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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed
in China, CN 202210644138.X on June 08, 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment filed on 11/19/2025 in response to the Office Action mailed on 09/05/2025 is being acknowledged and entered into the record. The present Non-final rejection is made by taking into fully consideration all the amendments.
Response to Arguments
On page 11 of the remarks filed on 11/19/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that the monitoring testkey structure Huang does not include two separate epitaxial layers respectively disposed on the first and second diffusion regions being partially overlapped with each other and that the first diffusion region and the second diffusion regions are far different from that of the instant application. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2145 (IV), “One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. As such, Huang, in combination with Chen does teach all the limitations of the amended Claim 1 as noted in the 103 rejection below. i.e., Huang teaches a first diffusion region 44 and a second diffusion region 42, disposed in a substrate, parallelly disposed and partially overlapped with each other in a first direction Y (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al.: 44, 42, Y, Fig. 4A: 42, 44, paragraph 0019), and Chen teaches a first epitaxial layer 950A and a second epitaxial layer 950B, disposed on the first diffusion region 901A and the second diffusion region 901B respectively, (See annotated Fig. 9B of Chen et al.: 900A, 950A, 950B, 901A, 901B, 912A, 912B, paragraphs 0045 – 0047, 0031, 0032, 0034). Furthermore, MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. As such, the test key structure of Huang/Chen reads on all the claimed limitations. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 in view of Huang/Chen is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also maintained.
On page 12 of the remarks filed on 11/19/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claim 1, Applicant argues that Chen is silent about disposing two epitaxial features on two diffusion regions being partially overlapped with each other in a direction, arranging a spacing between the epitaxial features in the direction and disposing an input and output pads on the two epitaxial features and therefore fails to include the claimed features in amended Claim 1. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2145 (IV), “One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. As such, Huang, in combination with Chen does teach all the limitations of the amended Claim 1 as noted in the 103 rejection below. i.e., Huang teaches the a first diffusion region 44 and a second diffusion region 42, disposed in a substrate, parallelly disposed and partially overlapped with each other in a first direction Y (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al.: 44, 42, Y, Fig. 4A: 42, 44, paragraph 0019), Chen teaches a first epitaxial layer 950A and a second epitaxial layer 950B, disposed on the first diffusion region 901A and the second diffusion region 901B respectively, and the first epitaxial layer 950A and the second epitaxial layer 950B are separated by a spacing T1 in the first direction (See annotated Fig. 9B of Chen et al.: 900A, 950A, 950B, 901A, 901B, 912A, 912B, SD, T1, paragraphs 0045 – 0047, 0031, 0032, 0034), and the combination of Huang/Chen teaches an input and output pads on the two epitaxial features. Furthermore, MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. As such, the test key structure of Huang/Chen reads on all the claimed limitations. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 1 in view of Huang/Chen is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also maintained.
On page 15 of the remarks filed on 11/19/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claim 9, Applicant argues that the monitoring testkey structure Huang does not include two separate epitaxial layers respectively disposed on the first and second diffusion regions being partially overlapped with each other and that the first diffusion region and the second diffusion regions are far different from that of the instant application. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2145 (IV), “One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. As such, Huang, in combination with Chen does teach all the limitations of the amended Claim 9 as noted in the 103 rejection below. i.e., Huang teaches a first diffusion region 44 and a second diffusion region 42, disposed in a substrate, parallelly disposed and partially overlapped with each other in a first direction Y (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al.: 44, 42, Y, Fig. 4A: 42, 44, paragraph 0019), and Chen teaches a first epitaxial layer 950A and a second epitaxial layer 950B, disposed on the first diffusion region 901A and the second diffusion region 901B respectively, (See annotated Fig. 9B of Chen et al.: 900A, 950A, 950B, 901A, 901B, 912A, 912B, paragraphs 0045 – 0047, 0031, 0032, 0034). Furthermore, MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. As such, the test key structure of Huang/Chen reads on all the claimed limitations. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 9 in view of Huang/Chen is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also maintained.
On pages 15-16 of the remarks filed on 11/19/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claim 9, Applicant argues that Chen is silent about disposing two epitaxial features on two diffusion regions being partially overlapped with each other in a direction, arranging a spacing between the epitaxial features in the direction and disposing an input and output pads on the two epitaxial features and therefore fails to include the claimed features in amended Claim 9. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2145 (IV), “One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. As such, Huang, in combination with Chen does teach all the limitations of the amended Claim 1 as noted in the 103 rejection below. i.e., Huang teaches the a first diffusion region 44 and a second diffusion region 42, disposed in a substrate, parallelly disposed and partially overlapped with each other in a first direction Y (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al.: 44, 42, Y, Fig. 4A: 42, 44, paragraph 0019), Chen teaches a first epitaxial layer 950A and a second epitaxial layer 950B, disposed on the first diffusion region 901A and the second diffusion region 901B respectively, and the first epitaxial layer 950A and the second epitaxial layer 950B are separated by a spacing T1 in the first direction (See annotated Fig. 9B of Chen et al.: 900A, 950A, 950B, 901A, 901B, 912A, 912B, SD, T1, paragraphs 0045 – 0047, 0031, 0032, 0034), and the combination of Huang/Chen teaches an input and output pads on the two epitaxial features. Furthermore, MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. As such, the test key structure of Huang/Chen reads on all the claimed limitations. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 9 in view of Huang/Chen is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also maintained.
On page 16 of the remarks filed on 11/19/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of Claim 9, Applicant argues that Shiu is silent about the arrangement of the gates and the diffusion regions of the instant application including a spacing between two epitaxial structures being close to and not in direct contact with other and therefore does not disclose the claimed features in amended Claim 9. This argument is fully considered but is not persuasive. According to MPEP § 2145 (IV), “One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)”. As such, the above limitations are already taught by Huang/Chen as detailed above and in the rejection below. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 9 in view of Huang/Chen/Shiu is maintained. The rejection of all dependent claims is also maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "a first direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether Claim 5 refers to the same “first direction” previously introduced in Claim 1, upon which Claim 5 depends on, or a different first direction.
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 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20130147510 A1), in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415706 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Huang et al. teaches a testkey structure, comprising:
a first diffusion region 44 and a second diffusion region 42, disposed in a substrate, parallelly disposed and partially overlapped with each other in a first direction Y (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al.: 44, 42, Y, Fig. 4A: 42, 44, paragraph 0019)
a first gate 440 and a second gate 420, disposed on the substrate, across portions of the first diffusion region 44 and the second diffusion region 42, respectively (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al.: 42, 44, 440, 420, Fig. 4A: 42, 44, Fig. 4C: 420, 440, Y, paragraph 0022)
and an input pad 251 and an output pad 254 (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al.: 251, 254, paragraph 0023)
PNG
media_image1.png
990
1390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al. (US 20130147510 A1)
Huang et al. fails to teach:
the first gate 440 and the second gate 420 being not overlapped with each other in the first direction Y
a first epitaxial layer and a second epitaxial layer, disposed on the first diffusion region and the second diffusion region respectively, wherein the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer are separately disposed between the first gate and the second gate, and the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer are separated by a spacing in the first direction;
the input pad and output pad are electrically connected to the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer respectively.
However, Chen et al. teaches a semiconductor structure 900 A made of a plurality of MOSFETs, the semiconductor structure 900A comprising a first gate 912A and a second gate 912B being not overlapped with each other in the first direction SD, a first epitaxial layer 950A and a second epitaxial layer 950B, disposed on the first diffusion region 901A and the second diffusion region 901B respectively, wherein the first epitaxial layer 950A and the second epitaxial layer 950B are separately disposed between the first gate 912A and the second gate 912B, and the first epitaxial layer 950A and the second epitaxial layer 950B are separated by a spacing T1 in the first direction (See annotated Fig. 9B of Chen et al.: 900A, 950A, 950B, 901A, 901B, 912A, 912B, SD, T1, paragraphs 0045 – 0047, 0031, 0032, 0034).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chen et al. with the teachings of Huang et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would alleviate leakage issues and enhance device performance in scaled device structures, as recognized by Chen et al. (paragraphs 0001 and 0002).
PNG
media_image2.png
572
1431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9B of Chen et al. (US 20220415706 A1)
While the combination of Huang et al. and Chen et al. fails to explicitly teach that the input pad and output pad are electrically connected to the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer respectively, Huang et al. does disclose that the input pad 251 and output pad 254 are electrically connected to the first diffusion region 44 and the second diffusion region 43 respectively (see annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al.).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the epitaxial layers of Chen et al. are disposed on the diffusion regions of Huang et al., the input pad and output pad of Huang et al. would be electrically connected to the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer respectively.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen et al. teaches the testkey structure according to claim 1, wherein the first epitaxial layer 950A and the second epitaxial layer 950B comprise silicon germanium (paragraph 0034).
Regarding Claim 3, Huang et al. teaches the testkey structure according to claim 1, wherein the first diffusion region 44, the second diffusion region 43, the first gate 440, and the second gate 430 are together arranged in a rectangular shape (See dotted rectangle highlighted in annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al. above).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Huang et al. and Chen et al. teaches the testkey structure according to claim 1, wherein the first diffusion region 44 and the second diffusion region 43, the first gate 440 and the second gate 430 (as taught by Huang et al.), and the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer (as taught by Chen et al., see rejection of Claim 1 above) comprise at least two P-type metal-oxide semiconductor transistors 23 and 24 (Fig. 2 of Huang et al.:23, 24, Fig. 4A of Huang et al.:43, 44, Fig 4C of Huang et al.:430, 440, paragraph 0015 of Huang et al.).
Claims 9, 10, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20130147510 A1), in view of Chen et al. (US 20220415706 A1), further in view of Shiu et al. (US 20130270557 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Huang et al. discloses a monitoring method with a testkey structure, comprising: providing a testkey structure in a semiconductor device (Fig. 4A – 4G, paragraphs 0019 -0024), the testkey structure comprising:
a first diffusion region 44 and a second diffusion region 42, parallelly disposed in a substrate and partially overlapped with each other in a first direction Y (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al. above, Fig. 4A: 42, 44, Y, paragraph 0019)
a first gate 440 and a second gate 420, disposed on the substrate, across portions of the first diffusion region 44 and the second diffusion region 42, respectively (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al. above, Fig. 4C: 420, 440, paragraph 0022)
and an input pad 251 and an output pad 254 (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al. above, Fig. 2: 251, 254, paragraph 0023)
Huang et al. fails to disclose providing:
the first gate 440 and the second gate 420 being not overlapped with each other in the first direction Y
a first epitaxial layer and a second epitaxial layer, disposed on the first diffusion region and the second diffusion region respectively, wherein the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer are separately disposed between the first gate and the second gate,
and the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer are separated by a first spacing in the first direction;
and an input pad and an output pad, electrically connected to the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer respectively;
transmitting a first signal to the input pad; and identifying leakage between the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer through receiving a first corresponding signal from the output pad.
However, Chen et al. discloses a method of forming a semiconductor structure 900 A, the semiconductor structure 900A comprising a first gate 912A and a second gate 912B being not overlapped with each other in the first direction SD, a first epitaxial layer 950A and a second epitaxial layer 950B, disposed on the first diffusion region 901A and the second diffusion region 901B respectively, wherein the first epitaxial layer 950A and the second epitaxial layer 950B are separately disposed between the first gate 912A and the second gate 912B, and the first epitaxial layer 950A and the second epitaxial layer 950B are separated by a first spacing T1 in an extending direction SD of the first gate 912A and the second gate 912B (See annotated Fig. 9B of Chen et al.: 900A, 950A, 950B, 901A, 901B, 912A, 912B, SD, T1, Fig. 8, paragraphs 0044 – 0047, 0031, 0032, 0034).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chen et al. with the teachings of Huang et al. in order to come up with the claimed invention. Doing so would alleviate leakage issues and enhance device performance in scaled device structures, as recognized by Chen et al. (paragraphs 0001 and 0002).
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that when the epitaxial layers of Chen et al. are disposed on the testkey structure of Huang et al., the input pad and output pad of Huang et al. would be electrically connected to the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer respectively.
Shiu et al. discloses a monitoring method with a testkey structure 12, comprising transmitting a first signal to the input pad 20 and identifying leakage between the first diffusion region 14 and the second diffusion region 16 (Fig. 1: 14, 16, 20, paragraphs 0009, 0021).
The combination of Huang et al., Chen et al. and Shiu et al. fails to explicitly disclose identifying leakage between the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer through receiving a first corresponding signal from the output pad.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art, by combining the teachings of Shiu et al., Huang et al. and Chen et al., would have recognized that when the epitaxial layers of Chen et al. are disposed on the diffusion regions of Huang et al., the monitoring method of Shiu et al. can be implemented to identify leakage between the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer through receiving a first corresponding signal from the output pad of Huang et al. Doing so can allow the monitoring of each of the production wafers, as recognized by Shiu et al. (paragraph 0009).
Regarding Claim 10, Huang et al. teaches the monitoring method with the testkey structure according to claim 9, wherein the first diffusion region 44, the second diffusion region 42, the first gate 440, and the second gate 420 are together arranged in a rectangular shape (See dotted rectangle highlighted in annotated Fig.2 of Huang et al. above).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Huang et al. and Chen et al. teaches that the monitoring method with the testkey structure according to claim 9 further comprises: providing another testkey structure 30 in the semiconductor device (Taught by Huang et al: Fig. 3A – Fig. 3C: 30, 31, paragraph 0018), the another testkey structure 30 comprising:
another first diffusion region and another second diffusion region, disposed in a substrate (Taught by Huang et al: Fig. 3A – Fig. 3C: 30, 31, paragraph 0018)
another first gate and another second gate, disposed on the substrate, across the another first diffusion region and the another second diffusion region of the another testkey structure respectively (Taught by Huang et al: Fig. 3A – Fig. 3C: 30, 31, paragraph 0018)
another first epitaxial layer and another second epitaxial layer (as taught by Chen et al., see rejection of Claim 1 above), disposed on the another first diffusion region and the another second diffusion region of the another testkey structure respectively, wherein the another first epitaxial layer and the another second epitaxial layer of the another testkey structure are separately disposed between the another first gate and the another second gate of the another testkey structure by a third spacing (as taught by Chen et al., see rejection of Claim 9 above).
Note that the plurality of testkey structures 30 of Huang et al. disposed in the semiconductor device are identical to each other (paragraph 0018) and hence would share common features, such as the diffusion regions, gates, as listed above.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Huang et al., Chen et al., and Shiu et al. teaches that the method of monitoring the spacing within the semiconductor device according to claim 16 further comprises: transmitting a second signal to the another input pad (of one of the plurality of testkey structures 30 of Fig. 3A – 3B. of Huang et al., paragraph 0018 of Huang et al.), and identifying leakage between the another first epitaxial layer and the another second epitaxial layer of the another testkey structure through receiving a second corresponding signal from the another output pad (See rejection of Claim 9 above).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Huang et al. and Chen et al. teaches a method of monitoring the spacing within the semiconductor device according to claim 9 (paragraphs 0002 and 0003 of Huang et al.), wherein the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer (as taught by Chen et al., see rejection of Claim 9) comprise silicon germanium (paragraph 0006 of Chen et al.) and the first diffusion region 44 and the second diffusion region 43, the first gate 440 and the second gate 430 (as taught by Huang et al., see rejection of Claim 9), and the first epitaxial layer and the second epitaxial layer (as taught by Chen et al., see rejection of Claim 1 and Claim 9), comprise at least two P-type metal-oxide semiconductor transistors 23 and 24 (Fig. 2 of Huang et al.:23, 24, Fig. 4A of Huang et al.:43, 44, Fig 4C of Huang et al.:430, 440, paragraph 0015 of Huang et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 11-15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 4, Huang et al. discloses a testkey structure further comprising a third diffusion region 43 disposed at a first side of the first diffusion region 44 and the second diffusion region 42 in the substrate (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al. , Fig. 4A: 43, 44, 42, paragraph 0019), a third gate 430, disposed on the substrate, across the third diffusion region 43 (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al., Fig. 4C: 430, paragraph 0022), a fourth diffusion region 41, disposed at a second side of the first diffusion region 44 and the second diffusion region 42 in the substrate, and the second side being opposite to the first side, (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al., Fig. 4A:41, paragraph 0019), a fourth gate 410, disposed on the substrate, across the fourth diffusion region 41 (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al., Fig. 4A: 42, Fig. 4C: 420, paragraph 0022).
However, the prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose: a plurality of third diffusion regions, disposed at a first side of the first diffusion region and the second diffusion region in the substrate, a plurality of third gates, disposed on the substrate, across the third diffusion regions and the second diffusion region respectively, a plurality of fourth diffusion regions disposed at a second side of the first diffusion region and the second diffusion region in the substrate, and the second side being opposite to the first side and a plurality of fourth gates, disposed on the substrate, across the fourth diffusion regions respectively.
Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-7 are allowable as they are dependent on Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 11, Huang et al. discloses a monitoring method with the testkey structure, wherein the testkey structure further comprises: a third diffusion region 41, disposed in the substrate, at a first side of the first diffusion region 44 and the second diffusion region 43 (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al., Fig. 4A: 41, 42, paragraph 0019), a third gate 410, disposed on the substrate, across the third diffusion region 41 (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al., Fig. 4A: 41, Fig. 4C: 410, paragraph 0022), a fourth diffusion region 42, disposed in the substrate (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al., Fig. 4A:42, paragraph 0019), and a fourth gate 420, disposed on the substrate, across the fourth diffusion region 42 (See Annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al., Fig. 4A: 42, Fig. 4C: 420, paragraph 0022).
However, the prior art of record fails to explicitly disclose wherein the testkey structure further comprises: a plurality of third diffusion regions, disposed in the substrate, at a first side of the first diffusion region and the second diffusion region, a plurality of third gates, disposed on the substrate, across the third diffusion regions and the second diffusion region respectively, a plurality of fourth diffusion regions, disposed in the substrate, at a second side of the first diffusion region and the second diffusion region, and the second side being opposite to the first side, and a plurality of fourth gates, disposed on the substrate, across the fourth diffusion regions respectively.
Claims 12-15 are allowable as they are dependent on Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art of record fails to disclose wherein the third spacing is different from the first spacing, and the third spacing and the first spacing are ranged from 40 nanometers to 50 nanometers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMNA F IQBAL whose telephone number is 571-272-1587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8.30 am - 5.30 pm EST.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/HAMNA FATHIMA IQBAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2817 02/25/2026
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817 March 7, 2026