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
Election/ Restrictions
Applicant's election of group I without traverse: claims 1-15, in the “Response to Election / Restriction Filed - 04/24/2026”, cancellation of of non-elected claim(s) 15-20 and submission new claims 21-25 is/are acknowledged. This office action considers claims 1-15, 21-25, in “Claims - 04/24/2026”, pending for prosecution.
Claims 1-15, 21-25 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the instant application has provisional application 63520722 filed on 08/21/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 5, 8, 21-25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites:
“forming first epitaxial source/drain regions adjacent the first nanostructures and second epitaxial source/drain regions adjacent the second nanostructures”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“forming first epitaxial source/drain regions adjacent the plurality of first nanostructures and second epitaxial source/drain regions adjacent the plurality of second nanostructures”.
Claim 8 recites:
“forming an interconnect structure over the first nanostructures, wherein the second region is free of the interconnect structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“forming an interconnect structure over the plurality of first nanostructures, wherein the second region is free of the interconnect structure”.
Claim 21 recites:
“forming a plurality of first epitaxial regions adjacent the first channel regions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“forming a plurality of first epitaxial regions adjacent the first plurality of channel regions”.
Claim 21 also recites:
“forming a plurality of second epitaxial regions adjacent the second channel regions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“forming a plurality of second epitaxial regions adjacent the plurality of second channel regions”.
Claims 21 further recites:
“after removing the plurality of second channel regions, forming a plurality of isolation regions adjacent the second channel regions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may recite the following to overcome this rejection:
“after removing the plurality of second channel regions, forming a plurality of isolation regions adjacent the plurality of second channel regions”.
Claims 22-25 depend from claim 21.
REASON FOR ALLOWANCE
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-15 are allowed over prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance, which paraphrases and summarizes the claimed invention without intending to be limiting, wherein the legally defined scope of the claimed invention is defined by the allowed claims themselves in view of the written description under 35 USC 112. This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Regarding claim 1, the reference(s) of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure and to the examiner’s knowledge do(es) not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a method in their entirety (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination with proper motivation).
The most relevant prior art reference(s) (US 20190189806 A1 to Leobandung) substantially teach(es) in figures 3-5 forming a plurality of first nanosheets 104 and plurality of second nanosheets 106, but does not teach the\ limitations of “replacing the plurality of second nanostructures with a plurality of isolation regions; and forming a seal ring over the substrate, wherein the seal ring is between the first region and the second region” as recited in claim 1. Therefore, the claim 1 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, similar to claim 1, Leobandung teaches some of the limitations of claim 10, but not the limitations of “forming a seal ring over a substrate, comprising forming a plurality of conductive features within a plurality of insulating layers; and forming a buffer region encircling the seal ring, wherein forming the buffer region comprises: forming a stack of first nanostructures over the substrate; forming an epitaxial source/drain region adjacent the stack of first nanostructures; forming a dummy gate structure over the stack of first nanostructures; forming a first recess extending through the dummy gate structure and the stack of first nanostructures, wherein the first recess extends deeper than the epitaxial source/drain region” as recited in claim 10. Therefore, the claim 10 is deemed patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claims 11-15, they are allowed due to their dependencies on claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD A. RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0168 and email is mohammad.rahman5@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Julio J. Maldonado can be reached on (571) 272-1864. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/MOHAMMAD A RAHMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights