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 Invention I and Species 2 (encompassing claims 1-13, 17-18, and 21) in the reply filed on 12/15/25 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 2/15/23. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “176” has been used to designate both “gate dielectric layer” and “ILD layer” (see e.g., [0076] of the Specification).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first metal gate and the second metal gate have top surfaces level with a top surface of the second dielectric wall” (subject matter of claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 7-9 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.
Claim 5 recites the first metal gate and the second metal gate have top surfaces “level” with a top surface of the second dielectric wall. Examiner notes that a special definition of the term “level” has not been found within the Specification as-filed but a plain definition of the adjective “level” is “having no part higher than another” or “even or unvarying in height” (Webster’s Online Dictionary).
Examiner notes that the first and second metal gates correspond to 82N and 82P (Fig. 29B) and the second dielectric wall corresponds to 168b (Fig. 29B) within the elected Species. As can be seen in reproduced Fig. 29B below, the first and second metal gates (82N and 82P, Fig. 29B) appear to be level with one another and the top surface of the dielectric layer (176, Fig. 29B) (see also Specification at [0057]) since they are at the same height but are not level or at the same height as the second dielectric wall (168b, Fig. 29B). Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner if Applicant is intending the term “level” to be something other than its ordinary definition.
PNG
media_image1.png
271
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7-9 recite the term “about”. The term "about" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite; it 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. “About” is defined as "almost or nearly—used to indicate that a number, amount, time, etc., is not exact or certain” (see Merriam Webster online dictionary). The term “about” modifies a target, and implicitly requires boundaries at some maximum value above the target and at some minimum value below the target beyond which one is not “about” the target any more. Neither the claims, nor the specification, defines these boundaries. Thus, it is unclear whether one must be within some small percentage of deviation of the target (such as 0.01 %, 0.1 %, 1 %, 2 %, 5 %, 10 %, or some other percentage) or within a certain number of units of the target and specifically which of these possible values defines the boundaries. If one were to poll 100 people having ordinary skill in the art, there would be many different responses for the boundaries. Thus, determining whether one is infringing the limitation is subjective, rather than objective, and thus the claim is unclear. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-13, 17-18, and 21 are allowed.
Claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitation the first dielectric wall has a gradually decreasing width W5 towards a tip of the dielectric wall from a top contact position between the first dielectric wall and either the n-type source/drain region or the p-type source/drain region in combination with the other elements of the claim. Claims 2-4 and 10-13 depend on claim 1.
Claim 17 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitation of a first dielectric wall formed between each pair of immediately adjacent n-type source/drain region and p-type source/drain region, wherein the first dielectric wall has a height gradually decreasing from a center to a periphery thereof in combination with the other elements of the claim. Claim 18 depends on claim 17.
Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter because of the limitation wherein first dielectric wall is shorter than the second dielectric wall and the first dielectric wall has a rounding top portion in combination with the other elements of the claim.
The closest prior art is Xie et al. (U.S. 2023/0095140 A1; “Xie”). Xie discloses a semiconductor device, comprising: a first dielectric wall (26, Fig. 13B) between an n-type source/drain region (40, Fig. 13B) and a p-type source/drain region (28, Fig. 13B) to physically and electrically isolate the n-type source/drain region and the p-type source/drain region from each other ([0097]); and, a second dielectric wall (26, Fig. 13C) between a first channel region (16 within nFET, Fig. 13C) connected to the n-type source/drain region and a second channel region (16 within pFET, Fig. 13) connected to the p-type source/drain region ([0112]). Xie does not teach the first dielectric wall has a gradually decreasing width W5 towards a tip of the dielectric wall from a top contact position between the first dielectric wall, and/or the first dielectric wall has a height gradually decreasing from a center to a periphery thereof, and/or first dielectric wall is shorter than the second dielectric wall, and the first dielectric wall has a rounding top portion and these limitations are not made obvious in view of the prior art.
Claims 7-9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REEMA PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm EST.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/REEMA PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 3/5/2026
Prosecution Insights