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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New grounds of rejection are due to amendments.
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.
Claims 9-11, 13-14 and 27 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.
Claim 9 includes that the metal silicide layer is deposited over a source/drain region in an opening in direct contact with a remaining portion of the dielectric layer. However, it is not clear why the dielectric layer is “remaining” in the claim as there was no removal step. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 includes that the metal gate structure is a silicide. This appears to be contradictory. Claiming something is a metal structure is different than a metal silicide.
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(s) 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chandemougame et al. (US 2018/0204927 A1, hereafter Chand)
As to claim 21, Chand teaches creating openings between sidewall spacers (240 Fig 7B) of a semiconductor substrate; forming a metal gate structure in the opening (para 0035-0036, gate 262 in 260 Fig 8B) in direct contact with the sidewall spacers, a metal capping layer over the metal gate structure (multiple layers of metal in para 0035, 261 in 260 Fig 8B); and forming a dielectric capping layer (263 in Fig 8B, para 0034 – deposited then selectively etched) over the metal capping layer and the sidewall spacers.
As to claim 22, the opening exposes a fin structure, and wherein the metal gate structure is formed over the fin structure in Chand (shown in Figures), for example.
As to claims 23-24, the height of the metal gate structure and metal capping layer is less than the opening as shown in the Figures of Chand.
As to claim 25, Chand uses tungsten in para 0050.
As to claim 26, the height of the spacers is higher than the metal layers as shown in the Chand Figures.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 21-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandemougame et al. (US 2018/0204927 A1, hereafter Chand) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2017/0032972 A1)
As to claim 1, Chand teaches creating openings between sidewall spacers (240 Fig 7B) of a semiconductor substrate; forming a metal gate structure in the opening (para 0035-0036, gate 262 in 260 Fig 8B) in direct contact with the sidewall spacers, a metal capping layer over the metal gate structure (multiple layers of metal in para 0035, 261 in 260 Fig 8B); and forming a dielectric capping layer (263 in Fig 8B, para 0034 – deposited then selectively etched) over the metal capping layer and the sidewall spacers. Chand does not teach depositing metal by CVD.
Tsai teaches forming an opening between sidewall spacers of a semiconductor substrate (82 in Fig 8, para 0036); (108, Fig 12, para 0051); forming, via a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) operation in a chamber, a metal capping layer over the metal gate structure (122, Fig. 15 para 0057); and forming a dielectric capping layer over the metal capping layer and the sidewall spacers (124, Fig 17 para 0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chand to include depositing metal by CVD as Tsai teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
As to claim 2, Tsai teaches removing a dummy gate structure to form the opening (para 0042) as does Chand (paras 0030-0031).
As to claim 3, the opening exposes a fin structure, and wherein the metal gate structure is formed over the fin structure in Tsai para 0024-0034 and Chand (shown in Figures), for example.
As to claims 4-5, the height of the metal gate structure and metal capping layer is less than the opening as shown in Fig. 16 of Tsai and the Figures of Chand.
As to claims 21-24, these limitations are taught as discussed above and in the Tsai and Chand Figures.
As to claim 26, the height of the spacers is higher than the metal layers as shown in Tsai Fig. 16 and Chand Figures.
Claim(s) 9-11, 13-14 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chand in view of Chiu et al. (US 2019/0035916 A1)
As to claim 9, Chand teaches forming an opening in a dielectric layer between metal gate structures (Fig 17, 291), forming a layer over the source/drain region in the opening (282, Fig 17,para 0050) and forming a metal contact over the layer in para 0050. Chand does not teach a metal silicide layer or CVD deposition. Chiu teaches forming an opening in a dielectric layer between metal gate structures (Fig 16, para 0060-0062), forming a metal silicide layer over the source/drain region in the opening (82, Fig 17,para 0063) and forming a metal contact over the silicide layer by CVD in para 0062, 110, etc. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chand to include depositing metal by CVD and metal silicides as taught by Chiu as Chiu teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
As to claims 10 and 27, the silicides are as claimed in Chiu para 0063.
As to claim 11, the silicide 82 is less than a height of the opening in Chiu Fig. 19.
As to claims 13 and 28, the metal 110 may be tungsten in Chiu para 0065. Chiu details an exemplary flow rate for tungsten in other CVD processes but not necessarily this one (para 0055, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chiu to combine embodiments to arrive at the claimed invention, in particular because there is not a flow rate given for the metal formation 110. In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed flow rates, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 14, this is shown in Chiu Fig. 19.
Claim(s) 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chand and Tsai et al. (US 2017/0032972 A1) in view of Chiu et al. (US 2019/0035916 A1)
As to claim 6, Tsai does not explicitly teach its structure is tungsten, though in the above cited sections it is general to whatever conductive material may provide the correct work function. Chiu et al. teaches a similar structure where Chiu forms an opening between sidewall spacers of a semiconductor substrate (72, 86 in Fig. 8); forms a metal gate structure in the opening (88, Fig.12, para 0054); and forms, via a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) operation in a chamber, a metal capping layer over the metal gate structure (99, Fig. 14 para 0059). In these sections, the gate structure may be tungsten in para 0054. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tsai to include tungsten as taught by Chiu as Chiu teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
As to claim 7, the gas flow is as claimed in Chiu para 0055.
As to claim 9-10, Tsai forms silicide regions by an annealing process (para 0060) Chiu forms silicide regions of the type claimed either by annealing or by a process before further CVD operations (para 0063) in between metal gate structures as claimed in Fig 17. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tsai to include depositing silicide as shown in Chiu before other depositions as Chiu teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such.
As to claim 11, the height of the silicide 82 is less than the opening.
As to claim 13, the metal 110 may be tungsten in Chiu para 0065. Chiu details an exemplary flow rate for tungsten in other CVD processes but not necessarily this one (para 0055, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chiu to combine embodiments to arrive at the claimed invention, in particular because there is not a flow rate given for the metal formation 110. In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed flow rates, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
As to claim 14, this is shown in Chiu Fig. 19.
As to claims 27-28, these limitations are taught as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights