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 III, claims 18-20 in the “Amendment And Response To Non-Final Office Action” filed on December 15, 2025 is acknowledged and noted for clarity of the written record. This constructive election of the invention of Group III, claims 18-20 and the consequent previous withdrawal of claims 21-37 from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention in the Office Action dated January 2, 2026 (hereinafter the “Office Action”) is also noted for clarity of the written record.
Amended independent claims 21 and 31 and their dependent claims 25, 26, 30, 32-35, 37, and 38 remain directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed in the elected invention of Group III, claims 18-20, classified in H10D 30/01, for at least the following reasons. For example, the invention of claims 21, 25, 26, 30, and 38, classified in H10W 74/019, requires “forming a supporting structure interfacing the channel layer” and “wherein the bottom source/drain feature interfaces the supporting structure layer” which is a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect than the claimed invention of Group III, claims 18-20 which does not require this step and limitation (please see, MPEP §806.05(j) and §802.01). As another example, the invention of claims 31-35, and 37, classified in H10D 84/0188, requires “removing a portion of the channel layer to form a trench” which is a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect than the claimed invention of Group III, claims 18-20 which does not require this step. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for at least the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
Because Applicant has received two actions on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21, 25, 26, 30, 31-35, 37, and 38 remain withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. See, 37 CFR §1.142(b) and §1.145, as well as MPEP §821.03.
Newly added claims 39-43 are also directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed in the elected invention of Group III, claims 18-20, classified in H10D 30/01, at least because they include limitations from withdrawn claims 21, 22 or 32. Therefore, newly added claims 39-43 are also withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, Applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, Applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the Examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 25, 26, 30-35, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 21, 25, 31, and 32, the claim status identifier should be changed from (Currently Amended) to (Withdrawn-Currently Amended); and
Regarding claims 26, 30, 33-35, and 37, the claim status identifier should be changed from (Previously Presented) to (Withdrawn).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended independent claim 18 to include the recited limitation of “forming a top source/drain feature over the channel layer and in contact with the supporting structure after the forming of the supporting structure”. On page 11 of the “Amendment And Response To Non-Final Office Action” filed on April 2, 2024 (hereinafter the “Response”), Applicant indicated that paragraphs [0025]-[0039] and FIGs. 1C1 to 1I-3 of the Application provide support for this amendment. However, the Examiner can find no discussion of forming a top source/drain feature until paragraph [0045] and FIGs. 1M-2 and 1M-3 of the Application. It's also not clear from paragraphs [0025]-[0039] and FIGs. 1C1 to 1I-3 that the top source/drain feature is formed after the formation of the supporting structure, as argued by Applicant on page 12 of the Response to distinguish amended independent claim 18 over the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in the Office Action based on US 2016/01811362 A1 (Yang). To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 19, 20, and 44 are also rejected because these claims depend from amended independent claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 18, 20, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0181362 A1 (Yang) in view of US 2018/0083121 A1 (Suvarna).
Regarding amended independent claim 18, A method ([0008]) for manufacturing a semiconductor structure (semiconductor structure (100); FIG. 1A; [0009]), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
561
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
forming a semiconductor layer (semiconductor layer (130); Figure 2; [0019]) over a substrate (substrate (128A); FIG. 2; [0017]);
PNG
media_image2.png
738
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
patterning ([0024]) the semiconductor layer (130) to form a channel layer (channel layer (108); FIG. 4; [0024]);
PNG
media_image3.png
818
1076
media_image3.png
Greyscale
forming a supporting structure (supporting structure (126); FIG. 1A; [0015]) in contact with the channel layer (108);
forming a top source/drain feature (top source/drain feature (116A); FIG. 1A; [0011]) over the channel layer (108) and in contact with the supporting structure (126);
forming a gate structure (gate structure (114); FIG. 1A; [0010]) laterally wrapping around the channel layer (108) (FIG. 1A); and
forming a bottom source/drain feature (bottom source/drain feature (116B); FIG. 1A; [0011]) under the channel layer(108) and in contact with the supporting structure (126).
But, Applicant may argue that Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose that the top source/drain feature is formed after the forming of the supporting structure.
However, in analogous art, Suvarna discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a semiconductor structure (semiconductor structure (100); FIG. 5; [0015]) may be predicably fabricated to include a vertically oriented channel layer (vertically oriented channel layer (108); FIG. 5; [0016]) over a substrate (substrate (102); FIG. 5; [0015]). Suvarna also discloses a supporting structure (supporting structure (117); FIG. 5; [0019]) in contact with vertically oriented channel layer (108) to mechanically support vertically oriented channel layer (108) ([0023]).
PNG
media_image4.png
656
687
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Suvarna additionally discloses that a top source/drain feature (top source/drain feature (140); FIG. 8; [0024]) may be predicably formed over channel layer (108) and in contact with supporting structure (117) after the forming of supporting structure (117).
PNG
media_image5.png
596
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Yang and Suvarna before him/her that the top source/drain feature (116A) of Yang can be predicably formed after the forming of the supporting structure (126) of Yang, as taught by Suvarna, to provide mechanical support for channel layer (108) of Yang, during formation of top source/drain feature (116A) of Yang, as additionally taught by Suvarna.
Regarding claim 20, Yang in view of Suvarna discloses, The method ([0008] of Yang) for manufacturing the semiconductor structure (100) as claimed in claim 18, further comprising:
forming a top spacer (top spacer (132); FIG. 8; [0030], all of Yang) over the semiconductor layer (130);
PNG
media_image6.png
738
1020
media_image6.png
Greyscale
laterally trimming the top spacer (132) and a top portion of the supporting structure (126) (FIG. 9 and [0031], all of Yang); and
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Top Portion of Supporting Structure (126))]
PNG
media_image7.png
758
1006
media_image7.png
Greyscale
forming the top source/drain feature (116A) between the top spacer (132) and the top portion (annotated FIG. 9, above) of the supporting structure (126).
Regarding, claim 44, Yang in view of Suvarna discloses, The method ([0008] of Yang) for manufacturing the semiconductor structure (100) as claimed in claim 18, wherein the channel layer (108) is asymmetric in a cross-sectional view (annotated FIG. 1A, above).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Suvarna, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US 2018/0350946 A1 (Bih).
Regarding claim 19, Yang in view of Suvarna does not appear to explicitly disclose, further comprising:
forming a top lightly doped drain (LDD) feature over the channel layer, wherein the top source/drain feature is over the top LDD feature; and
forming a bottom LDD feature under the channel layer, wherein the bottom source/drain feature is under the bottom LDD feature,
wherein the top LDD feature and the bottom LDD feature cover sidewalls of the supporting structure.
However, in analogous art, Bih discloses, that it is well known that in a semiconductor device (semiconductor device (100); FIG. 1; [0011]) lightly doped drain (LDD) features (lightly doped drain (LDD) features (130); FIG. 1; [0011]]) may be predicably formed adjacent source/drain features (source/drain features (150); FIG. 1; [0011]) adjacent a channel (annotated FIG. 1, below) to help prevent hot carrier injection (HCI) lifetime degradation ([0020]).
[AltContent: textbox (Channel)]
PNG
media_image8.png
737
643
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yang, Suvarna, and Bih before him/her to form a top lightly doped drain (LDD) feature over (e.g., adjacent, as taught by Bih) the channel layer (108) of Yang and Suvarna, wherein the top source/drain feature (116A) of Yang and Suvarna is over (e.g., adjacent, as taught by Bih) the top LDD feature and forming a bottom LDD feature under (e.g., adjacent, as taught by Bih) the channel layer (108) of Yang and Suvarna, wherein the bottom source/drain feature (116B) of Yang and Suvarna is under (e.g., adjacent, as taught by Bih) the bottom LDD feature, to help prevent hot carrier injection (HCI) lifetime degradation, as also taught by Bih.
But, the combination of Yang in view of Suvarna and Bih does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the top LDD feature and the bottom LDD feature cover sidewalls of the supporting structure.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Yang, Suvarna, and Bih before him/her, would have recognized that there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding the top LDD feature and the bottom LDD feature with respect to the sidewalls of the supporting structure (126) of Yang in view of Suvarna and Bih—i.e., (i) the top LDD feature covers sidewalls of the supporting structure and the bottom LDD feature does not cover sidewalls of the supporting structure, (ii) the top LDD feature does not cover sidewalls of the supporting structure and the bottom LDD feature does cover sidewalls of the supporting structure, (iii) neither the top LDD feature nor the bottom LDD feature cover sidewalls of the supporting structure, or (iv) the top LDD feature and the bottom LDD feature cover sidewalls of the supporting structure, and, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious to try each of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, one of which is: wherein the top LDD feature and the bottom LDD feature cover sidewalls of the supporting structure (126) of Yang in view of Suvarna and Bih, as recited in claim 19. See, MPEP 2143(E)—“Obvious To Try”—Choosing From A Finite Number Of Identified, Predicably Solutions, With A Reasonable Expectation Of Success.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and remarks on page 11 of the Response have overcome the objection to the drawings and specification in the Office Action. Applicant’s amendment of independent claim 18 and remarks on page 12 of the Response regarding the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in the Office Action based on US 2016/0181362 A1 (Yang) have been fully considered. Specifically, page 12 of the Response states: “However, Yang fails to disclose ‘forming a supporting structure in contact with the channel layer, forming a top source/drain feature over the channel layer and in contact with the supporting structure after forming of the supporting structure.’”
The Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant please indicate where the specification specifically states that the top/source drain feature is formed over the channel layer and in contact with the supporting structure after the formation of the supporting structure or, alternatively which portions of the specification provide sufficient detail that one skilled in the art could reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention that the top/source drain feature is formed over the channel layer and in contact with the supporting structure after the formation of the supporting structure, as argued by Applicant to distinguish over Yang.1 The Examiner respectfully submits that “at least paragraphs [0025]-[0039] and FIGS. 1C1 to 1I-3 of the present application”, indicated by Applicant on page 11 of the Response, do not appear to provide such disclosure.
Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, amended independent claim 18 has been alternatively rejected in this Final Office Action as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the combination of Yang in view of US 2018/0083121 A1 (Suvarna). Dependent claim 20 has also been alternatively rejected in this Final Office Action as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the combination of Yang in view of Suvarna.
Regarding, claims 21-37 that were previously withdrawn in the Office Action, pages 12-13 of the Response states:
The Office Action (p. 2) asserts that previously added claims 21-37 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the elected invention of Group III. In this reply, claims 21 and 31 are amended to remove the features related to "a first direction" and "a second direction" identified by the Examiner. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 21-37 read on elected Group III and examination of these claims should not place an undue burden on the Examiner.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for at least the reasons discussed above in this Final Office Action. Accordingly, previously withdrawn currently pending claims 21, 25, 26, 30-35, and 37 remain withdrawn in this Final Office Action.
Notwithstanding the above, to advance prosecution, the Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant please consider a telephone interview with the Examiner to discuss proposed claim amendments to at least independent claim 18 to overcome rejection of the currently pending claims prior to submitting a written response to this Final Office Action. The Examiner would welcome such a proposed discussion of these claim amendments and is available at the number provided below.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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 B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 The Examiner respectfully submits that if Applicant is unable to provide support for such an argument in the originally filed specification for amended independent claim 18, then the rejection of independent claims 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based on Yang in the Office Action is again made in this Final Office Action as an alternative rejection of claims 18 and 20.
Prosecution Insights