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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of Group I and Group A, claims 1-11, in the reply filed on April 09th, 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention, claims 12-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I and Group A, claims 1-11 as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 21, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/21/2023 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Basker (US 2019/0341467, hereinafter as Bask ‘467).
Regarding Claim 1, Bask ‘467 teaches a semiconductor device, comprising:
a source/drain region (Fig. 2G, (29); [0044]) adjacent to a gate channel (30/32; [0046]);
a plurality of nanosheets (21; [0038]) extended vertically at the gate channel; and
a source/drain extension (SDE) (38; [0031]) between the source/drain region (29) and the plurality of nanosheets, wherein portions of the SDE in vicinity of the source/drain region are doped with a first dopant (see para. [0032]).
PNG
media_image1.png
451
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2G (Bask ‘467)
Regarding Claim 2, Bask ‘467 teaches the semiconductor device is a nanosheet gate-all-around field-effect transistor (GAA FET) (see Fig. 2G; [0004]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bask ‘467 teaches the plurality of nanosheets (21; [0027]) is made of silicon
Regarding Claim 4, Bask ‘467 teaches the semiconductor device is a p-type field-effect transistor (pFETsee para. [0035]), and the first dopant is a p-type dopant (see para. [0033]), wherein the p-type dopant is Boron (B).
Regarding Claim 5, Bask ‘467 teaches the semiconductor device is an n-type field-effect transistor (nFETsee para. [0035]), and the first dopant (see para. [0033]) is an n-type dopant, wherein the n-type dopant is Phosphorous (P).
Regarding Claim 6, Bask ‘467 teaches the first dopant is a same material as a source/drain region dopant (see para. [0033] and [0035]).
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 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bask ‘467 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Bask ‘467 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first dopant is different from a source/drain region dopant”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the first dopant is different from a source/drain region dopant on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have the first dopant is different from a source/drain region dopant in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
Regarding Claim 9, Bask ‘467 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a thickness of the plurality of nanosheets is smaller than a thickness of the doped portions of the SDE”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a thickness of the plurality of nanosheets is smaller than a thickness of the doped portions of the SDE on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to have a thickness of the plurality of nanosheets is smaller than a thickness of the doped portions of the SDE in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bask ‘467 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang (US 2018/0047853, hereinafter as Chang ‘853).
Regarding Claim 8, Bask ‘467 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the doped portions of the SDE are doped with a drive-in anneal along a direction orthogonal to the gate channel”.
Chang ‘853 teaches the doped portions of the SDE are doped with a drive-in anneal along a direction orthogonal to the gate channel (see Fig. 8A, para. [0018]-[0019] and [0060]-[0061]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bask ‘467 to have the doped portions of the SDE are doped with a drive-in anneal along a direction orthogonal to the gate channel for the purpose of providing a sharp source/drain junction (see para. [0060]) as suggested by Chang ‘853.
Product by process limitation:
The expression “doped with a drive-in anneal” is/are taken to be a product by process limitation and is given no patentable weight. A product by process claim directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935); and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product “gleaned” from the process steps, which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process. See also MPEP 2113. Moreover, an old and obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bask ‘467 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Palle (US 2017/0271477, hereinafter as Pall ‘477).
Regarding Claim 10, Bask ‘467 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a first layer encapsulating each of the plurality of nanosheets”.
Pall ‘477 teaches a first layer (interfacial layer; Fig. 3H, (323); [0039]) encapsulating each of the plurality of nanosheets (309; [0030]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bask ‘467 to have a first layer encapsulating each of the plurality of nanosheets for the purpose of forming a gate stack (see para. [0039]) as suggested by Pall ‘477.
Regarding Claim 11, Bask ‘467 and Pall ‘477 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the first layer is made of silicon or silicon germanium”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select silicon or silicon germanium for the first layer material on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. (See Fig. 3 of US 2019/0198645; as evidence);
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select silicon or silicon germanium for the first layer material in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Cheng et al. (US 2020/0357895 A1)
Xu et al. (US 2020/0235206 A1)
Zhang et al. (US 2020/0105929 A1)
Tak et al. (US 2017/0110554 A1)
Hatcher et al. (US 2016/0172358 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights