DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to amendment
2. This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed on 06/04/2026
Claims
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-20 have been remained
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are notpersuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant:
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 05/14/2026.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
5. Claims 1, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0120656 A1) in view of Chang et al., hereafter “Chang” (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0361176 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hsu discloses a structure, comprising:
a nanostructure element (408) on a substrate (401);
a gate structure (450) surrounding the nanostructure element (408);
an inner spacer structure (434) abutting the gate structure (450);
a first epitaxial layer (438) in contact with a side surface of the nanostructure element (408) and over a side surface of the inner spacer structure (434); and
a second epitaxial layer (440) on the first epitaxial layer (438) (Fig. 30 and para [0064]-[0067]).
Hsu discloses the features of the claimed invention as discussed above, but does not disclose the second epitaxial layer in contact with the inner spacer structure.
Chang, however, discloses the second epitaxial layer (240) in contact with the inner spacer structure (234) (Fig. 14 and para [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hsu to provide the second epitaxial layer in contact with the inner spacer structure as taught by Chang for a purpose of reducing the contact resistance between the second epitaxial layer and the inner spacer structure and improving the operation frequency of the semiconductor device.
Hsu and Chang (citations to Hsu unless otherwise noted) disclose wherein a dopant concentration of the first epitaxial layer (238) is less than a dopant concentration of the second epitaxial layer (240) (Fig. 14 in Chang).
Regarding claim 4, Hsu and Chang (Citations to Hsu unless otherwise noted) disclose wherein a vertical length of the first epitaxial layer (438) is greater than a thickness of the nanostructure element (408) (Fig. 30).
Regarding claim 7, Hsu, Chang and LIN S (Citations to Hsu unless otherwise noted) disclose wherein the first epitaxial layer (438) extends from a top edge of the side surface of the inner spacer structure (434) to a bottom edge of the side surface of the inner spacer structure (434) (Fig. 30).
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu and Chang in view of LIN S (CN-115881765-A).
Hsu and Chang disclose the features of the claimed invention as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein the first epitaxial layer is over an edge of an interface between the nanostructure element and the gate structure.
LIN S, however, discloses wherein the first epitaxial layer (134) is over an edge of an interface between the nanostructure element (106) and the gate structure (140) (Fig. 4D or 6B and English Text).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Hsu and Chang to provide wherein the first epitaxial layer is over an edge of an interface between the nanostructure element and the gate structure as taught by LIN S for a purpose of improving the quality of the first epitaxial layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. The following is a statement of reason for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8-20 would be allowed.
Claims 8-20 are considered allowable since the prior art of record and the considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention of a structure having a structure of an epitaxial layer on the substrate and separated from the plurality of nano-sheet layers by the diffusion barrier structure, as cited in the independent claim 8 and forming a diffusion barrier structure in contact with side surfaces of the plurality of channel layers and over side surfaces of the plurality of inner spacers; and forming an epitaxial region over side surfaces of the diffusion barrier structure, as cited in the independent claim 15.
Claims 9-14 and 16-20 are directly or indirectly depend on the independent claims 8 and 15, then, they are also being allowed.
Claims 2-3 and 6 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.
Conclusion8. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phuc T. Dang whose telephone number is 571-272-1776. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Jacob Choi can be reached on 469-295-9060. 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.
/PHUC T DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights