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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination, in the “Request for Continued Examination (RCE)” filed on 02/24/2026, under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment of claim 1 in “Claims” filed on 02/13/2026 with the “Request for Continued Examination (RCE)” filed on 02/24/2026, have been acknowledged and entered by Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-7 are presented for examination.
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)(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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
1. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frougier et al. (US 20200152734 A1; hereinafter Frougier).
Regarding claim 1, Frougier teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0005+], and as cited below), comprising:
a substrate (11; Fig. 16; see [0018, 0033]);
a first shallow trench isolation (STI) liner (30; Fig. 16; see [0025, 0035]) disposed above and in contact with the substrate (11; Fig. 16; see [0018, 0033]);
a bottom dielectric isolation (BDI) region (36; Fig. 16; see [0028, 0035]) disposed above the substrate (11) and in contact with the STI liner (30; Fig. 16; see [0025, 0035]);
a device channel (10; see Fig. 16; see [0035]) disposed directly above the BDI region (36; Fig. 16; see [0028, 0035]); and
a gate stack (60; Fig. 16; see [0039]) disposed above and in contact with the device channel (10; see Fig. 16; see [0035]), the STI (30; Fig. 16; see [0025, 0035]), and the BDI (36; Fig. 16; see [0028, 0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Frougier teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Frougier further comprising a second STI liner (45; Fig. 16 in view of Fig. 15; see [0034]) disposed above the substrate (11; Fig. 16; see [0018, 0033]) and in contact with the BDI region (36; Fig. 16; see [0028, 0035]).
Regarding claim 3, Frougier teaches all of the features of claim 2.
Frougier further teaches wherein the first STI liner (30; Fig. 16; see [0025, 0035]) and the second STI liner (45; Fig. 16 in view of Fig. 15; see [0034]) are asymmetric with respect to the channel (10; see Fig. 16; see [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Frougier teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Frougier further comprising an STI region (upper region of layer 30 in the middle of Fig. 16) disposed above and in contact with the first STI liner (30; Fig. 16; see [0025, 0035]).
Regarding claim 5, Frougier teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Frougier further teaches wherein the channel (10; see Fig. 16; see [0018, 0035]) comprises a stack of semiconductor nanosheets.
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (146; Fig 8; [0020]) = (element 146; Figure No. 8; Paragraph No. [0020]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 6-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Frougier et al. (US 20200152734 A1; hereinafter Frougier), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 6, Frougier teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Frougier further teaches wherein the channel (10; see Fig. 16; see [0018, 0035]) (see below for “comprises a single semiconductor fin”).
As noted above, Frougier does not expressly disclose “wherein the channel comprises a single semiconductor fin”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the channel comprises a single semiconductor fin” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the channel comprises a single semiconductor fin). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the channel comprises a single semiconductor fin” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, claim 5 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the channel comprises a stack of semiconductor nanosheets”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the channel comprises a single semiconductor fin”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the channel comprises a single semiconductor fin” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the channel comprises a single semiconductor fin” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the channel comprises a single semiconductor fin” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the channel comprises a single semiconductor fin” is not patentable over Frougier.
Regarding claim 7, Frougier teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Frougier further teaches wherein the channel (10; see Fig. 16; see [0018, 0035]) comprises a first width, the BDI region (36; Fig. 16; see [0028, 0035]) comprises a second width, (see below for “wherein the second width exceeds the first width”), and wherein the BDI (36; Fig. 16; see [0028, 0035]) (see below for “comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric”).
As noted above, Frougier does not expressly disclose “wherein the channel comprises a first width, the BDI region comprises a second width, wherein the second width exceeds the first width, and wherein the BDI comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the channel comprises a first width, the BDI region comprises a second width, wherein the second width exceeds the first width, and wherein the BDI comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the channel comprises a first width, the BDI region comprises a second width, wherein the second width exceeds the first width, and wherein the BDI comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the channel comprises a first width, the BDI region comprises a second width, wherein the second width exceeds the first width, and wherein the BDI comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the channel comprises a first width, the BDI region comprises a second width, wherein the second width exceeds the first width, and wherein the BDI comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the channel comprises a first width, the BDI region comprises a second width, wherein the second width exceeds the first width, and wherein the BDI comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the channel comprises a first width, the BDI region comprises a second width, wherein the second width exceeds the first width, and wherein the BDI comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the channel comprises a first width, the BDI region comprises a second width, wherein the second width exceeds the first width, and wherein the BDI comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the channel comprises a first width, the BDI region comprises a second width, wherein the second width exceeds the first width, and wherein the BDI comprises an inner dielectric and an outer dielectric” is not patentable over Frougier.
Response to Arguments
The finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 in respect with the request for continued examination, in the “Request for Continued Examination (RCE)” filed on 02/24/2026, under 37 CFR 1.114
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 02/13/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following: Applicant's amendments of claim 1 necessitated the shift in new grounds of rejection detailed in sections, above. The shift in grounds of rejection renders the Applicant's arguments moot.
Please see the analysis of rejection for claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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 J. Maldonado, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898