DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/362,868 filed on July 31, 2023.
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 Species 2 reading on Figs. 2A-2D in the reply filed on 01/06/2026 is acknowledged. The Applicants indicated that claims 1-8 and 13-24 read on the elected species. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-8, 13-20, and newly added claims 21-24.25
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 17 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the second portion of the second gate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 13-16, 18-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2007/0296034).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches an IC structure comprising:
a first gate 104 having a first portion 104a extending along a first direction Y and a second portion 104b extending along a second direction X different from the first direction Y (see, e.g., pars. 0024, 0054);
a second gate 106 having a first portion 106a extending along the first direction Y and a second portion 106b extending along the second direction X (see, e.g., pars. 0024, 0048);
a shared drain region 102 extending from the first portion 104a of the first gate 104 to the first portion 106a of the second gate 106 (see, e.g., par. 0051);
a first source region 108 spaced apart from the shared drain region 102 at least in part by the first gate 104 (see, e.g., par. 0051);
a second source region 109 spaced apart from the shared drain region 102 at least in part by the second gate 106 (see, e.g., par. 0051); and
an isolation region IsR between the first portion 104a of the first gate 104 and the first portion 106a of the second gate 106, wherein from a top view the isolation region IsR resembles a quadrilateral pattern bordering the shared drain region 102.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that from the top view the second portion 104b of the first gate 104 extends past a first side S1 of the quadrilateral pattern by a non-zero distance.
Regarding Claim 3, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 2. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that from the top view the second portion 106b of the second gate 106 extends past a second side S2 of the quadrilateral pattern by a non-zero distance, and the first and second sides S1/S2 are opposite sides of the quadrilateral pattern.
Regarding Claim 13, Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches an IC structure comprising:
a first transistor 112 comprising a first gate 104, a first source region 108 and a first drain region 102 (see, e.g., par. 0024);
a second transistor 114 comprising a second gate 106, a second source region 109 and a second drain region 102, wherein the first drain region 102 is in contact with the second drain region 102 (see, e.g., par. 0024); and
an enclosed isolation region IsR having a first border T1 defined by the first and second drain regions 102, and a second border S1 extending in a different direction Y than the first border T1, wherein the first gate 104 extends past the second border S1 of the enclosed isolation region IsR from a plan view (see, e.g., par. 0051).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 13. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that the first border T1 is orthogonal to the second border S1 from the plan view.
Regarding Claim 15, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 13. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that the first transistor 112 and second transistor 114 are formed on a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate (see, e.g., par. 0051).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 13. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that from the plan view, the first gate 104 comprises a first portion 104b extending a length Lb along a direction X parallel with the first border T1 of the enclosed isolation region IsR, and a second portion 104a extending a length La along a direction Y parallel with the second border S1 of the enclosed isolation region IsR, wherein the length La of the second portion 104a is greater than the length Lb of the first portion 104b.
Regarding Claim 18, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 16. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that from the plan view, the second gate 106 comprises a first portion 106b extending a length Ld along a direction X parallel with the first border T1 of the enclosed isolation region IsR, and a second portion 106a extending a length Lc along a direction Y parallel with the second border S1 of the enclosed isolation region IsR, wherein the first portion 104b of the first gate 104 is aligned with the first portion 106b of the second gate 106.
Regarding Claim 19, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 18. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that the first portion 104b of the first gate 104 and the first portion 106b of the second gate 106 overlap with portions of the enclosed isolation region IsR.
Regarding Claim 20, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 16. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that the length La the second portion 104a of the first gate 104 is greater than a length of the second border S2 of the enclosed isolation region IsR.
Regarding Claim 21, Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches an IC structure comprising:
a first transistor 112 comprising a first gate 104, a first source/drain region 102, and a second source/drain region 108, wherein the first source/drain region 102 and the second source/drain region 108 are at opposite sides of the first gate 104, respectively (see, e.g., par. 0024);
a second transistor 114 comprising a second gate 106, a third source/drain region 102, and a fourth source/drain region 109, wherein the third source/drain region 102 and the fourth source/drain region 109 are at opposite sides of the second gate 106, respectively, wherein the first source/drain region 102 abuts the third source/drain region 102 (see, e.g., par. 0024); and
an isolation region IsR having a lower border T1 defined by the first source/drain region 102 and the third source/drain region 102 in a top view.
Regarding Claim 24, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 21. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches, wherein the first gate 104 comprises a first portion 104a extending lengthwise along a first direction Y and interposing the first source/drain region 102 and the second source/drain region 108, and a second portion 104b protruding from the first portion 104a along a second direction X different from the first direction Y, wherein the a length Lb of the second portion 104b measured along the second direction X is shorter than a length La of the first portion 104a measured along the first direction Y.
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.
Claims 4-8, 17, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2007/0296034).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that the first portion 104a of the first gate 104 has a width W1 measured in the second direction X, the second portion 104b of the first gate 104 has a width W2 measured in the first direction Y.
Chen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the width of the second portion of the first gate is greater than the width of the first portion of the first gate.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the width of the first and/or second portions of the first gate in Chen’s device. The specific claimed widths, absent any criticality, are only considered to be an obvious modification of the widths of the first and/or second portions of the first gate in Chen’s device, as the courts have held that changes in width without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular width is nothing more than one among numerous widths that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of having the width of the second portion of the first gate being greater than the width of the first portion of the first gate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed widths in Chen’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed widths or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen width or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen width is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 4. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that the first portion 106a of the second gate 106 has a width W1 measured in the second direction X, the second portion 106b of the second gate 106 has a width W2 measured in the first direction Y.
Chen is silent with respect to the claim limitation that the width of the second portion of the second gate is greater than the width of the first portion of the second gate.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the width of the first and/or second portions of the first gate in Chen’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 4 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that from the top view the second gate 106 resembles a T-shaped pattern.
Chen does not teach that the first gate resembles an L-shaped pattern.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the shape of the first gate in Chen’s device. The specific claimed shape, absent any criticality, is only considered to be an obvious modification of the shape of the first gate30 in Chen’s device, as the courts have held that changes in shape, without any criticality, are within the level of skill in the art. According to the courts, a particular shape, is nothing more than one among numerous shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Accordingly, since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed L-shape of the first gate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the claimed shape in Chen’s device.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed shape or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen shape or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen shape is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen does not teach that from the top view the first and second gates resemble two mirrored L-shaped patterns.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the shape of the first and second gates in Chen’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 6 regarding criticality of shapes which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 8, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 1. Chen (see, e.g., Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 7), teaches that from the top view the first and second gates 104/106 resemble two T-shaped patterns.
See also the comments stated above in claim 6 regarding criticality of shapes which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 17, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 16. Chen does not teach that that the first portion 104b of the first gate 104 has a width W2 greater than a width W2 of the second portion 106b of the second gate 106.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the width of the first and/or second portions of the first and/or second gates in Chen’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 4 regarding criticality which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 22, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 21. Chen does not teach that the first gate has an L-shaped profile in the top view.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the shape of the first gate in Chen’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 6 regarding criticality of shapes which are considered repeated here.
Regarding Claim 23, Chen teaches all aspects of claim 21. Chen does not teach that the second gate has an L-shaped profile in the top view.
However, this claim limitation is merely considered a change in the shape of the second gate in Chen’s device.
See also the comments stated above in claim 6 regarding criticality of shapes which are considered repeated here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nelson Garces whose telephone number is (571)272-8249. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571)272-1705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN
PNG
media_image1.png
506
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nelson Garces/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814