 nm, see claim 21 above, giving the 4th ratio = 45/60 = 0.75, which is greater than the 3rd ratio).
Re Claim 24, Ching teaches the device of claim 21,
wherein the first fin (fin in region 300 on substrate 20, Fig. 11) is disposed over a first doped well on the substrate (300 can have n-wells, para [0033]),
wherein the second fin (fin in region 400 on substrate 20, Fig. 11) is disposed over a second doped well on the substrate (400 can have p-wells, para [0033]).
Re Claim 25, Ching teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the second depth is greater than the first depth (2nd depth is 60 nm while 1st depth is 40 nm, see claim 21 above).
Re Claim 26, Ching teaches the device of claim 21, wherein the first source/drain feature (52a” + 52b”, Fig. 16) includes a first dopant having a first type of conductivity (includes p-type dopant like boron, para [0060]) and the second source/drain feature (50a” + 50b” + 50c”, Fig. 20) includes a second dopant having a second type of conductivity (includes n-type dopant like phosphorus, para [0068]) that is opposite the first type of conductivity.
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 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ching et al. (US 2017/0005011 A1).
Re Claim 7, Ching teaches the device of claim 6, where the second concentration of germanium is greater than 30% (2nd concentration of Germanium in 52b” can be 60%, para [0060], see claim 6 above).
Ching discloses that the 1st concentration of Germanium in 52a” can be 30% (see claim 1 above) but does not explicitly state that the first concentration of germanium is less than 30%.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to optimize the germanium concentration in the first epitaxial layer of the source/drain feature in order to balance the stress/strain in the channel region and arrive at the claimed range. With respect to the limitations of the claim, where 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The optimization of the claimed germanium concentration in the first epitaxial layer would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Re Claim 18, Ching teaches the semiconductor device of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose that the first ratio is about 50% to about 80%.
Ching teaches that the first ratio can be 0.33 or 33% (see claim 15 above), where the first ratio is defined as the ratio of the height of the second epitaxial layer to the height of the first epitaxial feature (total height of the first source/drain). Though, Ching does not explicitly disclose the exact range of the first ratio as recited in the limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to optimize the first ratio based on the effective height of channel region and the size of the source/drain feature and arrive at the claimed range. With respect to the limitations of the claim, where 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). The optimization of the ratio of the height of the second epitaxial layer to the height of the first epitaxial feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12112989 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as shown below:
Present Application
U.S. Patent No. US 12112989 B2
1. A device comprising: a first fin and a second fin extending lengthwise along a direction; a first gate structure disposed on the first fin and a second gate structure disposed on the second fin;
a first source/drain feature extending within the first fin to a first depth, the first source/drain feature including a first epitaxial layer and a second epitaxial layer disposed on the first epitaxial layer; and a second source/drain feature extending within the second fin to a second depth that is different than the first depth, the second source/drain feature including a third epitaxial layer and a fourth epitaxial layer disposed on the third epitaxial layer,
wherein the first source/drain feature comprises a first width, wherein the second source/drain feature comprises a second width greater than the first width.
1. A device comprising: a first fin and a second fin; a first gate structure disposed on the first fin and a second gate structure disposed on the second fin;
a first source/drain feature extending within the first fin to a first depth, the first source/drain feature including a first epitaxial layer and a second epitaxial layer disposed on the first epitaxial layer; and a second source/drain feature extending within the second fin to a second depth that is different than the first depth, the second source/drain feature including a third epitaxial layer and a fourth epitaxial layer disposed on the third epitaxial layer,
wherein a first ratio of a height of the first epitaxial layer to the first depth of the first source/drain is greater than a second ratio of a height of the third epitaxial layer to the second depth of the second source/drain feature, wherein the second depth is greater than the first depth.
4. The device of claim 1, wherein the second source/drain feature is wider than the first source/drain feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINAKI DAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, JULIO MALDONADO can be reached at (571)272-1864. 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.
/P.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights