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 .
Status of the Claims
Amendment filed 6 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended. Claims 1-15 and 21 are pending. Claims 3, 5, and 13-15 remain withdrawn from consideration.
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 subject matter of claims 1 and 10, “wherein the protective liner includes a third portion on a top surface [and] a bottom surface [ ] of the support pillar, continuously connecting the first portion and the second portion,” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the subject matter of claims 1 and 10, “wherein the protective liner includes a third portion on a top surface [and] a bottom surface [ ] of the support pillar, continuously connecting the first portion and the second portion,” must find support in the specification.
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 1, 2, 4, 6-12, and 21 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation, “wherein the protective liner includes a third portion on a top surface [and] a bottom surface [ ] of the support pillar, continuously connecting the first portion and the second portion.” The disclosure as originally filed fails to provide support for a third portion on top and bottom surfaces of a support pillar that continuously connects first and second portions. The first portion is formed along a sidewall of the support pillar (115) on a buried power rail (230). The second portion is formed on the entirety of one of a top or bottom surface of the support pillar (115) on a source/drain (270). As best understood by Examiner, there is no distinct third portion that is on both a top and bottom surface of the support pillar (115) that also continuously connects the first and second portions.
Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, and 21 are rejected for merely containing the flaws of the parent claim.
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 1, 2, 4, 6-12, and 21 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 1 and 10 recite the limitation, “wherein the protective liner includes a third portion on a top surface [and] a bottom surface [ ] of the support pillar, continuously connecting the first portion and the second portion.” It is unclear how the third portion on the top and bottom surfaces of the support pillar continuously connects the first and second portions. The first portion is formed along a sidewall of the support pillar (115) on a buried power rail (230). The second portion is formed on the entirety of one of a top or bottom surface of the support pillar (115) on a source/drain (270). As best understood by Examiner, there is no distinct third portion that is on both a top and bottom surface of the support pillar (115) that also continuously connects the first and second portions. For the purposes of applying art, the claim will be interpreted to focus on the limitations concerning the third portion continuously connecting the first and second portions.
Claims 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 12, and 21 are rejected for merely containing the flaws of the parent claim.
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 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0411436, hereinafter Xie ‘436) in view of Kim et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0028112, hereinafter Kim ‘112), both of record.
With respect to claim 1, as best understood by Examiner, Xie ‘436 teaches (FIGs. 2 and 20) a semiconductor device substantially as claimed, comprising:
a protective liner (172, 195, and 230) ([0054, 0085, 0091]);
a buried power rail (212) on a first portion (172) of the protective liner (172, 195, and 230), wherein the protective liner is on opposite sides of the buried power rail ([0072]);
a source/drain (240) on a second portion (230) of the protective liner (172, 195, and 230) over a support pillar (120), wherein the source/drain is offset from the buried power rail (212) and wherein the protective liner includes a third portion (195) on a top surface (see interpretation provided in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above), a bottom surface (see interpretation provided in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above), and a sidewall of the support pillar, continuously connecting the first portion (172) and the second portion ([0036, 0094]); and
a source/drain contact (270) on the source/drain (240) and in electrical communication with the buried power rail (212) ([0102]).
Thus, Xie ‘436 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
wherein the buried power rail penetrates through the protective liner to make electrical contact with a backside interconnect; and
wherein the third portion has a same thickness as the first portion.
However, Kim ‘112 teaches (FIGs. 6 and 7) a buried power rail (125) penetrating through a protective liner (121) to make electrical contact with a backside interconnect (255) ([0055, 0066]) to provide a power line for a plurality of elements (e.g. transistors) implemented on the upper surface of the substrate ([0090]).
Further, Xie ‘436 teaches wherein the third portion (195) may be formed to a thickness of about 3-15 nm, and wherein the first portion (172) may be formed to a thickness of about 8-60 nm ([0056, 0059]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the buried power rail of Xie ‘436 penetrating through the protective liner to make electrical contact with a backside interconnect as taught by Kim ‘112 to provide a power line for a plurality of elements (e.g. transistors) implemented on the upper surface of the substrate; and to have formed the third portion of Xie ‘436 having a same thickness as the first portion as taught by Xie ‘436 because the disclosed thicknesses of said third portion and said first portion overlap in ranges.
With respect to claim 2, Xie ‘436 teaches wherein the support pillar (120) is on an opposite side of the second portion (230) of the protective liner (172, 195, and 230) from the source/drain (240) ([0036]).
With respect to claims 4 and 11, Xie ‘436 teaches further comprising a power rail cap (229) on the buried power rail (212), wherein the source/drain contact (270) passes through the power rail cap ([0100]).
With respect to claim 6, Xie ‘436 teaches further comprising a plurality of nanochannels (150) on the second portion (230) of the protective liner (172, 195, and 230), wherein the source/drain (240) is in electrical contact with the plurality of nanochannels ([0036]).
With respect to claim 10, as best understood by Examiner, Xie ‘436 teaches (FIGs. 2 and 20) a semiconductor device substantially as claimed, comprising:
a protective liner (172, 195, and 230) on a support pillar (120) ([0036, 0054, 0085, 0091]);
a buried power rail (212) on a first portion (172) of the protective liner (172, 195, and 230), wherein the protective liner is on opposite sides of the buried power rail ([0072]);
a source/drain (240) on a second portion (230) of the protective liner (172, 195, and 230), wherein the support pillar (120) is on an opposite side of the second portion of the protective liner from the source/drain and wherein the protective liner includes a third portion (195) on a top surface (see interpretation provided in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 10 above), a bottom surface (see interpretation provided in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 10 above), and a sidewall of the support pillar, continuously connecting the first portion (172) and the second portion ([0094]);
a plurality of nanochannels (150) on the second portion (230) of the protective liner (172, 195, and 230), wherein the source/drain (240) is in electrical contact with the plurality of nanochannels ([0036]); and
a source/drain contact (270) on the source/drain (240) and in electrical communication with the buried power rail (212) ([0102]).
Thus, Xie ‘436 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
wherein the buried power rail penetrates through the protective liner to make electrical contact with a backside interconnect; and
wherein the third portion has a same thickness as the first portion.
However, Kim ‘112 teaches (FIGs. 6 and 7) a buried power rail (125) penetrating through a protective liner (121) to make electrical contact with a backside interconnect (255) ([0055, 0066]) to provide a power line for a plurality of elements (e.g. transistors) implemented on the upper surface of the substrate ([0090]).
Further, Xie ‘436 teaches wherein the third portion (195) may be formed to a thickness of about 3-15 nm, and wherein the first portion (172) may be formed to a thickness of about 8-60 nm ([0056, 0059]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the buried power rail of Xie ‘436 penetrating through the protective liner to make electrical contact with a backside interconnect as taught by Kim ‘112 to provide a power line for a plurality of elements (e.g. transistors) implemented on the upper surface of the substrate; and to have formed the third portion of Xie ‘436 having a same thickness as the first portion as taught by Xie ‘436 because the disclosed thicknesses of said third portion and said first portion overlap in ranges.
With respect to claim 21, Xie ‘436 teaches wherein the first portion (172), the second portion (230), and the third portion (195) are formed by a single deposition process ([0054, 0085, 0091]).
The expression, “formed by a single deposition process,” is taken to be a product-by-process limitation and is given limited patentable weight. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Claims 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie ‘436 and Kim ‘112 as applied to claims 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Liebmann et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0181453, hereinafter Liebmann ‘453) of record.
With respect to claims 7, 8, and 12, Xie ‘436 and Kim ‘112 teach the device as described in claims 6 and 11 above with the exception of the additional limitations further comprising a gate structure on the plurality of nanochannels; and further comprising a gate cut slab adjoining the gate structure.
However, Liebmann ‘453 teaches (FIG. 3F) a gate structure (305) on a plurality of channels, and a gate cut slab (303) adjoining the gate structure to control the current between the source and the drain ([0050, 0052]) in an arrangement that facilitates a dense layout ([0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the semiconductor device of Xie ‘436 and Kim ‘112 further comprising a gate structure on the plurality of nanochannels; and further comprising a gate cut slab adjoining the gate structure as taught by Liebmann ‘453 to control the current between the source and the drain in an arrangement that facilitates a dense layout.
With respect to claim 9, Xie ‘436 teaches further comprising an isolation region (177) adjoining the support pillar (112) and the protective liner (172, 195, and 230) ([0087]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 February 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (remarks, p. 7) that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the newly-presented limitation of claims 1 and 10, “wherein the protective liner includes a third portion on a top surface, a bottom surface, and a sidewall of the support pillar.” Applicant identifies that the protective liner (172, 195, and 230) of Xi ‘436 does not extend on to the top or bottom surfaces of the support pillar (120). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that the aforementioned newly-presented limitation raise issues of new matter and are indefinite. See the 35 U.S.C. 112(a)&(b) rejections of claims 1 and 10 above. For the purposes of applying art, the claim is interpreted to focus on the limitation concerning the third portion continuously connecting the first and second portions. The portions of the claim wherein the third portion is on a top surface and a bottom surface is given limited patentable weight.
Examiner notes that the prior art of record does not appear to teach wherein the protective liner (210) is continuously formed on top, bottom, and sidewall surfaces of the support pillar (115) as appears to be supported by the original disclosure. The issues of new matter and indefiniteness concern the claimed relationships between the first, second, and third portions of the protective liner.
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 Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893