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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
This office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant: Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 12 August 2024 and 11 February 2025. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 forms have been considered.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
The invention as described by the limitations of claim 7, appears to be directed towards the embodiment of Fig. 24 or 25. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 24 or 25, the bottom surface (150BS) of the source/drain pattern (150) does not appear to face the back wiring line (50), and the back wiring contact (370) does not appear to connect the back wiring line (50) and the source/drain pattern (150) to each other as required by claim 1 because the essential front contact connection via (160) is not required by the claim. There is single embodiment depicted in the figures that shows the features of claim 7 in combination with the features of claim 1.
The invention as described by the limitations of claim 10, appears to be directed towards the embodiment of Fig. 29 or 30. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 29 or 30, the bottom surface (150BS) of the source/drain pattern (150) does not appear to face the back wiring line (50), and the back wiring contact (470) does not appear to connect the back wiring line (50) and the source/drain pattern (150) to each other as required by claim 1 because the essential front via plug (196) is not required by the claim. There is single embodiment depicted in the figures that shows the features of claim 10 in combination with the features of claim 1.
The invention as described by the limitations of claim 11, appears to be directed towards the embodiment of Fig. 17 (see applicant’s specification par. 196). However, the front wiring line (197) is not disposed on the source/drain pattern (150) of claim 1. The source/drain pattern (150) of claim 1, with respect to the back wiring contact (170), is not the same source/drain pattern (250) where the front wiring line (197) having the front ferroelectric material film (197C) is disposed on. There is single embodiment depicted in the figures that shows the features of claim 11 in combination with the features of claim 1.
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.
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 7-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The invention as described by the limitations of claim 7, appears to be directed towards the embodiment of Fig. 24 or 25. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 24 or 25, the bottom surface (150BS) of the source/drain pattern (150) does not appear to face the back wiring line (50), and the back wiring contact (370) does not appear to connect the back wiring line (50) and the source/drain pattern (150) to each other as required by claim 1 because the essential front contact connection via (160) is not required by the claim. There is not enough written description support for the subject matter as claimed. Claims 8 and 9 include the limitations of claim 1.
The invention as described by the limitations of claim 10, appears to be directed towards the embodiment of Fig. 29 or 30. However, in the embodiment of Fig. 29 or 30, the bottom surface (150BS) of the source/drain pattern (150) does not appear to face the back wiring line (50), and the back wiring contact (470) does not appear to connect the back wiring line (50) and the source/drain pattern (150) to each other as required by claim 1 because the essential front via plug (196) is not required by the claim. There is not enough written description support for the subject matter as claimed.
The invention as described by the limitations of claim 11, appears to be directed towards the embodiment of Fig. 17 (see applicant’s specification par. 196). However, the front wiring line (197) is not disposed on the source/drain pattern (150) of claim 1. The source/drain pattern (150) of claim 1, with respect to the back wiring contact (170), is not the same source/drain pattern (250) where the front wiring line (197) having the front ferroelectric material film (197C) is disposed on. There is not enough written description support for the subject matter as claimed.
(See MPEP 2163.03 V. ORIGINAL CLAIM NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED):
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
In these instances, it appears that there are conflicting combinations of elements from distinct embodiments not disclosed together in a single embodiment, as well as missing essential elements required in the claims.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dutta et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0114694).
Referring to Claim 1, Dutta teaches in Fig. 1, 2a and 2b for example, a semiconductor device comprising: a back interlayer insulating film (114/116; par. 26, 39); a back wiring line (123; par. 37) disposed within the back interlayer insulating film (114/116), the back wiring line (123) including a first surface (upper surface) and a second surface (lower surface) opposite to each other in a first direction (vertically); a fin-type pattern (115; par. 26 and 29) disposed on the first surface (upper surface) of the back wiring line (123), the fin-type pattern (115) extending in a second direction (horizontally); a source/drain pattern (103; par. 26-28) disposed on the fin-type pattern (105), wherein a bottom surface of the source/drain pattern (103) is connected to the fin-type pattern (105) and faces the back wiring line (123); and a back wiring contact (121/119/117; par. 39-41) connecting the back wiring line (123) and the source/drain pattern (103) to each other, wherein the back wiring contact (121/119/117) includes a back contact barrier film (117), a back contact plug film (121), and a back ferroelectric material film (119), the back ferroelectric material film (119) being disposed between the back contact barrier film (117) and the back contact plug film (121), wherein the back wiring contact (121/119/117) includes a third surface (lower surface) facing the back wiring line (123), and wherein a vertical length from the second surface of the back wiring line (123) to the third surface (lower surface) of the back wiring contact (121/119/117) is less than a vertical length from the second surface (lower surface) of the back wiring line (123) to the bottom surface of the source/drain pattern (103). "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2131).
Referring to Claim 2, Dutta further teaches wherein the back wiring contact (121/119/117) is disposed between the source/drain pattern (103) and the back wiring line (123), and wherein the back wiring contact (121/119/117) overlaps the source/drain pattern (103) in the first direction (vertically).
Referring to Claim 4, Dutta further teaches a buried conductive pattern (122) disposed between the back wiring contact (121/119/117) and the back wiring line (123).
Referring to Claim 5, Dutta further teaches wherein the fin-type pattern (115) is in contact with the back interlayer insulating film (114/116).
As insofar as Claim 7 is supported and definite, Dutta further teaches a front source/drain contact (109) disposed on the source/drain pattern (103), wherein the source/drain pattern (103) is disposed between the front source/drain contact (109) and the back wiring line (123), and wherein the back wiring contact (121/119/117) is electrically connected to the source/drain pattern (103) via the front source/drain contact (109).
As insofar as Claim 10 is supported and definite, Dutta further teaches a front wiring line (BL) disposed on the front source/drain contact (109) and connected to the front source/drain contact (109), wherein the front wiring line (BL) connects the front source/drain contact (109) and the back wiring contact (121/119/117) to each other.
Referring to Claim 12, Dutta teaches in Fig. 2a and 2b, a semiconductor device comprising: a back interlayer insulating film (116 lower of 101; par. 39); a back wiring line (123; par. 37) disposed within the back interlayer insulating film (116 lower), the back wiring line (123) including a first surface (upper surface) and a second surface (lower surface) opposite to each other in a first direction (vertically); a first source/drain pattern (103; par. 26-28) disposed on the first surface (upper surface) of the back wiring line (123); and a back wiring contact (121/119/117) disposed between the first source/drain pattern (103) and the back wiring line (103), the back wiring contact (121/119/117) being connected to the first source/drain pattern (103) and overlapping the first source/drain pattern (103) in the first direction (vertically), wherein the back wiring contact (121/119/117; par. 39-41) includes a back contact barrier film (117), a back contact plug film (121), and a ferroelectric material film (119; par. 37), the ferroelectric material film (119) being disposed between the back contact barrier film (117) and the back contact plug film (121). "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2131).
Referring to Claim 15, Dutta further teaches further comprising a buried conductive pattern (122) disposed between the back wiring contact (121/119/117) and the back wiring line (123).
Referring to Claim 16, Dutta further teaches a back inserted insulating film (116 upper) disposed between the back interlayer insulating film (116 lower) and the first source/drain pattern (106), wherein the back inserted insulating film (116 upper) is in contact with a sidewall of the back wiring contact (121/119/117).
Referring to Claim 20, Dutta teaches in Fig. 1, 2a and 2b for example, a semiconductor device comprising: a back interlayer insulating film (116); a back wiring line (123) disposed within the back interlayer insulating film (116), the back wiring line (123) including a first surface (upper surface) and a second surface (lower surface) opposite to each other in a first direction; a fin-type pattern (115) disposed on the first surface of the back wiring line (123), the fin-type pattern (115) extending in a second direction; a plurality of sheet patterns (100) disposed on the fin-type pattern (115); a gate electrode (105a of 105; par. 25) disposed on the fin-type pattern (115), surrounding the plurality of sheet patterns (100), and extending in a third direction; a source/drain pattern (103) disposed on the fin-type pattern (115) and connected to the plurality of sheet patterns (115), wherein the source/drain pattern (103) is disposed on a side surface of the gate electrode (105a), wherein a bottom surface of the source/drain pattern (103) is connected to the fin-type pattern (116) and faces the back wiring line (123); and a back wiring contact (121/119/117) connecting the back wiring line (123) and the source/drain pattern (103) to each other, wherein the back wiring contact (121/119/117) includes a back contact barrier film (117), a back contact plug film (121), and a back ferroelectric material film (119), the back ferroelectric material film (119) being disposed between the back contact barrier film (117) and the back contact plug film (121), wherein the back wiring contact (121/119/117) includes a third surface (lower surface) facing the back wiring line (123), and wherein a vertical length from the second surface (lower surface) of the back wiring line (121) to the third surface (lower surface) of the back wiring contact (121/119/117) is less than a vertical length from the second surface (lower surface) of the back wiring line (123) to the bottom surface of the source/drain pattern (103). "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2131).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3, 6, 13, 14 and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device further comprising a contact insulating liner disposed between the back wiring contact and the fin-type pattern, the contact insulating liner extending along a sidewall of the back wiring contact in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1, 2 and 3.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device further comprising: a second source/drain pattern disposed on the fin-type pattern; and a sacrificial epitaxial pattern disposed within the fin-type pattern and between the second source/drain pattern and the back wiring line in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1, 2 and 6.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device further comprising wherein at least a portion of the back wiring contact is disposed within the fin-type pattern in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 12 and 13. Claim 14 includes the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the semiconductor device further comprising: a sacrificial epitaxial pattern disposed between the second source/drain pattern and the back wiring line in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 12 and 17. Claims 18 and 19 include the limitations of claim 17.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights