Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/884,636

PMOSFET SOURCE DRAIN

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 10, 2022
Examiner
NARAGHI, ALI
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
666 granted / 771 resolved
+18.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
795
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
61.6%
+21.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
13.1%
-26.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 771 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the independent claims are not independent of each and there is no serious burden of search. Examiner has agreed with applicant, thereby the restriction requirement is withdrawn. 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reznicek (US Patent No. 10256301), in view of Lee et al (US Pub No. 20210082914). With respect to claim 1, Reznicek discloses forming a stack (105,107,Fig.1) over a substrate (102), wherein the stack comprises a plurality of channel layers (105) interleaved by a plurality of sacrificial layers (107); forming a fin-shaped structure from the stack and the substrate (Fig.2), the fin-shaped structure comprising a channel region (105) and a source/drain region (between 110,Fig.2); recessing the source/drain region to form a source/drain trench that exposes sidewalls of the plurality of channel layers and the plurality of sacrificial layers (Fig.3); selectively and partially recessing the plurality of sacrificial layers to form a plurality of inner spacer recesses (Fig.4); forming a plurality of inner spacer features in the plurality of inner spacer recesses (121,Fig.7); after the forming of the plurality of inner spacer features forming source and drain features (140,Fig.8). However, Reznicek does not explicitly disclose depositing an outer epitaxial layer in the source/drain trench, the outer epitaxial layer comprising a first p- type dopant; and depositing an inner epitaxial layer over the outer epitaxial layer, the inner epitaxial layer comprising a second p-type dopant different from the first p-type dopant, wherein the inner epitaxial layer is spaced apart from the plurality of channel layers by the outer epitaxial layer. On the other hand, Lee et al discloses depositing an outer epitaxial layer (142,Fig.13A) in the source/drain trench (Fig.13A), the outer epitaxial layer comprising a first p- type dopant (Para 43); and depositing an inner epitaxial layer over the outer epitaxial layer (144), the inner epitaxial layer comprising a second p-type dopant different from the first p-type dopant (para 48), wherein the inner epitaxial layer is spaced apart from the plurality of channel layers(NS) by the outer epitaxial layer (Fg.13A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Reznicek according to the teachings of the Lee et al such that depositing an outer epitaxial layer in the source/drain trench, the outer epitaxial layer comprising a first p- type dopant; and depositing an inner epitaxial layer over the outer epitaxial layer, the inner epitaxial layer comprising a second p-type dopant different from the first p-type dopant, wherein the inner epitaxial layer is spaced apart from the plurality of channel layers by the outer epitaxial layer, in order to reduce the short channel effect and a reliable source and drain structure to improve the device performance. The arts cite above do not explicitly disclose forming a fin shaped structure from the stack. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that a fin like structure is formed from the stack With respect to claim 2, Lee et al discloses wherein the plurality of channel layers comprise germanium (Ge) (Para 26) and the plurality of sacrificial layers comprise silicon germanium (SiGe) (Para 81). With respect to claim 3, Lee et al discloses wherein the outer epitaxial layer and the inner epitaxial layer comprise germanium (Ge) (Para 47) or germanium tin (GeSn). With respect to claim 4, Lee et al discloses wherein the first p-type dopant comprises boron (B) (Para 43) and the second p-type dopant comprises gallium (Ga). With respect to claim 5, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein a doping concentration of the first p-type dopant in the outer epitaxial layer is between about 5x10¹⁹ atoms/cm³ and about 5x10²⁰ atoms/cm³. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that the first p-type dopant in the outer epitaxial layer is between about 5x10¹⁹ atoms/cm³ and about 5x10²⁰ atoms/cm³, in order to adjust the resistivity of the outer epitaxial layer to a desired value. With respect to claim 6, wherein a doping concentration of the second p-type dopant in the inner epitaxial layer is between about 3x10²⁰ atoms/cm³ and about 1x10²¹ atoms/cm³. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that the second p-type dopant in the inner epitaxial layer is between about 3x10²⁰ atoms/cm³ and about 1x10²¹ atoms/cm³, in order to adjust the resistivity of the inner epitaxial layer to a desired value. With respect to claim 7, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein the outer epitaxial layer comprises a thickness between about 1 nm and about 6 nm. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that outerepitaxial layer comprises a thickness between about 1 nm and about 6 nm, in order to minimize the size of the device; thereby saving space. With respect to claim 8, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein the inner epitaxial layer comprises a thickness between about 1 nm and about 6 nm. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that innerepitaxial layer comprises a thickness between about 1 nm and about 6 nm, in order to minimize the size of the device; thereby saving space. With respect to claim 9, Reznicek discloses forming a stack (105,107) over a substrate (102), wherein the stack comprises a plurality of channel layers (105) interleaved by a plurality of sacrificial layers (107); forming a fin-shaped structure from the stack and the substrate (Fig.2), the fin-shaped structure comprising a channel region (105) and a source/drain region (between 110); recessing the source/drain region to form a source/drain trench that exposes sidewalls of the plurality of channel layers (Fig.3) and the plurality of sacrificial layers (107); selectively and partially recessing the plurality of sacrificial layers to form a plurality of inner spacer recesses (Fig.4); forming a plurality of inner spacer features in the plurality of inner spacer recesses (121,Fig.7); after the forming of the plurality of inner spacer features, depositing source and drain features (140,Fig.8). However, Reznicek does not explicitly disclose depositing an outer epitaxial layer in the source/drain trench, the outer epitaxial layer being doped with boron (B); and depositing an inner epitaxial layer over the outer epitaxial layer, the inner epitaxial layer being doped with gallium (Ga), wherein the inner epitaxial layer is spaced apart from the plurality of channel layers by the outer epitaxial layer. On the other hand, Lee et al discloses depositing an outer epitaxial layer in the source/drain trench (142,Fig.13A), the outer epitaxial layer being doped with boron (B) (Para 43); and depositing an inner epitaxial layer over the outer epitaxial layer (144), the outer epitaxial layer is doped (Para 43-48), wherein the inner epitaxial layer is spaced apart from the plurality of channel layers by the outer epitaxial layer (Fig.13A). The arts cited above do not explicitly disclose the inner epitaxial layer being doped with gallium (Ga). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited to use Ga instead of boron to dope the inner epitaxial layer since they are interchangeable or as a design choice. The arts cite above do not explicitly disclose forming a fin shaped structure from the stack. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that a fin like structure is formed from the stack With respect to claim 10, Lee et al discloses wherein the plurality of channel layers comprise germanium (Ge) (para 26) and the plurality of sacrificial layers comprise silicon germanium (SiGe) (para 81). With respect to claim 11, Lee et al discloses wherein the outer epitaxial layer and the inner epitaxial layer comprise germanium (Ge) (Para 47) or germanium tin (GeSn). With respect to claim 12, Reznicek discloses forming a dummy gate stack (110) over the channel region (Fig.2) of the fin-shaped structure (Fig.2); depositing a gate spacer layer over the dummy gate stack (120); removing the dummy gate stack (Fig.9); selectively removing the plurality of sacrificial layers in the channel region (it is replaced by 150); and forming a gate structure around each of the plurality of channel layers in the channel region (Fig.9). With respect to claim 13, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein a doping concentration of boron (B) in the outer epitaxial layer is between about 5x10¹⁹ atoms/cm³ and about 5x10²⁰ atoms/cm³. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that boron in the outer epitaxial layer is between about 5x10¹⁹ atoms/cm³ and about 5x10²⁰ atoms/cm³, in order to adjust the resistivity of the outer epitaxial layer to a desired value. With respect to claim 14, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein a doping concentration of gallium (Ga) in the inner epitaxial layer is between about 3x10²⁰ atoms/cm³ and about 1x10²¹ atoms/cm³. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that a doping concentration of gallium (Ga) in the inner epitaxial layer is between about 3x10²⁰ atoms/cm³ and about 1x10²¹ atoms/cm³ in order to adjust the resistivity of the inner epitaxial layer to a desired value. With respect to claim 15, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein the outer epitaxial layer comprises a thickness between about 1 nm and about 6 nm, wherein the inner epitaxial layer comprises a thickness between about 1 nm and about 6 nm. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). With respect to claim 16, Reznicek discloses forming a stack (105,107,Fig.1) over a substrate (102), wherein the stack comprises a plurality of channel layers (105) interleaved by a plurality of sacrificial layers (107); forming a fin-shaped structure from the stack and the substrate (Fig.2), the fin-shaped structure comprising a channel region (Fig.3) and a source/drain region (between 110,Fig.2); forming a dummy gate stack (110) over the channel region of the fin-shaped structure; depositing a gate spacer layer over the dummy gate stack (120); recessing the source/drain region to form a source/drain trench that exposes sidewalls of the plurality of channel layers (Fig.3) and the plurality of sacrificial layers (Fig.3); selectively and partially recessing the plurality of sacrificial layers to form a plurality of inner spacer recesses (Fig.4); forming a plurality of inner spacer features in the plurality of inner spacer recesses (121,Fig.7); removing the dummy gate stack (Fig.8-9); selectively removing the plurality of sacrificial layers in the channel region (Fig.9); and forming a gate structure around each of the plurality of channel layers in the channel region (150,Fig.9). However, Reznicek does not explicitly disclose depositing an outer epitaxial layer in the source/drain trench, the outer epitaxial layer comprising a first p-type dopant; depositing an inner epitaxial layer over the outer epitaxial layer, the inner epitaxial layer comprising a second p-type dopant different from the first p-type dopant; wherein the plurality of channel layers comprise germanium (Ge) and the plurality of sacrificial layers comprise silicon germanium (SiGe). On the other hand, Lee et al discloses depositing an outer epitaxial layer in the source/drain trench (142,Fig.13A), the outer epitaxial layer comprising a first p-type dopant (Para 43); depositing an inner epitaxial layer over the outer epitaxial layer (144), the inner epitaxial layer comprising a second p-type dopant different from the first p-type dopant (Para 43-48); wherein the plurality of channel layers comprise germanium (Ge) (Para 26) and the plurality of sacrificial layers comprise silicon germanium (SiGe) (Para 81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Reznicek according to the teachings of the Lee et al such that an outer epitaxial layer in the source/drain trench, the outer epitaxial layer comprising a first p-type dopant; depositing an inner epitaxial layer over the outer epitaxial layer, the inner epitaxial layer comprising a second p-type dopant different from the first p-type dopant; wherein the plurality of channel layers comprise germanium (Ge) and the plurality of sacrificial layers comprise silicon germanium (SiGe), in order to make effective source and drain structure for P-type transistors, and having different material for the channel and sacrificial layers would make the sacrificial material more selective for a particular etching, thereby the channel structure would be intact during the etching of the sacrificial layes. With respect to claim 17, Lee et al discloses wherein the first p-type dopant comprises boron (B) (Para 43-48). However, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose and the second p-type dopant comprises gallium (Ga).However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that gallium is used instead of boron because they are interchangeable or as a design choice. With respect to claim 18, Reznicek in view of Lee et al discloses wherein the depositing of the outer epitaxial layer (Fig13A) comprises depositing the outer epitaxial layer over the plurality of inner spacer features (Fig.9, this is accordance to applicants specification). With respect to claim 19, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein a doping concentration of the boron in the outer epitaxial layer is between about 5x10¹⁹ atoms/cm³ and about 5x10²⁰ atoms/cm³. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the arts cited above such that the first boron in the outer epitaxial layer is between about 5x10¹⁹ atoms/cm³ and about 5x10²⁰ atoms/cm³, in order to adjust the resistivity of the outer epitaxial layer to a desired value. With respect to claim 20, the arts cited above do not explicitly disclose wherein a doping concentration of gallium (Ga) in the inner epitaxial layer is between about 3x10²⁰ atoms/cm³ and about 1x10²¹ atoms/cm³. However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have the concentration of the gallium in the inner layer accordance to claim 20, in order to adjust the resistivity of the source or drain region to a desired value. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI N NARAGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5720. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm. 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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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. /ALI NARAGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 10, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 05, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 05, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604552
CONTACT ETCH STOP LAYER FOR A PIXEL SENSOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604748
CAPACITOR PADS AND METHODS OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604553
IMAGE SENSORS INCLUDING PIXEL ISOLATION STRUCTURE INCLUDING DOUBLE TRENCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604775
SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP AND SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598828
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+6.3%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 771 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