DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 1-6, 9-11, 13-14, 23, and 25-27 is/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 claims 1 and 9, the limitation “a top sheet epitaxy” is unclear as to how it is related to “a source region and a drain region.” Specifically, as disclosed the two recited elements appear to be the same element. Accordingly, it is unclear as to if two elements are required.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, the limitation “an (a bottom sheet source/drain) epitaxy material” is unclear as to how it is related to “a source region and a drain region.” Specifically, as disclosed the two recited elements appear to be the same element. Accordingly, it is unclear as to if two elements are required.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 26, the limitation “substantially” renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the limitation “the sheet semiconductor layers comprising a first region of the nanosheets at a first height and a second region of the nanosheets at a second height, wherein the second height is less than the first height,” is unclear as to how the regions are related to the upper sheet portion of the stack and the lower sheets recited in claims 1 and 9, respectively.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “a first contact a top sheet epitaxy” appears to contain a typographical error which renders the meaning of the limitation indefinite.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation a source region and a drain region,” is unclear as to how it is related to the “source/drain epitaxy.”
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “the sheet semiconductor layers comprising a first region of the nanosheets at a first height and a second region of the nanosheets at a second height, wherein the second height is less than the first height,” is unclear as to how the regions are related to the upper sheet portion of the stack and the lower sheets recited in claims 21 and 24.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-11, 13-14, and 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (US 11069684; herein “Xie”) in view of Shah et al. (US 20230207655; herein “Shah”).
Regarding claim 1, Xie teaches in Fig. 14 and related text a semiconductor device comprising:
a stack of sheet semiconductor layers (106a/b, see col. 4 line 60), wherein the stack of sheet semiconductor layers comprises a channel region (110);
a source region and a drain region (126/130, see col. 7 line 52 and col. 8 line 50) positioned on opposing sides (see Fig. 1 and related text) of the channel region,
a first contact (138, see col. 9 line 42-43) to a top sheet epitaxy, where the top sheet epitaxy (130) is in contact with an upper sheet portion of the stack of sheet semiconductor layers (106b);
an epitaxial material (126), wherein the epitaxial material is in contact with the lower sheets of the stack of sheet semiconductor layers; and
a second contact (140, see col. 9 line 43).
Xie does not explicitly disclose
an extended epitaxial semiconductor region in contact with the epitaxial material, wherein the extended epitaxial semiconductor region is extended above an upper surface of the epitaxial material;
the second contact in direct contact with an upper surface of the extended epitaxial semiconductor region.
In the same field of endeavor, Shah teaches in Fig. 2A-B and related text a semiconductor device comprising
an extended epitaxial semiconductor region (e.g. 244, see [0042]) in contact with the epitaxial material (240, see [0042]), wherein the extended epitaxial semiconductor region is extended above an upper surface of the epitaxial material;
the second contact (248/252, see [0045]) in direct contact with an upper surface of the extended epitaxial semiconductor region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Xie by having an extended epitaxial semiconductor region in contact with the epitaxial material, wherein the extended epitaxial semiconductor region is extended above an upper surface of the epitaxial material and the second contact in direct contact with an upper surface of the extended epitaxial semiconductor region, as taught by Shah, in order to provide for a low resistance contact and to provide protection to the epitaxial material during manufacturing (see Shah, abstract at least).
Regarding claim 2, the combined device shows wherein the sheet semiconductor layers (Xie: 106a/b) are nanosheets (col. 4 line 60), and wherein the top sheet epitaxy and the extended epitaxial semiconductor region have substantially the same height (Xie: e.g. the bottom of 130 and the top of 126).
Regarding claim 3, Xie further disclose wherein the sheet semiconductor layers comprising a first region of the nanosheets (106b) at a first height and a second region of nanosheets (106a) at a second height, wherein the second height is less than the first height.
Regarding claim 4, Xie further discloses wherein the epitaxy material (126) is a bottom sheet source/drain epitaxy material (see col. 7 lines 51-55).
Regarding claim 5, the combined device shows the extended epitaxial semiconductor region has a higher dopant concentration for n-type or p-type dopant than the bottom sheet source/drain epitaxy material (e.g. boron dopant, see [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Xie further discloses wherein a portion of the source region of a portion of the drain region is doped to an n- type or p-type conductivity (see col. 7 lines 51-55 and col. 8 lines 54-56).
Regarding claim 9, Xie and Shah teach the claim invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 10-11, 13-14, Xie and Shah further teach the claimed limitation in the same manner as applied to claims 2-3, 5-6 above.
Regarding claim 21, 23, and 24, Xie and Shah teach the claim invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 22, 25-27, Xie and Shah further teach the claimed limitation in the same manner as applied to claims 2-3, 5, and 6 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/4/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights