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 with traverse of “Invention I (Claims 1-17)” in the reply filed on 04/15/2026, is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not patentably distinct and examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden; furthermore, applicant alleges that “the Examiner can not stablish a serious burden by simply copying exemplary reasons from the M.P.E.P. without applying those reasons to the present application”. The later is not found persuasive, because the Examiner did provide specific reasons that apply to the present application (please see within the Election/Restriction section of the office action filed on 02/18/2026 “in the instant case the product could be made by another and materially different process. Instead of disposing and subsequently removing a lower part of the metallization layer item 110, the product could be made using exclusively selective deposition processes, thereby forming the ILD item 125 and the metallization layer item 110 during the initial formation of the semiconductor structure”).
This is also not found persuasive since the inventions are distinct because the claims to the different inventions of a “backplate assembly” and a “method” recite mutually exclusive characteristics (different parts or components of a backplate assembly or a method) of such inventions. Therefore, the claims of inventions require separate searches in multiple fields, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Furthermore, the species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different subclasses or electronic resources or non-patent language, or deploying different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/15/2026.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The limitation “wherein the jumpers have a substantially convex shape” fails to particularly point out or define the level of curvature within the convex shape of the jumpers. According to Fig. 12, at least a 2:1 ratio of height to width is shown for the convex shaped jumpers.
Application will be examined with Claim 6 being best interpreted by the Examiner in the following manner:
wherein the jumpers have a convex shape with at least height to width ratio of 2:1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1-2,8-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 10,192,819 B1; Chanemougame et al.; 01/2019; (“819”).
Regarding Claim 1. 819 teaches in Figs. 1C and 1E about a semiconductor structure comprising:
backside contacts (Fig. 1E, backside contact items 161 and 162) with jumpers (Fig. 1E, items 161 and 162 are connected by jumper item 171); and
frontside back-end-of-line (BEOL) components (Fig. 1C, components within the area BEOL Metal Levels) electrically connected to the backside contacts by one or more deep via contacts (Fig. 1C, frontside back-end-of-line components are electrically connected to at least backside contact 163 by a deep via contact composed of items 193 and 199).
PNG
media_image1.png
496
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1E, annotated by Examiner from Chanemougame et al., “819”
Regarding Claim 2. 819 teaches in Fig. 1E about a semiconductor structure, wherein the jumpers electrically connect a plurality of source/drain (S/D) regions (item 171 connects S/D region items 112a and 132b).
Regarding Claim 8. 819 teaches in Fig. 1A about a semiconductor structure, wherein the semiconductor structure further includes stacked field effect transistors (FETs) (semiconductor structure item 150 includes stacked FET items 110 and 120).
Regarding Claim 9. 819 teaches in Fig. 1B about a semiconductor structure, wherein the stacked field effect transistors (FETs) are vertically offset from the jumpers (stacked FET items 110 and 120 are vertically offset from jumper and backside contact items 171 and 161 respectively).
Regarding Claim 10. 819 teaches in Figs. 1A,1C and 1E about a semiconductor structure comprising:
stacked field effect transistors (FETs) (Fig. 1A, semiconductor structure item 150 includes stacked FET items 110 and 120);
backside contacts (Fig. 1E, backside contact items 161 and 162) with jumpers (Fig. 1E, items 161 and 162 are connected by jumper item 171); and
frontside back-end-of-line (BEOL) components (Fig. 1C, components within the area BEOL Metal Levels) electrically connected to the backside contacts by one or more deep via contacts (Fig. 1C, frontside back-end-of-line components are electrically connected to at least backside contact 163 by a deep via contact composed of items 193 and 199).
Regarding Claim 11. Same as rejection for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17. Same as rejection for claim 9.
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 3-6 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 10,192,819 B1; Chanemougame et al.; 01/2019; (“819”) in view of US 2021/0098306 A1; Smith et al.; 04/2021; (“306”).
Regarding Claim 3. 819 teaches in Fig. 1C about a semiconductor structure, wherein at least one of the backside contacts is electrically connected to the frontside back-end-of-line (BEOL) components.
819 does not teach about a semiconductor structure, wherein at least one of the backside contacts is electrically connected to a backside power rail.
306 teaches in Fig. 2 about a semiconductor structure, wherein at least one of the backside contacts is electrically connected to a backside power rail (backside contact item 218a is electrically connected to backside power rail item 204a).
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the
invention was made, to consider utilizing the backside contacts electrically connected to a backside power rail of 306 to reduce the power line to source distance in 819 in order to deliver power to the S/D regions with minimized line loses as taught by 306 in Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 4. 306 teaches in Fig. 2 about a semiconductor structure, wherein at least one of the backside contacts (item 218a) is electrically connected to a backside power delivery network (BSPDN) (item 218a is connected to a network of power delivery including at least items 204a-204d).
Regarding Claim 5. 306 teaches in Fig. 2 about a semiconductor structure, wherein at least one of the backside contacts has a first height (height of the lowermost part of item 218a) and at least one of the backside contacts has a second height (height of the lowermost part of item 218b), where the second height is greater than the first height (height of lowermost part of item 218b is greater than height of lowermost part of item 218a).
Regarding Claim 6. 306 teaches in Fig. 2 about a semiconductor structure, wherein the jumpers have a half-concave shape on each lateral side with at least height to width ratio of 2:1.
306 does not teach about a semiconductor structure, wherein the jumpers have a convex shape with at least height to width ratio of 2:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have experimented with different jumper shapes including at least concave and convex shapes, since it has been held that adjusting the shape of an article involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 12. Same as rejection for claim 3.
Regarding Claim 13. Same as rejection for claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14. Same as rejection for claim 5.
Regarding Claim 15. Same as rejection for claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 16 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, since the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE ANDRES LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:30am to 5:00pm).
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/JORGE ANDRES LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights