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 .
Status of the Claims
Amendment filed 22 June 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 3, and 9-20 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 4-8 have been amended. Claims 21-34 have been added. Claims 1, 4-8, and 21-34 are pending.
Drawings
The amendments to the drawings were received on 22 June 2026. These amendments to the drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 5 and 24-29 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.
Claims 5 and 24 recite the limitation, “the dopant in the channel regions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 25-29 are rejected for merely containing the flaws of the parent claim.
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, 4, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0021676, hereinafter Kim ‘676) in view of Basker et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0341467, hereinafter Basker ‘467), both of record.
With respect to claim 1, Kim ‘676 teaches (FIG. 8) a transistor structure substantially as claimed, comprising:
a stack of nanoribbons (320, 381, and 391) spanning a distance between a first terminal (384) and a second terminal (394), wherein ends (381 and 391) of each of the nanoribbons comprise silicon and a channel region (320) of each of the nanoribbons between the ends comprises a transition metal and a chalcogen ([0067, 0099-0103]);
a gate electrode material (360) between adjacent ones of the nanoribbons (320, 381, and 391) and spanning a portion of the distance ([0099]); and
a gate insulator (340) between the channel region (320) of each of the nanoribbons (320, 381, and 391) and the gate electrode material (360) ([0099]).
Thus, Kim ‘676 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of a spacer material between the gate electrode material and the first terminal, between the gate electrode material and the second terminal, and between the ends of the adjacent ones of the nanoribbons.
However, Basker ‘467 teaches (FIG. 2G) a spacer material (26 and 28) between a gate electrode material (32) and a first terminal (29), between the gate electrode material and a second terminal (29), and between ends (38) of adjacent ones of nanoribbons (21 and 38) ([0027, 0031, 0035, 0040]) to function as a hard mask to protect underlying layers ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the transistor structure of Kim ‘676 further comprising a spacer material between the gate electrode material and the first terminal, between the gate electrode material and the second terminal, and between the ends of the adjacent ones of the nanoribbons as taught by Basker ‘467 to function as a hard mask to protect underlying layers.
With respect to claim 4, Kim ‘676 teaches wherein first and second contact regions (portions of channel region 320 contacting ends 381 and 391) of each of the nanoribbons (320, 381, and 391) are between the ends (381 and 391), the channel regions (320) are between the first and second contact regions, and the first and second contact regions comprise the transition metal and the chalcogen ([0069]).
With respect to claim 21, Kim ‘676 teaches wherein the transition metal is tungsten or molybdenum ([0067]).
With respect to claim 22, Kim ‘676 teaches wherein the ends (381 and 391) have a thickness greater than a thickness of the channel regions (320) ([0099, 0101-0102]).
With respect to claim 23, Kim ‘676 and Basker ‘467 teach (FIGs. 8 and 13 of Kim ‘676) comprising: an integrated circuit die (300 of Kim ‘676) comprising the stack of nanoribbons (320, 381, and 391 of Kim ‘676), the first terminal (384 of Kim ‘676), the second terminal (394 of Kim ‘676), the gate electrode material (360 of Kim ‘676), the gate insulator (340 of Kim ‘676), and the spacer material (26 and 28 of Basker ‘467) ([0099] of Kim ‘676; [0027] of Basker ‘467); and a power supply (504 of Kim ‘676) coupled to the integrated circuit die ([0140] of Kim ‘676).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ‘676 and Basker ‘467 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamazaki (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0133179, hereinafter Yamazaki ‘179) of record.
With respect to claim 8, Kim ‘676 and Basker ‘467 teach the device as described in claim 1 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein the first terminal or the second terminal comprises tungsten and oxygen.
However, Yamazaki ‘179 teaches tungsten oxide as a preferred material for source (108a) and drain (108b) electrodes ([0069]). Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first terminal or the second terminal of Kim ‘676 and Basker ‘467 comprising tungsten and oxygen as taught by Yamazaki ‘179 as preferred materials for source and drain electrodes and as a matter of selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the drawings are sufficient to overcome the objection to the drawings made in the non-final rejection filed 19 March 2026. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancelation of claim 10 is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 10-12 made in the non-final rejection filed 19 March 2026. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 10-12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
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 and 7 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.
Claims 24-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 30-34 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to teach the transistor structure of claims 5 and 24 in the combination of limitations as claimed, noting particularly the newly-presented limitations of the claims, “a first dopant concentration of the dopant in the first contact regions is greater than a second dopant concentration of the dopant in the channel regions,” and, “wherein a first dopant concentration of the dopant in the first and second contact regions is greater than a second dopant concentration of the dopant in the channel regions,” in combination with, “a stack of nanoribbons spanning a distance between a first terminal and a second terminal, wherein ends of each of the nanoribbons comprise silicon and a channel region of each of the nanoribbons between the ends comprises a transition metal and a chalcogen; [ ] wherein first and second contact regions of each of the nanoribbons are between the ends, the channel regions are between the first and second contact regions, and the first and second contact regions comprise the transition metal and the chalcogen [ ], wherein the first and second contact regions further comprise a dopant,” and, “a stack of nanoribbons spanning a distance between a first terminal and a second terminal, wherein ends of each of the nanoribbons comprise silicon, a channel region of each of the nanoribbons between the ends comprises a transition metal and a chalcogen, first and second contact regions of each of the nanoribbons are between the ends, the channel regions are between the first and second contact regions, and the first and second contact regions comprise the transition metal, the chalcogen, and a dopant,” respectively. Kim ‘676 represents the closest prior art of record. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above. However Kim ‘676 is silent to a first dopant concentration of a dopant in first and second contact regions (portions of channel region 320 contacting ends 381 and 391) being greater than a second dopant concentration of the dopant in channel regions (320). None of the other prior art references made of record cure this deficiency. Claims 25-29 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter based merely upon their dependences from claim 24 indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record fails to teach the transistor structure of claims 6, 28, and 30 in the combination of limitations as claimed, noting particularly the limitation, “the first and second contact regions comprise the transition metal and the chalcogen in a second crystalline phase different from the first crystalline phase.” Kim ‘676 represents the closest prior art of record. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above. However Kim ‘676 is silent to contact regions (portions of channel region 320 contacting ends 381 and 391) having a second crystalline phase different from a first crystalline phase of a channel region (320). None of the other prior art references made of record cure this deficiency. Claims 31-34 are allowed based merely upon their dependencies from allowed claim 30.
The prior art of record fails to teach the transistor structure of claim 7 in the combination of limitations as claimed, noting particularly the newly-presented limitation of the claim, “further comprising: a second spacer material on the spacer material, between adjacent ones of the first contact regions, and between adjacent ones of the second contact regions.” Kim ‘676 represents the closest prior art of record. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1 above. However Kim ‘676 is silent to spacer materials. Although Basker ‘467 teaches a spacer material (26 and 28), Basker ‘467 is silent to a second spacer material on the spacer material, between adjacent ones of the first contact regions, and between adjacent ones of the second contact regions. None of the other prior art references made of record cure this deficiency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights