DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
As of the amendment filed 7/8/26, claim 22 has been added, no claims have been canceled, and claims 1, 7, 8, 19, and 20 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-22 remain pending, with claims 1, 7, 8, and 19 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. As to claims 7-19, the amendment incorporating the different material limitation is accepted. However, the argument with respect to claim 1 is not persuasive given the new interpretation detailed below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bouche (US 9,960,256).
As to claims 1 abd 22, Bouche teaches an apparatus (1000, see annotated fig. 10 below) comprising:
a semiconductor substrate (1002) having first and second diffusion regions (1008) and a channel region arranged between the first and second diffusion regions (1008, col. 6:6-12, the source/drain features are on opposite sides of the channel structure);
a gate electrode (1004-N) covering the channel region with a gate insulating film interposed therebetween (col. 5:17-21); and
first and second contact plugs (1042-B) connected to the first and second diffusion regions (1008), respectively,
wherein each of the first and second contact plugs (1042-B) including:
a first part (dark black rectangle in fig. below) having an upper section (portion above top surface of 1010) and a lower section (portion below top surface of 1010), wherein the first part has a first diameter (d1, see fig below); and
a second part (grey rectangles in fig below) surrounding a first outer side surface of the upper section of the first part (see below), wherein the second part is tubular and has a second diameter (d2), and wherein the first diameter (d1) is smaller than the second diameter (d2), and a thickness in a horizontal direction of the second part is constant (see fig. below).
It is noted that only one unmerged contact plug 1042-B is shown (as 1042-A is a merged source contact with the gate contact). However, Bouche teaches 1042-A and 1042-B are source/drain contacts and that one of them are “stitched” (i.e. merged) with the gate contact 1044-A (col. 7:2636). This heavily implies that these source/drain contacts (1042-A and 1042-B) can exist unstitched and that 1042-A and 1042-B are identical in design. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that at least one transistor would not have a stitched gate and source contact so as to fabricate a normal transistor in a device having two unstitched, identical contacts contacting the source and drain regions.
PNG
media_image1.png
602
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Bouche further teaches the second part (grey part above) does not surround a second outer side surface of the lower section of the first part (see fig. above).
As to claim 3, Bouche further teaches the second part has a third outer side surface and a bottom surface substantially perpendicular to the third outer side surface (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
412
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 4, Bouche further teaches an interlayer insulating film (1024) surrounding the second outer side surface of the lower section of the first part, wherein the bottom surface of the second part contacts with the interlayer insulating film (see fig. above).
As to claim 5, Bouche further teaches a height position of the bottom surface of the second part is equal to or higher than a top surface of the gate electrode (see above).
As to claim 6, Bouche further teaches the first and second parts are made of the same conductive material (530) as each other (fig. 5, col. 6:55-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-21 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: see Office Action dated 4/8/26 for reasons for allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-Delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN M KUSUMAKAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3520. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:30a – 4:30p EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. 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.
/KAREN KUSUMAKAR/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
8/6/26
Prosecution Insights