DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/24/2025. These drawings are unacceptable. Specifically, The amended drawings filed 12/24/2025 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because they introduce new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the addition of gate insulator layer 71 to Fig. 11 is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. It is noted that the disclosure provides no description of what processes occur between Figs. 10 and 11 as it relates to layers 71, 72, 74, and 78, and so it cannot be ascertained what layers might or might not be present in Fig. 11 other than what is shown in the original figures. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 15-20 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.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “gate layers disposed in the gate region, wherein only one of the gate layers is vertically between the first inner spacer and a nanosheet channel of the plurality of nanosheet channels, the first inner spacer having a top surface and a bottom surface, the top surface and the bottom surface being in parallel with the plurality of nanosheet channels and the top surface and the bottom surface being in direct contact with the only one of the gate layers,” does not have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, as best understood, applicant is attempting to claim the structure shown in Fig. 10. There is no disclosure of “only one” of the “gate layers,” (best understood as 72/74/78) being vertically between the first spacer and the channel and also being in direct contact with the top and bottom surface of the first spacer.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “dipole elements” has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Specifically, the disclosure fails to adequately describe the elements which would be construed as “dipole elements,” understood to be an essential feature of the invention. While the disclosure recites “[t]he dipole elements 74 can be, e.g., La, Al, etc.,” (see [0063]), there is no further description of what is required of an element to be understood as a “dipole element,” nor is there list of elements which can be construed as a complete list. Further, “dipole elements” are not a category or classification of elements which are conventionally understood or known in the art. Additionally, the specification has not provided adequate detail of the presence of the “dipole elements” in the gate layers of the device. Specifically, the disclosure provides that the dipole elements are “diffused through the bottom TiN layer after the drive-in anneal,” (see [0065]), and therefore the disclosure fails to adequately describe the remaining presence of the dipole elements in the gate metal layers.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the gate layers include a TiN layer with dipole elements annealed within the gate layers,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, applicant’s disclosure recites that the dipole elements are diffused “through,” layer 72 and not within 72 or any other gate layer.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the dipole elements are absent from a pinched off space between the first inner spacer and an adjacent nanosheet from the plurality of nanosheets,” does not appear to have support from the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, the disclosure recites “dipole elements 74 are absent in the high-k material 72 near the channel edges” and “the dipole elements are absent near edges of the nanosheet channel,” but does not recite an absence from a pinched off space between the first inner spacer and an adjacent nanosheet from the plurality of nanosheets.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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 15-20 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.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the pair of the plurality of nanosheet channels” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “a plurality of nanosheet channels” and “a pair of nanosheets.”
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “gate layers disposed in the gate region, wherein only one of the gate layers is vertically between the first inner spacer and a nanosheet channel of the plurality of nanosheet channels, the first inner spacer having a top surface and a bottom surface, the top surface and the bottom surface being in parallel with the plurality of nanosheet channels and the top surface and the bottom surface being in direct contact with the only one of the gate layers,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, the claimed “only one of the gate layers” is understood as being intended as layer 72 in Fig. 10, however this layer is not understood as being in direct contact with the top and bottom surfaces of the first inner spacer. It is therefore unclear as to the proper interpretation of “gate layers,” “only one of the gate layers,” “vertically between,” and “direct contact.”
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “gate layers” is unclear. Specifically, “gate layers” would be understood to be required to be layers of a gate electrode. However, there is a lack of clarity regarding applicant’s specification and the relationship between Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. It appears as if Fig. 10 is an intermediate product and Fig. 11 is a final product, with the “gate” of the device being understood as comprising layers 80 and 82. Applicant originally disclosed a “dipole layer stack” of the intermediate product comprising layers 72/74/78, and some claimed features appear to indicate applicant intends the “dipole layer stack” to be the “gate layers,” however these layers seem to be removed in the progression between Figs. 10 and 11, and therefore do not constitute a portion of a gate. Accordingly, it is unclear as to the proper interpretation of “gate layers.”
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “the gate layers include a TiN layer with dipole elements annealed within the gate layers,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. First, it is unclear as to how the TiN layer is related to the “only one of the gate layers.” Additionally, it is unclear as to where the dipole elements are required to be by the recitation of what “a TiN layer with dipole elements annealed within the gate layers,” (e.g. within the TiN layer or merely within the gate layers as a whole).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “dipole elements” is unclear. Specifically, while the disclosure recites “[t]he dipole elements 74 can be, e.g., La, Al, etc.,” (see [0063]), there is no further description of what is required of an element to be understood as a “dipole element,” nor is there a list of elements which can be construed as a complete list. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear because it cannot be ascertained which elements would read on the limitation and which elements would not read on the limitation.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “a nanosheet from the plurality of nanosheets,” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “a nanosheet of the plurality of nanosheets,” “pair of nanosheets,” and “pair of the plurality of nanosheet channels.”
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “wherein the TiN layer pinches off a space between the first inner spacer and a nanosheet form the plurality of nanosheets,” is unclear as to the meaning and scope of “pinches off.” Specifically, “pinches” is understood to mean, e.g., “to press tightly between two surfaces,” and “pinches off” would be understood to mean that the pressing results in a removal of a piece of the element being pinched. There are no TiN layers shown in applicant’s disclosure which could be understood to be “pinching off” a space between inner spacer 46 and nanosheet channel 26, nor do any layers remove a portion of the space. Accordingly, it is unclear as to the intended meaning or proper interpretation of limitation.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “an adjacent nanosheet from the plurality of nanosheets” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “a nanosheet of the plurality of nanosheets,” “pair of nanosheets,” and “pair of the plurality of nanosheet channels.”
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the dipole elements are absent from a pinched off space,” is unclear as to the meaning and scope of “pinched off.” Specifically, “pinches” is understood to mean, e.g., “to press tightly between two surfaces,” and “pinched off” would be understood to mean that the pressing results in a removal of a piece of the element being pinched. As shown in applicant’s disclosure, a space between inner spacer 46 and nanosheet channel 26 is not removed. Accordingly, it is unclear as to the intended meaning or proper interpretation of limitation.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein the second inner spacer directly contacts source/drain regions,” is unclear as to how it is related to “the second inner spacer…in direct contact with a source/drain region,” as recited in claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “at least one adjacent nanosheet” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “plurality of nanosheets,” “a nanosheet of the plurality of nanosheets,” “pair of nanosheets,” and “pair of the plurality of nanosheet channels.”
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Note that the claims have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 11) that “dipole elements” is clear and adequate detail is disclosed because example elements are provided.
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, as the classification “dipole element” is not well-known or established in the art, the mere presentation of examples is not adequate as it does not serve to define the metes and bounds of the claim limitation.
Applicant argues (page 8) that claim 17 is definite because “’pinches off’ is a term of art in the field of semiconductor fabrication,” “[t]he Specification specifically discusses pinch off as a technical problem which is to be solved and uses the term consistent with the definition known in the art,” and “[e]ven the prior art cited by Examiner illustrates pinching off.”
In response, the examiner disagrees. Specifically, while “pinch off” is a term of art, it is a term which is associated with an electrical characteristic of a transistor (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch-off_voltage). The repeated use of the term by applicant in the disclosure does not make it a term of art. Further, applicant’s assertion that the art “illustrates” pinching off provides no further clarity as to the meaning of the phrase.
Additionally, while applicant uses the term repeatedly in the disclosure, applicant has not provide a definition of the term. Even in the arguments filed, applicant still has opted to merely assert the Examiner’s interpretation is wrong, without providing a proposed alternate definition or interpretation.
Lastly, the disclosure does not clearly describe the structural feature that is being construed as “pinch off.” It is respectfully noted that the disclosure is inconsistent and unclear as to what is being “pinched off” and as to what is doing the “pinching off.” Specifically, the disclosure sets forth that that pinch off is “between the first inner spacers and a nanosheet channel,” ([0003]) that pinch off is “of the bottom TiN film [i.e. layer 72] between the fist inner spacer and the channel” ([0022]-[0023]) and that is achieved by a setting a thickness of “[t]he first or second TiN layer 78” such that the layer “pinch[es] off the space between the nanosheet channel and the first inner spacers 46,” ([0066]). Given this, it cannot even be ascertained from the specification if applicant intends a space is pinched off or layer 72 is pinched off, or if layer 72 is doing the pinching off or is being pinched off. Without even being able to determine what element is being pinched off and/or is pinching off, it certainly cannot be determined what applicant intends the term “pinch off” to mean.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 at (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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights