CTNF 17/940,195 CTNF 90678 2814 DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to application No. 17/940,195 filed on September 08, 2022. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/23/2026 with the associated claims filed on 04/15/2026 responding to the Office action mailed on 02/23/2026 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2023/0141523) . Regarding Claim 1 , Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches an integrated circuit comprising: a first semiconductor material 108’-1 extending between a first source region 178-1 and a first drain region 178-1 (see, e.g., pars. 0075, 0084); a first subregion 104B below the first semiconductor material 108’-1 (see, e.g., par. 0036); a second semiconductor material 108’-2 extending between a second source region 178-2 and a second drain region 178-2 (see, e.g., pars. 0075, 0084); a second subregion 104B below the second semiconductor material 108’-2 (see, e.g., par. 0036); a dielectric fill 116 directly between the first subregion 104B and the second subregion 104B , wherein the first semiconductor material 108’-1 and the second semiconductor material 108’-2 are above a top surface of the dielectric fill 116 (see, e.g., par. 0039); a gate structure 188 extending over the first semiconductor material 108’-1 , the gate structure 188 comprising a gate dielectric 190/192 and a gate electrode 194 , wherein the gate dielectric 190/192 is directly on the first semiconductor material 108’-1 (see, e.g., pars. 0092, 0097); and a layer 118B directly on the top surface of the dielectric fill 116 and extending an entire distance between the first subregion 104B and the second subregion 104B , wherein the gate dielectric 190/192 is on the layer 118B and has a different material composition than the layer 118B (see, e.g., pars. 0043, 0093, 0095). Regarding Claim 2 , Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the first semiconductor material 108’-1 comprises one or more first nanoribbons and the second semiconductor material 108’-2 comprises one or more second nanoribbons (see, e.g., par. 0084). Regarding Claim 3 , Chen teaches all aspects of claim 2. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the one or more first and second nanoribbons comprise silicon, germanium, or a combination thereof (see, e.g., par. 0034). Regarding Claim 6 , Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches a gate cut 124a through a portion of the gate structure 188 , the gate cut 124a interrupting the gate structure 188 between the first semiconductor material 108’-1 and the second semiconductor material 108’-2 , wherein the gate cut 124a comprises a dielectric material (see, e.g., par. 0115). Regarding Claim 7 , Chen teaches all aspects of claim 6. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the gate cut 124a is on the layer 118B (see, e.g., par. 0115). Regarding Claim 8 , Chen teaches all aspects of claim 6. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the layer 118B does not extend up any sidewall of the gate cut 124a (see, e.g., par. 0115). Regarding Claim 9 , Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the gate dielectric 190/192 comprises high-k dielectric material (see, e.g., par. 0095) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 5, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2023/0141523) in view of Lee (US 2023/0411520) . Regarding Claim 4 , Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the layer comprises a metal and oxygen. Chen discloses the claimed invention except for the use of SiN, SiOC for the layer instead of metal and oxygen (see, e.g., par. 0043). Lee (see, e.g., par. 0023), on the other hand teaches that aluminum oxide and silicon nitride, silicon oxycarbide are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these diffusion barrier materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute aluminum oxide for silicon nitride, silicon oxycarbide since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007) . Regarding Claim 5 , Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the layer comprises oxygen and any one of aluminum, titanium, or zinc. Chen discloses the claimed invention except for the use of SiN, SiOC for the layer instead of oxygen and aluminum (see, e.g., par. 0043). Lee (see, e.g., par. 0023), on the other hand teaches that aluminum oxide and silicon nitride, silicon oxycarbide are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these diffusion barrier materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute aluminum oxide for silicon nitride, silicon oxycarbide since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007) . Regarding Claim 11 , Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches an integrated circuit comprising: a first semiconductor device having a first semiconductor material 108’-1 extending between a first source region 178-1 and a first drain region 178-1 , a first subregion 104B adjacent to a dielectric fill 116 , and a first gate structure 188-1a extending over the first semiconductor material 108’-1 , the first semiconductor material 108’-1 being above a top surface of the dielectric fill 116 (see, e.g., pars. 0036, 0039, 0075, 0084, 0092, 0097); a second semiconductor device having a second semiconductor material 108’-2 extending between a second source region 178-2 and a second drain region 178-2 , a second subregion 104B adjacent to the dielectric fill 116 , and a second gate structure 188-2a extending over the second semiconductor material 108’-2 , the second semiconductor material 108’-2 being above a top surface of the dielectric fill 116 (see, e.g., pars. 0036, 0039, 0075, 0084, 0092, 0097); and a barrier layer 118B directly on the top surface of the dielectric fill 116 and extending an entire distance between the first subregion 104B and the second subregion 104B , wherein the first gate structure 188-1a includes a first gate dielectric 190/192 on a first portion of the barrier layer 118B and the second gate structure 188-2a includes a second gate dielectric 190/192 on a second portion of the barrier layer 118B (see, e.g., Fig. 3B). Chen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the barrier layer comprises oxygen and a metal. Chen discloses the claimed invention except for the use of SiN, SiOC for the barrier layer instead of oxygen and a metal (see, e.g., par. 0043). Lee (see, e.g., par. 0023), on the other hand teaches that aluminum oxide and silicon nitride, silicon oxycarbide are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these diffusion barrier materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute aluminum oxide for silicon nitride, silicon oxycarbide since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007) . Regarding Claim 12 , Chen and Lee teach all aspects of claim 11. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the first semiconductor material 108’-1 comprises one or more first nanoribbons and the second semiconductor material 108’-2 comprises one or more second nanoribbons (see, e.g., par. 0084). Regarding Claim 13 , Chen and Lee teach all aspects of claim 11. Lee teaches that the metal of the barrier layer comprises aluminum. See also the comments stated above in claim 11 regarding equivalent materials which are considered repeated here. Regarding Claim 14 , Chen and Lee teach all aspects of claim 11. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the first gate structure 188-1a further comprises a first gate electrode 194 , the first gate dielectric 190/192 being on the first semiconductor material 108’-1 and the first gate electrode 194 being on the first gate dielectric 190/192 , and the second gate structure 188-2a further comprises a second gate electrode 194 , the second gate dielectric 190/192 being on the second semiconductor material 108’-2 and the second gate electrode 194 being on the second gate dielectric 190/192 (see, e.g., par. 0092). Regarding Claim 15 , Chen and Lee teach all aspects of claim 11. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches a gate cut structure 124a , the gate cut structure 124a being between the first gate structure 188-1a and the second gate structure 188-2a , wherein the gate cut structure 124a comprises a dielectric material, wherein the gate cut structure 124a is on the barrier layer 118B , and wherein the barrier layer 118B does not extend up any sidewall of the gate cut structure 124a (see, e.g., par. 0115) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2023/0141523) in view of Mukherjee (US 2014/0070320) . Regarding Claim 10 , Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen is silent with respect to the claim limitation of a printed circuit board. Mukherjee (see, e.g., Figs. 10-11), on the other hand, teaches a printed circuit board and a component coupled to the board to achieve a mobile computing platform which employs logic and analog FinFETs (see, e.g., pars. 0039-0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a printed board comprising the integrated circuit of Chen’s device, as taught by Mukherjee, to achieve a mobile computing platform which employs logic and analog FinFETs . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2023/0141523) in view of Mukherjee (US 2014/0070320) and Lee (US 2023/0411520) . Regarding Claim 16 , Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches an electronic device, comprising: at least one of the one or more dies comprising a first semiconductor material 108’-1 extending between a first source region 178-1 and a first drain region 178-1 (see, e.g., par. 0032, 0075, 0084); a first subregion 104B below the first semiconductor material 108’-1 and adjacent to a dielectric fill 116 (see, e.g., pars. 0036, 0039); a second semiconductor material 108’-2 extending between a second source region 178-2 and a second drain region 178-2 (see, e.g., pars. 0075, 0084); a second subregion 104B below the second semiconductor material 108’-2 and adjacent to the dielectric fill 116 (see, e.g., pars. 0036, 0039); and a gate structure 188 extending over the first semiconductor material 108’-1 , the gate structure 188 comprising a gate electrode 194 and a gate dielectric 190/192 (see, e.g., pars. 0092, 0097); and a barrier layer 118B directly on the top surface of the dielectric fill 116 and extending an entire distance between the first subregion 104B and the second subregion 104B , wherein the gate dielectric 190/192 is on the barrier layer 118B and has a different material composition than the barrier layer 118B (see, e.g., pars. 0043, 0093, 0095). Chen is silent with respect to the claim limitations of a chip package comprising one or more dies and that the barrier layer comprises oxygen and a metal. Mukherjee (see, e.g., Figs. 10-11), on the other hand, teaches a chip package comprising one or more dies, at least one of the one or more dies comprising a semiconductor device, to achieve a mobile computing platform which employs logic and analog FinFETs (see, e.g., pars. 0039-0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include in the integrated circuit of Jung, a chip package comprising one or more dies, at least one of the one or more dies comprising a semiconductor device, as taught by Mukherjee, to achieve a mobile computing platform which employs logic and analog FinFETs. Chen discloses the claimed invention except for the use of SiN, SiOC for the barrier layer instead of oxygen and a metal (see, e.g., par. 0043). Lee (see, e.g., par. 0023), on the other hand teaches that aluminum oxide and silicon nitride, silicon oxycarbide are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these diffusion barrier materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute aluminum oxide for silicon nitride, silicon oxycarbide since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007) . Regarding Claim 17 , Chen, Mukherjee, and Lee teach all aspects of claim 16. Lee teaches that the metal of the barrier layer comprises aluminum. See also the comments stated above in claim 11 regarding equivalent materials which are considered repeated here. Regarding Claim 18 , Chen, Mukherjee, and Lee teach all aspects of claim 16. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the gate dielectric 190/192 is on the first semiconductor material 108’-1 and the gate electrode 194 is on the gate dielectric 190/192 . Regarding Claim 19 , Chen, Mukherjee, and Lee teach all aspects of claim 16. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the at least one of the one or more dies further comprises a gate cut structure 124a , the gate cut structure 124a interrupting the gate structure 188 between the first semiconductor material 108’-1 and the second semiconductor material 108’-2 , wherein the gate cut structure 124a comprises a dielectric material (see, e.g., par. 0115). Regarding Claim 20 , Chen, Mukherjee, and Lee teach all aspects of claim 19. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 3A), teaches that the gate cut structure 124a is on the barrier layer 118B , and wherein the barrier layer 118B does not extend up any sidewall of the gate cut structure 124a (see, e.g., par. 0115). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/15/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garcés whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Nelson Garces/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 2 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 3 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 4 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 5 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 6 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 7 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 8 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 9 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 10 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 11 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 12 Art Unit: 2814 Application/Control Number: 17/940,195 (Non-Final Rejection) Page 13 Art Unit: 2814
Prosecution Insights