DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed February 20, 2026.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-13 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.
(1) Regarding claims 1 and 8, Applicants did not originally disclose the step of “performing a second implant to only a portion of the source/drain contact, wherein the second implant is directed into the contact opening” as recited on lines 11-12 of claim 1, and the step of “performing a second implant to only a portion of the plurality of source/drain contacts, wherein the second implant is directed to the contact opening” as recited on lines 13-14 of claim 8, because (a) as shown in Fig. 5 of current application, the second implant 138 is performed on the source/drain contact, and also on the second patterned mask,
PNG
media_image1.png
386
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and (b) therefore, Applicants did not originally disclose that “a second implant” is performed “to only a portion of the (plurality of) source/drain contact(s)”.
(2) Further regarding claims 1 and 8, even if arguendo Applicants had meant to claim “performing a second implant to only a portion of the (plurality of) source/drain contact(s)” and the second patterned mask 130 shown in Fig. 5 of current application, Applicants still did not originally disclose “performing a second implant to only a portion of the (plurality of) source/drain contact(s)” and the second patterned mask, because (a) as shown in Figs. 1B and 1C of Sheppard et al. (US 2007/0158683), even regions underneath the silicon nitride or silicon dioxide protective layer 24 are implanted, see paragraph [0048] of Sheppard et al., and the silicon nitride or silicon dioxide protective layer 24 do not completely block the ion implantation shown in Fig. 1B of Sheppard et al.,
PNG
media_image2.png
300
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(b) furthermore, not only Applicants did not originally disclose where the dopant ions implanted into the intermediate device structure shown in Fig. 5 of current application would be located inside the intermediate device structure, Applicants did not originally disclose what the second patterned mask 130 is formed of, and whether Applicants actively attempted to prevent incorporation of the dopant ions during the second implant 138 in other regions of the intermediate device structure, (c) in addition, Applicants did not originally disclose that Applicants measured the locations of the implanted ions after the second implant 138, (d) therefore, the newly added limitations “performing a second implant to only a portion of the (plurality of) source/drain contact(s)” recited on line 12 of claim 1 and on line 13 of claim 8 are based on Applicants’ assumption or conjecture rather than the measurement result, and thus the amended claims 1 and 8 fail to comply with the written description requirement, (e) based on the teachings of Sheppard et al., the implanted ions during the second implant 138 can also be disposed in the rectangular box area illustrated below, which includes a top portion of the barrier layer 110,
PNG
media_image3.png
386
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and (f) if arguendo Applicants assumes that the drawings of current application show the newly claimed features of “performing a second implant to only a portion of the (plurality of) source/drain contact(s)” in Fig. 5, Applicants’ assumption is not exactly correct since (i) Applicants did not originally disclose that all the drawings of current application are exactly to the scale, and (ii) Applicants’ drawings are imperfect illustrations, and two pieces of evidence of Applicants’ not having disclosed that the drawings of current application are exactly to the scale can be seen in Figs. 3 and 5 where the S/D contacts 122 in Fig. 3 of current application and the implanted regions 140 in Fig. 5 of current application have round, parabolic bottoms rather than rectangular bottoms as illustrated below; in other words, the ions forming the middle portion of the S/D contacts 122 should have the same energy with the ions forming the edge portions of the S/D contacts 122, and thus the S/D contacts 122 should be rectangular; likewise the implanted regions 140 should have a rectangular shape in contrast to the curved shapes of the implanted regions 140 of current application.
PNG
media_image4.png
384
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
386
496
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, and claims 9-13 depend on claim 8, and therefore, claims 2-7 and 9-13 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Herbert et al. (US 12,446,270)
Morvan et al. (US 12,453,113)
Nishimori et al. (US 2015/0041860)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 April 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights