Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/563,714

NANOSHEET DEVICE HAVING TWO BOTTOM ISOLATION LAYERS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 28, 2021
Examiner
MILLER, ALEXANDER MICHAEL
Art Unit
2898
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
100%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 100% — above average
100%
Career Allow Rate
1 granted / 1 resolved
+32.0% vs TC avg
Strong +100% interview lift
Without
With
+100.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
49
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.6%
+15.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
13.8%
-26.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 December 2025 has been entered. Claim and Specification Status The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim 1. The claim amendments and the Applicant’s accompanying comments have been addressed below. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhenxing Bi et al. (2020/0119015 A1; hereinafter “Bi”). Regarding Claim 1, Bi teaches a gate-all-around device, comprising a source/drain (290, Fig. 19, para [0097] describes source/drain layers 290); an isolation liner wrapped around the source/drain (320, Fig. 19, para [0103] describes an interlayer dielectric layer 320 which can be seen wrapping around source/drain region 290 in Fig. 19), where the isolation liner separates the source/drain from the substrate (110, Fig. 19, para [0035] describes a substrate 110 which can be seen separated from source/drain regions 290 by isolation liner 320 in gap region 293); and one or more nanosheet channel sections electrically connected to the source/drain (137 and 177, Fig. 19, para [0094] describes semiconductor channel sheets 137 and 177 which can be seen electrically connected to source/drain regions 290); wherein a surface of the isolation liner below the source/drain shares a vertical plane with the one or more nanosheet channel sections (VP, annotated Fig. 19 depicts wherein portions of the isolation liner ILB below the source/drain regions 290 share a vertical plane VP with nanosheet channel sections 137 and 177) and the isolation liner is disposed horizontally between more than one of the one or more nanosheet channel sections (ILB, annotated Fig. 19 depicts wherein portions of the isolation liner ILB are disposed horizontally between one or more adjacent nanosheet sections 137 and 177). PNG media_image1.png 451 644 media_image1.png Greyscale 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhenxing Bi et al. (2020/0119015 A1; hereinafter “Bi”) in view of Kangguo Cheng et al. (US 2020/0295198 A1; hereinafter “Cheng”). Regarding Claim 2, Bi teaches the gate-all-around device of claim 1, further comprising an active gate structure on the one or more nanosheet channel sections (330, 335 and 337, Fig. 19, para [0104] describes wherein an active gate structure can be formed on the nanosheet channel sections 137 and 177 including a gate dielectric 330, work function layer 335 and a conductive gate fill 337), wherein the active gate structure wraps around at least a portion of the one or more nanosheet channel sections (para [0109] describes wherein the active gate structure comprising the gate dielectric 330, work function layer 335 and conductive gate fill 337 can wrap around the nanosheet cannel sections 137 and 177). Bi fails to teach a source/drain contact that passes through the isolation liner and is in electrical contact with the source/drain. However, Cheng teaches a source/drain contact that passes through the isolation liner and is in electrical contact with the source/drain (134, Fig. 20, para [0106] describes forming source/drain contacts 134 that pass through a contact opening of the isolation layer 132). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bi and Cheng to further disclose a gate-all-around device comprising a source/drain contact passing through the isolation liner in order to provide the well-known advantage of providing electrical connections to the source/drain regions of a gate-all-around device so as to provide a path for electrons to flow into the source region and out of the drain region. Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhenxing Bi et al. (2020/0119015 A1; hereinafter “Bi”) in view of Kangguo Cheng et al. (US 2020/0295198 A1; hereinafter “Cheng”) and in further view of Jihye Yi et al. (US 2020/0373391 A1; hereinafter “Yi”). Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Bi and Cheng discloses all the limitations of claim 2. The combination of Bi and Cheng fails to disclose the gate-all-around device of claim 2, further comprising a bottom insulating slab beneath the one or more nanosheet channel sections, wherein the bottom insulating slab separates the active gate structure from the substrate, and the bottom insulating slab is adjacent to at least a portion of the isolation liner. However, Yi teaches a similar gate-all-around device as Bi and Cheng, further comprising a bottom insulating slab beneath the one or more nanosheet channel sections (155B, Fig. 7, para [0037] describes an isolation film between a lowermost channel layer and the active region 104 putting it beneath the nanosheet channel sections), wherein the bottom insulating slab separates the active gate structure from the substrate (155B, Fig. 7, para [0037] describes an isolation film between a lowermost channel layer and the active region 104, separating the active gate structure GE and GI, from the substrate 101), and the bottom insulating slab is adjacent to at least a portion of the isolation liner (upon modifying Bi with the bottom insulating slab of Yi, at least a portion of the isolation region of Bi would be adjacent, meaning next to or very near, the bottom insulating slab of Yi (see annotated Fig. 7 below)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Bi and Cheng with Yi to disclose a semiconductor device which comprises a bottom insulation slab, to provide the further advantage of preventing leakage of current through a sub-region between adjacent transistors resulting in a more reliable gate-all-around transistor device (Yi, para [0037] and para [0069]). PNG media_image2.png 403 667 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Bi, Cheng and Yi teach the limitations of claim 4, wherein the bottom insulating slab (Yi, 155B Fig. 7, para [0036] and para [0092] describes wherein the bottom insulating slab 155B may include the same insulating material as the internal spacers, which are comprised of at least one of SiN, SiCN, SiOCN, SiBCN, or SiBN) and the isolation liner are made of different electrically insulating dielectric materials (Bi, 320, Fig. 19, para [0103] describes wherein the isolation liner 320 may be comprised of a dielectric material such as SiO wherein a silicon oxide isolation liner is a different electrically insulating dielectric material than any of the silicon nitride bottom insulating slab materials of Yi). Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Bi, Cheng and Yi teach the limitations of claim 5, wherein the source/drain imparts a compressive stress to the one or more nanosheet channel sections (Yi, para [0027] describes the source/drain region SD can be configured to provide compressive strain to the channel layers CH). Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Bi, Cheng and Yi teach the limitations of claim 5, wherein the source/drain imparts a tensile stress to the one or more nanosheet channel sections (Yi, para [0027] describes the source/drain region SD can be configured to provide tensile strain to the channel layers CH). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-7 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER M MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-6051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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 Maldonado can be reached at 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 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. /ALEXANDER MICHAEL MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 28, 2021
Application Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 19, 2025
Interview Requested
Aug 22, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 28, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Nov 24, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 09, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 05, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 22, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Apr 08, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 15, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 15, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593660
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 1 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
100%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+100.0%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month