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, claims 1 -8, in th e reply filed on February 16 th , 2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention of Group II , claims 9 - 15 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1- 15 are pending. Action on merits of Group I, claims 1- 8 as follows. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Drawings The drawings filed on 11/28/2023 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 § 1 1 2 (d) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.— Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 recites: " A semiconductor device comprising the gate-all-around transistor according to claim 1 ". The intended use of the gate-all-around transistor of claim 1 in a semiconductor device fails to further limit the device of claim 1 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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. 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 1-2 , 4- 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liaw (US 2020/0105889, hereinafter as Liaw ‘889) . Regarding Claim 1 , Liaw ‘889 teaches a gate-all-around transistor, comprising: a semiconductor substrate (Fig. 18, (201); [0021]) ; at least one layer of nanostructure (210A; [0028]) formed on the semiconductor substrate, wherein: a gap is between each layer of nanostructure (210A) and the semiconductor substrate (201) ; in a length direction of the nanostructure, each layer of nanostructure (210A) comprises a source region, a drain region, and a channel region between the source region and the drain region; and a material of the source region and a material of the drain region comprise a first metal semiconductor compound (e.g. NiSi , TiSi , PtSi , see para. [0044]) ; a gate stack structure (250; [0039]) formed on the semiconductor substrate (201) , wherein: the gate stack structure (250) surrounds the channel region (210A) ; and a sidewall of the gate stack structure is recessed relative to a sidewall of the channel region in a length direction of the gate stack structure to form a recess; and a gate length defining structure (1100; [0034] -[ 0035] ) filled in the recess . Thus, Liaw ‘889 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “ a material of the gate length defining structure is a second metal semiconductor compound, and a semiconductor material for making the second metal semiconductor compound is different from a semiconductor material for making the first metal semiconductor compound ” . However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a material of the gate length defining structure is a second metal semiconductor compound, and a semiconductor material for making the second metal semiconductor compound is different from a semiconductor material for making the first metal semiconductor compound 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 select a material of the gate length defining structure is a second metal semiconductor compound, and a semiconductor material for making the second metal semiconductor compound is different from a semiconductor material for making the first metal semiconductor compound in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device. Regarding Claim 2 , Liaw ‘889 teaches a source electrode and a drain electrode (230) , and a material of the source electrode and a material of the drain electrode are both metal materials (see para. [0041]) ; the source electrode (230) covers a periphery of a source region of each layer of nanostructure and is filled between the source region of each layer of nanostructure and a first structure (see Fig. 27) , wherein the first structure comprises at least the semiconductor substrate (201) ; and the drain electrode (230) covers a periphery of a drain region of each layer of nanostructure and is filled between the drain region of each layer of nanostructure and a second structure, wherein the second structure comprises at least the semiconductor substrate (201) (see Fig. 27) . Regarding Claim 4 , Liaw ‘889 teaches each of the source region (240; [0044]) of each layer of nanostructure and the drain region of each layer of nanostructure comprises a first material portion and a second material portion formed around the first material portion; a material of the first material portion is a semiconductor material; and a material of the second material portion is the first metal semiconductor compound, and the first metal semiconductor compound is a compound of the semiconductor material and a metal (e.g. T itanium Silicide ( TiSi , TiSi2), Nickel Silicide ( NiSi ), Platinum Silicide ( PtSi , PtSi2), Cobalt Silicide ( CoSi , CoSi2), Molybdenum Silicide ( MoSi ), Titanium Platinum Silicide ( TiPtSi ), Nickle Platinum Silicide ( NiPtSi ) ; [0044]) . Regarding Claim 5 , Liaw ‘889 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “ a type of the semiconductor material for making the second metal semiconductor compound is different from a type of the semiconductor material for making the first metal semiconductor compound; or the type of the semiconductor material for manufacturing the second metal semiconductor compound is identical to the type of the semiconductor material for manufacturing the first metal semiconductor compound, and a stoichiometric ratio of elements in the semiconductor material for making the second metal semiconductor compound is different from a stoichiometric ratio of elements in the semiconductor material for making the first metal semiconductor compound ” . However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a type of the semiconductor material for making the second metal semiconductor compound is different from a type of the semiconductor material for making the first metal semiconductor compound; or the type of the semiconductor material for manufacturing the second metal semiconductor compound is identical to the type of the semiconductor material for manufacturing the first metal semiconductor compound, and a stoichiometric ratio of elements in the semiconductor material for making the second metal semiconductor compound is different from a stoichiometric ratio of elements in the semiconductor material for making the first metal semiconductor compound 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 select a type of the semiconductor material for making the second metal semiconductor compound is different from a type of the semiconductor material for making the first metal semiconductor compound; or the type of the semiconductor material for manufacturing the second metal semiconductor compound is identical to the type of the semiconductor material for manufacturing the first metal semiconductor compound, and a stoichiometric ratio of elements in the semiconductor material for making the second metal semiconductor compound is different from a stoichiometric ratio of elements in the semiconductor material for making the first metal semiconductor compound in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device. Regarding Claim 6 , Liaw ‘889 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “ a width of the gate length defining structure in the length direction of the gate stack structure is in a range of 3 nm to 10 nm ”. However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a width of the gate length defining structure in the length direction of the gate stack structure is in a range of 3 nm to 10 nm 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 select a width of the gate length defining structure in the length direction of the gate stack structure is in a range of 3 nm to 10 nm in order to improve the performance of the semiconductor device . Regarding Claim 7 , Liaw ‘889 teaches a plurality of layers of nanostructures (210A; [0051]) that are arranged at intervals along a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate (see Fig. 4; [0024]). Regarding Claim 8 , Liaw ‘889 teaches a semiconductor device (see para. [0019]). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liaw (US 2020/0105889, hereinafter as Liaw ‘889) in view of Cheng (US 2020/0266060 , hereinafter as Chen ‘060 ). Regarding Claim 3 , Liaw ‘889 teaches a dielectric layer (225; [0036]) covering the semiconductor substrate (201) , wherein; a first contact hole and a second contact hole penetrating the dielectric layer in a thickness direction of the semiconductor substrate are provided in the dielectric layer, the first contact hole exposing a part of the source region of each layer of nanostructure and the second contact hole exposing a part of the drain region of each layer of nanostructure; a source electrode filled in the first contact hole; and a drain electrode filled in the second contact hole, wherein each of a material of the drain electrode and a material of the source electrode is a metal material (metal plug, see Fig. 27; para. [0041]) . Thus, Liaw ‘889 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “ a top of the dielectric layer is flush with a top of the gate stack structure ”. Chen ‘060 teaches a top of the dielectric layer (160; [0036]) is flush with a top of the gate stack structure (170; [0036]) (see Fig. 1A) . Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the in vention to modify Liaw ‘889 by having a top of the dielectric layer is flush with a top of the gate stack structure for the purpose of reduc ing parasitic resistance in electrical paths between source/drain layers and active channel layers surrounded by gate structures of the FET devices (see para. [0004]) as suggested by Chen ‘060 . 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: Peng et al. ( US 10,950,731 B1 ) 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. S ee MPEP 2141.02 VI. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3911 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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 ( FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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