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 Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 4/16/2026 is acknowledged.
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 8 and 12 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.
Claims 8 and 12 require some of the processes to occur ‘outside of the chamber’. However, when reading the instant specification, this language is overly broad and confusing. The processes do not occur outside of a chamber, such as under atmospheric pressure with no chamber at all as the claim language currently includes, but they occur in separate portions of a chamber as part of a batch or cluster tool as shown in instant Figure 1A. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 21-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. (US 2017/0032972 A1)
As to claim 1, Tsai teaches a method, comprising: forming an opening between sidewall spacers of a semiconductor substrate (82 in Fig 8, para 0036); forming a metal gate structure in the opening (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).
As to claim 2, Tsai teaches removing a dummy gate structure to form the opening (para 0042).
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, 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.
As to claims 21-24, these limitations are taught as discussed above and in the Tsai Figures.
As to claim 26, the height of the spacers is higher than the metal layers as shown in Fig. 16.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiu et al. (US 2019/0035916 A1)
As to claim 9, 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.
As to claim 10, the silicides are as claimed in para 0063.
As to claim 11, the silicide 82 is less than a height of the opening in Fig. 19.
As to claim 14, this is shown in Fig. 19.
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) 6-7, 9-11, 13-14 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2017/0032972 A1) in view of Chiu et al. (US 2019/0035916 A1)
As to claims 6 and 25, 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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. (US 2019/0035916 A1)
As to claim 13, the metal 110 may be tungsten in 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).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2017/0032972 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US 2014/0261168 A1)
Tsai does not perform its processes in different chambers. Liang teaches that it is well known in the semiconductor arts to use a cluster tool such as that in Fig 2A where each separate process chamber may perform a different operation in para 0026 in order to increase efficiency in para 0005-0006. . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tsai to include its different processes in different chambers as taught by Liang in order to increase efficiency.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2017/0032972 A1) in view of Chiu et al. (US 2019/0035916 A1) or Chiu et al. (US 2019/0035916 A1)
in further view of Liang et al. (US 2014/0261168 A1)
Tsai or Chiu do not perform its processes in different chambers. Liang teaches that it is well known in the semiconductor arts to use a cluster tool such as that in Fig 2A where each separate process chamber may perform a different operation in para 0026 in order to increase efficiency in para 0005-0006. . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Tsai and/or Chiu to include its different processes in different chambers as taught by Liang in order to increase efficiency.
Conclusion
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