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 .
Specification
The amendment filed 09/25/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces 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 base material 110 comprises a channel material…” in new paragraph 0068 in the substitute specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/25/2026 has been entered.
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 “(TMDC) liner directly on a dielectric material and directly on a channel material” of claim 1, the “the bottom of the feature consisting of the channel material” of claim 1, the “(TMDC) liner formed…directly on the bottom” and “the bottom consisting of a channel material” of claims 12 and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Currently the Applicant’s drawings show the TMDC being directly on a base material and does not show a channel material. Further, the Applicant’s original written specification does not recite that the base material is a channel material nor where the base material consists of a channel material. Lastly, it is unclear where the TMDC liner directly contacts the channel material as a channel material is not shown in the drawings. 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.
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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 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 1, claim 1 recites “(TMDC) liner directly on a dielectric material and directly on a channel material”. However, nowhere in the Applicant’s written specification nor their drawings is it taught that the TMDC liner is directly on a channel material. Instead, the Applicant’s drawings show where the TMDC liner is directly on a base material but the original written specification does not state that the base material is a channel material. Further, a channel material is only recited twice in the Applicant’s original written specification, once to state that the TMDC itself may act as a channel material, liner or barrier layer and second to state that in one or more embodiments that the TMDC itself acts as a channel material. In no instance does the original written specification state that the TMDC is directly on a channel material. As such, the limitation constitutes new matter. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the bottom of the feature consisting of the channel material”. However, nowhere in the Applicant’s original specification nor in the drawings is it taught that the bottom of the feature consists of the channel material. Further, the Applicant’s substitute specification also does not supply support for the limitation as the substitute specification merely states that the base material comprises channel material. Instead, the Applicant’s drawings show where the TMDC liner is directly on a base material but the original written specification does not state that the base material is a channel material. Further, a channel material is only recited twice in the Applicant’s original written specification, once to state that the TMDC itself may act as a channel material, liner or barrier layer and second to state that in one or more embodiments that the TMDC itself acts as a channel material. In no instance does the original written specification state that the bottom of the feature consists of the channel material. As such, the limitation constitutes new matter. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein the TMDC liner is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill”. However nowhere in the Applicant’s original disclosure is it disclosed that the resistance of the metal fill is decreased by configuring the TMDC. Instead, the Applicant’s original written specification only discusses the resistance of the metal fill once where it is stated that the decreased resistance of the metal fill is due to the elimination of the barrier layer from the process flow. There is no mention of any configuring of the TMDC or how the TMDC would be configured to decreases resistance of the metal fill. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Claims 3, 5-8 and 10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “(TMDC) liner formed… directly on the bottom”. However, nowhere in the Applicant’s original written specification nor their drawings is it taught that the TMDC liner is directly on a bottom of a feature consisting of a channel material. Instead, the Applicant’s drawings show where the TMDC liner is directly on a base material but the original written specification does not state that the base material is a channel material. Further, a channel material is only recited twice in the Applicant’s original written specification, once to state that the TMDC itself may act as a channel material, liner or barrier layer and second to state that in one or more embodiments that the TMDC itself acts as a channel material. In no instance does the original written specification state that the TMDC is directly on a channel material. As such, the limitation constitutes new matter. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 currently recites “the bottom consisting of a channel material”. However, nowhere in the Applicant’s original written disclosure is it recited that a feature bottom consists of a channel material. Further, the Applicant’s substitute specification also does not supply support for the limitation as the substitute specification merely states that the base material comprises channel material. Further should the Applicant argue that the drawings show the TMDC material directly on the base material in the drawings, nowhere in the Applicant’s specification is a connection made between the base and the TMDC material. Instead, in the Applicant’s written specification a channel material is only mentioned twice and it is with respect to the TMDC layer itself acting as a channel material. Therefore claim 12 contains new matter. Appropriate changes should be made to remove the new matter from the claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “wherein the TMDC liner is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill”. However nowhere in the Applicant’s original disclosure is it disclosed that the resistance of the metal fill is decreased by configuring the TMDC. Instead, the Applicant’s original written specification only discusses the resistance of the metal fill once where it is stated that the decreased resistance of the metal fill is due to the elimination of the barrier layer from the process flow. There is no mention of any configuring of the TMDC or how the TMDC would be configured to decreases resistance of the metal fill. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Claims 15 and 17 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “the transition metal oxide film … directly on the bottom”. However, nowhere in the Applicant’s original written specification nor their drawings is it taught that the transition metal oxide film is directly on a bottom of a feature consisting of a channel material. Instead, the Applicant’s drawings show where the transition metal oxide film is directly on a base material but the original written specification does not state that the base material is a channel material. Further, a channel material is only recited twice in the Applicant’s original written specification, once to state that a transition metal dichalcogenide film may act as a channel material, liner or barrier layer and second to state that in one or more embodiments that the transition metal dichalcogenide film acts as a channel material. In no instance does the original written specification state that a transition metal oxide film is directly on a channel material. As such, the limitation constitutes new matter. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 currently recites “the bottom consisting of a channel material”. However, nowhere in the Applicant written specification or drawings is it recited that a feature bottom consists of a channel material. Further, the Applicant’s substitute specification also does not supply support for the limitation as the substitute specification merely states that the base material comprises channel material. Further should the Applicant argue that the drawings show the TMDC material directly on the base material in the drawings, nowhere in the Applicant’s specification is a connection made between the base and the TMDC material. Instead, in the Applicant’s written specification a channel material is only mentioned twice and it is with respect to the TMDC layer itself acting as a channel material. Therefore claim 19 contains new matter. Appropriate changes should be made to remove the new matter from the claim.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “wherein the transition metal dichalcogenide film is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill”. However nowhere in the Applicant’s original disclosure is it disclosed that the resistance of the metal fill is decreased by configuring the transition metal dichalcogenide film. Instead, the Applicant’s original written specification only discusses the resistance of the metal fill once where it is stated that the decreased resistance of the metal fill is due to the elimination of the barrier layer from the process flow. There is no mention of any configuring of the transition metal dichalcogenide film or how the transition metal dichalcogenide film would be configured to decreases resistance of the metal fill. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Claim 20 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 19.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein the TMDC liner is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill”. However there is no mention of any configuring of the TMDC or how the TMDC would be configured to decreases resistance of the metal fill. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would not know how to configure the TMDC liner such that the resistance of the metal fill is decreased. Therefore the claim language is not enabled. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “wherein the TMDC liner is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill”. However there is no mention of any configuring of the TMDC or how the TMDC would be configured to decreases resistance of the metal fill. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would not know how to configure the TMDC liner such that the resistance of the metal fill is decreased. Therefore the claim language is not enabled. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the claim.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “wherein the transition metal dichalcogenide film is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill”. However there is no mention of any configuring of the TMDC or how the TMDC would be configured to decreases resistance of the metal fill. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would not know how to configure the TMDC liner such that the resistance of the metal fill is decreased. Therefore the claim language is not enabled. Appropriate change should be made to resolve the new matter issue by either removing the new matter from the claim or cancelling the 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, 3, 5-8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 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 1, claim 1 recites “(TMDC) liner directly on a dielectric material and directly on a channel material”. However, it is unclear how or where the TMDC liner directly contacts the channel material as the Applicant’s drawings do not show a channel material and the Applicant’s written specification does not discuss the channel material directly contacting the TMDC liner. Instead, the Applicant’s written specification only discusses a channel material with its possible use as a channel material itself. Further, should the Applicant argues that the channel material is the base material shown in the Applicant’s drawings, the Examiner avers that nowhere in the Applicant’s specification is it taught that the base material is a channel material or comprises a channel material as thus still does not clarify where the channel material is in the structure. Appropriate change should be made to clarify the language.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “the bottom of the feature consisting of the channel material”. However, it is unclear how or where the channel material is located as the Applicant’s drawings do not show a channel material and the Applicant’s original written specification does not discuss the channel material relative to the TMDC liner. Further, the Applicant’s substitute specification merely states that the base material comprises channel material and therefore, the substitute specification also does not supply support or provide any guidance as to how the TMDC liner is on channel material. Instead, the Applicant’s written specification only discusses a base material with respect to the feature bottom. Appropriate change should be made to clarify the language.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “where the TMDC liner is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill.” However, it is unclear how the TMDC liner is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill as the Applicant’s written specification only mentions a decrease in the resistance of the metal fill as a result of an absence of a barrier layer and does not relate any configuration of the TMDC material with the decreased resistance of the metal fill. Appropriate correction should be made to clarify the language. No new matter should be included.
Claims 3, 5-8 and 10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “the bottom [of the feature] consisting of a channel material”. However, it is unclear how or where the channel material is located as the Applicant’s drawings do not show a channel material and the Applicant’s written specification does not discuss the channel material relative to the TMDC liner. Instead, the Applicant’s written specification only discusses a base material with respect to the feature bottom. Appropriate change should be made to clarify the language.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “where the TMDC liner is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill.” However, it is unclear how the TMDC liner is configured to decreases resistance of the metal fill as the Applicant’s written specification only mentions a decrease in the resistance of the metal fill as a result of an absence of a barrier layer and does not relate any configuration of the TMDC material with the decreased resistance of the metal fill. Appropriate correction should be made to clarify the language. No new matter should be included.
Claims 15 and 17 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “the bottom [of the feature] consisting of a channel material”. However, it is unclear how or where the channel material is located as the Applicant’s drawings do not show a channel material and the Applicant’s written specification does not discuss the channel material relative to the TMDC liner. Instead, the Applicant’s written specification only discusses a base material with respect to the feature bottom. Appropriate change should be made to clarify the language.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites “where the transition metal dichalcogenide film liner is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill.” However, it is unclear how the transition metal dichalcogenide film is configured to decreases resistance of the metal fill as the Applicant’s written specification only mentions a decrease in the resistance of the metal fill as a result of an absence of a barrier layer and does not relate any configuration of the transition metal dichalcogenide film with the decreased resistance of the metal fill. Appropriate correction should be made to clarify the language. No new matter should be included.
Claim 20 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they depend from and include all of the limitations of claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2026, with regard to the amendments to the claims and written specification, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant a states that no new matter has been added to the specification by the amendments. The Examiner disagrees. The amendment to the written specification adding new paragraph 0068 discuss the base material comprising channel material. However, nowhere in the original specification was it stated or discussed that the base material comprises channel material. Instead, a channel material is only recited twice in the Applicant’s original written specification, once to state that the TMDC itself may act as a channel material, liner or barrier layer and second to state that in one or more embodiments that the TMDC itself acts as a channel material. In no instance does the original written specification state that the base material comprises channel material.
Further, the Applicant states that no new matter has been added to the claims by the amendments. The Examiner disagrees. The amendment to each of independent claims 1, 12 and 19 recites where in the TMDC liner (in claims 1 and 12) or the transition metal dichalcogenide film (in claim 19) is configured to decrease resistance of the metal fill. However the Applicant’s original specification only discusses a decreases in the resistance of the metal fill once and it is attributed to the lack of a barrier layer. Further, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Applicant’s specification does support where the decreases of resistance of the metal film is due to the configuration of the TMDC liner, the Applicant’s original written specification does not provide any guidance or discussion as to how the TMDC liner is configured such that the decrease in resistance of the metal fill occurs.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2026, with regard to the drawings objection, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that original claim 12 provides support for the base material comprising a channel material. The Examiner disagrees. Original claim 12 recites “a feature comprising a base material and at least one sidewall, the bottom comprising a channel material…”. However in the language of original claim 12, as can be seen above, a base material and a channel material are recited separately and the language never states where the base material is present in the feature. The base material need not be on the bottom of the bottom of the feature. However, even assuming that the base material would be present at the bottom of the feature, neither the base material nor the channel material needs to be the whole of the bottom of the feature (based on the language “the bottom comprises a channel material”) thus, based on original claim 12, a channel material and a base material may be present on the bottom of the feature. Thus, neither original drawings, claims or the original specification support the claim language and the Examiner maintains the drawings objection.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2026, with regard to the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the specification has been amended to recite “the base material comprises a channel material”. Firstly, the inclusion of this language in the specification is new matter as the original disclosure does not support this. Secondly, even if this language were to be considered as being supported by the original disclosure, it would still not support the current claim language as A) it does not state where the channel material is in the base material (the language of the substitute specification merely states that the base material comprises a channel material which means that other materials may be present in the base material), and B) it does not state that the base material consists of channel material which claims 12 and 19 previously required (after being amended previously) and claim 1 now requires (after being amended). Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the language of the bottom comprising a base material and the feature comprising a bottom to mean that the base material consists of the channel material nor that the TMDC liner would be directly on the channel material. Therefore, the language is still new matter and the language is still unclear as to how the liner is directly on a dielectric material and directly on a channel material.
The Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant has made arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims under 103. However, an evaluation of the Applicant’s arguments ultimately would lead back to a discussion of the numerous new matter issues and indefiniteness issues. Before responding to any of the Applicant’s specific arguments about the prior art the new matter and indefiniteness issues need to be resolved. As such, no additional response to the 103(a) arguments presented by the Applicant are able to be made here. Please see the above discussion of the new matter and indefiniteness issues which comment directly on the issues brought up by the Applicant in their 103(a) arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached on 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
