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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-1 and 73-83 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.
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.
Claim 9 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 9 recites the limitation " a substrate of the field-effect transistor " in line 2, which causes ambiguity in the claim as it is unclear if it is referring to the same substrate or a different one cited in line 1 of claim 1. For examination purpose, they will be interpreted as same substrate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 73-75, 78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Holt et al. (US 20240258376 A1; hereinafter “Holt).
In re claim 1, Holt discloses in figs. 1A-1D, a field-effect transistor including
a substrate 108, an insulating layer 106 formed on the substrate (¶25), and
an active layer 124, 126, 118, 120 formed on the insulating layer 106 and including a source region 126, a drain region 126, and a separate body contact region 120, 118 (SiGe regions 118, 120 contacts the channel body region 122, hence interpreted as a body contact region) (¶35-36),
wherein the separate body contact region 120, 118 includes a mixture of germanium and silicon having a gradient of mostly silicon in a first region, a mixture of silicon and germanium in a second region adjacent to the first region, and mostly germanium in a third region adjacent to the second region, wherein the ratio of silicon to germanium in the second region differs from the ratio of silicon to germanium in the third region that includes germanium (see note below).
Holt teaches in ¶37 and fig. 1D: “Vertical grading of germanium within second region of vertically-graded SiGe 120 is illustrated by different shading that varies with vertical position in second region of vertically-graded SiGe 120. For example, the shading becomes less dense towards the bottom of second region of vertically-graded SiGe 120 in FIG. 1D, indicating the top of region 120 has more germanium than the bottom of region 120”.
Based on the teachings above, Holt teaches the separate body contact region 120, 118 includes a mixture of germanium and silicon having a gradient of mostly silicon in a first region (i.e., the bottom region of 120), a mixture of silicon and germanium in a second region adjacent to the first region (i.e., the middle regio of 120n), and mostly germanium in a third region (i.e., the top region of 120) adjacent to the second region, wherein the ratio of silicon to germanium in the second region differs from the ratio of silicon to germanium in the third region that includes germanium.
In re claim 4, Holt discloses all the limitations of the field-effect transistor of claim 1 upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Holt discloses wherein the body contact region comprises germanium and silicon (¶37).
However, the claim language “wherein the body contact region comprises an implantation or diffusion of germanium into silicon" pertains to be a product-by-process limitation and the process of forming the silicon germanium layer does not distinguish the product from the prior art. Referring to MPEP §2113, regarding Product-by-Process Claims:
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).”
“Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)”.
In re claim 5, Holt discloses in figs. 1A-1D, the field-effect transistor of claim 1, wherein the body contact region 120, 118 comprises a deposition of germanium into an etched well (¶37; the regions into which the body contact region 120, 118 are formed have been interpreted as etched wells).
In re claim 8, Holt discloses in figs. 1A-1D, the field-effect transistor of claim 1, wherein the body contact region 120, 118 is in electrical contact with a body region 122 of the field-effect transistor.
In re claim 73, Holt discloses in figs. 1A-1D, a field-effect transistor 110 including:
(a) a body 122 (¶34);
(b) a drain region 126 coupled to the body 122 (¶35);
(c) a source region 126 coupled to the body 122 (¶35);
(d) a gate structure 114 coupled to the body 122 (¶31-32); and
(e) a separate body contact region 120, 118 (SiGe regions 118, 120 contacts the channel body region 122, hence interpreted as a body contact region) (¶35-36) coupled to the body 122 and comprising a mixture of germanium and silicon having a gradient of mostly silicon in a first region, a mixture of silicon and germanium in a second region adjacent to the first region, and mostly germanium in a third region adjacent to the second region, wherein the ratio of silicon to germanium in the second region differs from the ratio of silicon to germanium in the third region (see note below).
Holt teaches in ¶37 and fig. 1D: “Vertical grading of germanium within second region of vertically-graded SiGe 120 is illustrated by different shading that varies with vertical position in second region of vertically-graded SiGe 120. For example, the shading becomes less dense towards the bottom of second region of vertically-graded SiGe 120 in FIG. 1D, indicating the top of region 120 has more germanium than the bottom of region 120”.
Based on the teachings above, Holt teaches the separate body contact region 120, 118 includes a mixture of germanium and silicon having a gradient of mostly silicon in a first region (i.e., the bottom region of 120), a mixture of silicon and germanium in a second region adjacent to the first region (i.e., the middle regio of 120n), and mostly germanium in a third region (i.e., the top region of 120) adjacent to the second region, wherein the ratio of silicon to germanium in the second region differs from the ratio of silicon to germanium in the third region that includes germanium.
In re claim 74, same as claim 4 above.
In re claim 75, same as claim 5 above.
In re claim 78, same as claim 8 above.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7, 76-77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt, as applied to claim 1 above.
In re claim 6, Holt discloses the field-effect transistor of claim 1.
Holt further discloses in figs. 1A-1D, the body contact region 120, 118 includes a vertically-graded SiGe layer having higher germanium concentration at the top region and lower germanium concentration at the bottom region (¶37).
It 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 to modify the germanium concentration in the body contact region of Holt and arrive at the claimed invention between about 1% germanium and about 100% germanium to modulate threshold voltages, Vth of the transistors without introducing defects in the fully-depleted SOI devices (¶2-5 of Holt).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 7, Holt discloses the field-effect transistor of claim 1.
Holt further discloses in figs. 1A-1D, the body contact region 120, 118 includes a vertically-graded SiGe layer having higher germanium concentration at the top region and lower germanium concentration at the bottom region (¶37).
It 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 to modify the germanium concentration in the body contact region of Holt and arrive at the claimed invention having an overall concentration of germanium between about 15% and about 45% of the total material in the body contact region to modulate threshold voltages, Vth of the transistors without introducing defects in the fully-depleted SOI devices (¶2-5 of Holt).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
In re claim 76, same as claim 6 above.
In re claim 77, same as claim 7 above.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 80-81 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt, as applied to claim 73 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 20160133702 A1; hereinafter “Yoo”).
In re claim 10, Holt discloses the field-effect transistor of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the body contact region is doped with P+ material.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoo discloses in figs. 17A-17J, a field-effect transistor, wherein a body contact region 136A, 136B is doped with P+ material (¶209).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Yoo into Holt and arrive at the claimed invention to have a low resistance contact region.
In re claim 11, Holt discloses the field-effect transistor of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the body contact region is capped with a salicide layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoo discloses in figs. 17A-17J, the field-effect transistor of claim 1, wherein the body contact region 136A, 136B is capped with a salicide layer 125 (fig. 17J; ¶221).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Yoo into Holt and arrive at the claimed invention to have a low resistance ohmic contact layer and connect with external terminal.
In re claim 80, same as claim 10 above.
In re claim 81, same as claim 11 above.
Claim(s) 82-83 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt, as applied to claim 73 above, and further in view of Voldman et al. (US 20180358352 A1; hereinafter “Voldman”) and Fan et al. (US 20240071811 A1; hereinafter “Fan”).
In re claim 82, Holt discloses in figs. 1A-1D, the field-effect transistor of claim 73, further including
a substrate,
an insulating layer formed on the substrate,
an active layer formed on the insulating layer, and
wherein the body, drain region, and source region are formed within the active layer.
Holt does not expressly disclose a substrate region contact that penetrates through the active layer to a region in contact with the substrate, the substrate region contact includes a mixture of germanium and silicon.
In the same field of endeavor, Voldman discloses in fig. 5A, a field-effect transistor comprising a substrate region contact 507 that penetrates through an active layer 540 to a region in contact with the substrate 505 (¶78).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Voldman into the FET of Holt and arrive at the claimed invention to facilitate electrical connection of an FD-SOI substrate from the front side and improve manufacturing flexibility.
Voldman further discloses the substrate contact 507 is a p+ doped layer, but does not expressly disclose the substrate region contact includes a mixture of germanium and silicon.
In the same field of endeavor, Fan discloses in figs. 5-12, a field effect transistor, wherein a substrate region contact 60 is a P+ epi layer including a mixture of germanium and silicon (¶45).
It 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 to employ the teachings of Fan into the FET of Holt/Voldman and arrive at the claimed invention to facilitate low resistance connection to the substrate.
In re claim 83, Holt, as modified by Voldman and Fan, discloses the field-effect transistor of claim 82, wherein the substrate region contact comprises a deposition of germanium into an etched well (fig. 5A of Voldman modified by the teachings of Fan, wherein the region into which the body contact region 506 is formed have been interpreted as an etched well).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 79 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 and provided the response overcomes the outstanding 112(b) rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 9, closest prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not expressly disclose wherein the body contact region is in electrical contact with a body region and a substrate of the field-effect transistor, in combination other limitations cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 79, closest prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not expressly disclose wherein the body contact region is in electrical contact with a body region and a substrate of the field-effect transistor, in combination other limitations cited in claim 73.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILUFA RAHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8926. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm 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, Yara J. Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/NILUFA RAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893