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 without traverse of Group I, Species A1, represented by figure 6A-6D, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on March 26, 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of April 7, 2026, no information disclosure statement has been made of record.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Element 617 as discussed in ¶ 0090 is not shown in figures 6A-D.
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.
Specification Objections
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In ¶ 0090, Applicant discusses insulative structure 617. There is no 617 in figures 6A-6D.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4-7 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 4,
The term “the second transistor” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Applicant has not claimed “a second transistor”, therefore, Examiner does not know the structural relationship between the second transistor and the second structure.
For purposes of examination only Examiner will treat the limitation as being a relabeling of the second structure to a guard ring.
Regarding claim 5,
The terms “the first gate contact and the second gate contact” lack antecedent basis in the claim. Examiner cannot examine this claim without guessing with considerable speculation as to what the first gate contact is, what the second gate contact is, and their relationship to each other and the insulative structure. MPEP 2143.03 citing In re Steele 305 F.2d 859 (CCPA 1962), where an examiner should not simply speculate about the meaning of the claim language and then enter an obviousness rejection in view of that speculative interpretation. Further, Examiner cannot read the specification into the claims. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). Based upon the above Examiner cannot apply art as Examiner would be reading the specification into the claims and/or would be speculating as the meaning and structural relationship of the claim terms.
Regarding claims 6-7,
Claims 6-7 are rejected as they depend upon claim 5. Examiner cannot examine these claims as they are dependent upon claim 5, and therefore require the structure of claim 5.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (US 2018/0174904 A1) (“Hsieh”), in view of Song et al. (US 2015/0076704 A1) (“Song”).
Examiner note: The references will be combined as follows…
Hsieh teaches in figure 25 that source, drain, and gate contacts contacts/structures/electrodes can have a conductive core surrounded by an insulating material which may further be surrounded by an insulating material.
Song teaches in figure 13, that one can use different mandrel sizes (i.e. gate widths). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Song with Nagano as Nagano is silent with respect to forming the gate contacts on the gate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to combine the aforementioned references in order to form gate contacts on the different sized gates.
Examiner will now show how the prior art references read on the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art teaches:
a first layer (Hsieh, all of the structure of 62 and below), comprising (detailed below):
a first conductive structure (Hsieh 60; Song 1320/1322; hereinafter “A”), and
a second conductive structure (Hsieh 98; Song 1324; hereinafter “B”),
wherein the second conductive structure (B) is in parallel with the first conductive structure (A) in a first direction (vertical direction), and
a dimension of the second conductive structure (B) in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (horizontal direction) is greater than a dimension of the first conductive structure (A) in the second direction (horizontal direction);
a second layer (Hsieh above 62) over the first layer (Hsieh 62 and below),
the second layer (Hsieh above 62) comprising (detailed below):
a first structure (detailed below) over the first conductive structure (A),
the first structure (detailed below) comprising
a first dielectric material (Hsieh inner 92) (According to Hsieh ¶¶ 0022-23, and 29, element 92 may be formed of the same material as element 68/70. This means element 92 can be a multi-layered insulating structure. In Hsieh ¶ 0022 it is taught that the dielectric spacer layer maybe a multi-layer of SiO2 and SiN. Based upon this it is obvious that Hsieh 92 can comprise an inner 92 and an outer 92. This is consistent with the multi-layer disclosure.),
a second structure (detailed below) over the second conductive structure (B),
Regarding the, the second structure (detailed below) comprising
the first dielectric material (Hsieh inner 92), and
a third structure (Hsieh outer92) at least partially surrounding the second structure (Hsieh inner 92),
the third structure (Hsieh outer 92) comprising a second dielectric material that is different from the first dielectric material (As stated above, based upon the teachings of Hsieh it would have been obvious the outer 92 and inner 92 are different dielectric materials.).
Regarding claims 2-3, the prior art teaches:
Based upon the teachings of Hsieh it would have been obvious that the inner 92 could be SiO2 or SiN, and the outer 92 could be SiN, or SiO2.
Regarding claim 4,
The limitation of claim 4 does not add any new structural features to claim 1. Rather, it relabels the second structure to a guard ring. The inner 92 can be considered a guard ring as it guards against electrical shorting. Hsieh ¶ 0036.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898