DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected Invention I (claims 1-7 and 14-20) without traverse in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-13 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a second workfunction setting metal deposited at a deposition thickness that is less than half of a separation distance between the PFET nanosheets,” does not have support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, it is noted that there is no disclosure of a thickness of the second workfunction setting material. It is further noted that drawings are not to scale and cannot be relied upon as support for relative dimensions.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 18-19 is/are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a first workfunction setting metal deposited at a deposition thickness that is greater than half of a separation distance between the NFET nanosheets,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the “thickness” should be interpreted as. Applicant’s disclosure appears to equate the recited feature with the layer pinching off spaces between the nanosheets, which as best understood amounts to the space between the nanosheets being completely filled as shown in Fig. 4A. If the thickness is understood to be a thickness of the whole layer 130 between the nanosheets, it is unclear how a thickness with a lower limit of “half the separation distance” could achieve this feature. However, if the thickness is understood to be a thickness of each portion of the layer coating a top or bottom surface of a corresponding nanosheet, it is unclear how the thickness could be anything more than half. It is additionally noted that the separation distance between nanosheets would be understood as the separation between element 120, and it is unclear how the additional layer 128 on 120 impacts any assessment of a thickness relative to the spacing between 120. Accordingly, the proper interpretation of the limitation cannot be ascertained and the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “PFET nanosheets surrounded by a second workfunction setting metal deposited at a deposition thickness that is less than half of a separation distance between the PFET nanosheets,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the “thickness” should be interpreted as and as to how the “less than half of a separation distance” should be determined. Applicant’s appears to equate the recited feature as being contrasted to the layer pinching off spaces between the nanosheets, i.e. the layer does not pinch off spaces between the nanosheets in the PFET as contrasted to the NFET. As best understood this amounts to the space between the nanosheets being not completely filled as shown in Fig. 4A. However, as no disclosure relates to the relative thickness recited in the limitation, it is unclear as to what “half of a separation distance” requires and/or how it is meant to be determined. It is additionally noted that the separation distance between nanosheets would be understood as the separation between element 120, and it is unclear how the additional layers 126 and 128 on 120 impacts any assessment of a thickness relative to the spacing between 120. Accordingly, the proper interpretation of the limitation cannot be ascertained and the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a doped metal between the second workfunction setting metal surrounding the PFET nanosheets surrounded by a thin layer of a workfunction setting metal,” is unclear as to how a doped metal is “between the second workfunction setting metal,” as between would be understood as indicating a disposition relative to two other elements, however the limitation recites “between” a single element. It is further unclear as to what element is “surrounding the PFET nanosheets” (i.e. the doped metal or the second workfunction setting metal).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “a first (second) interfacial layer and a first (second) high-κ layer surrounding the NFET (PFET) nanosheets beneath the first (second) workfunction setting metal,” is unclear as to what is required by “beneath.” Specifically, it is unclear as to how the layers can be “surrounding,” which would appear to require being around multiple sides, e.g. top and bottom sides, and also “beneath.”
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “a separation distance between the PFET nanosheets and the NFET nanosheets is between 5 and 15 nanometers” is unclear as to if it requires a separation distance between PFET nanosheets and/or a separation distance between NFET nanosheets, i.e. within the NFET or within the PFET, or if it requires a separation between the PFET nanosheets and the NFET nanosheets, i.e. a lateral spacing between the NFET and the PFET.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the NFET workfunction setting metal is deposited at a deposition thickness that is greater than half of a separation distance between the first nanosheet…and the second nanosheet,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, it is unclear as to what the “thickness” should be interpreted as. Applicant’s disclosure appears to equate the recited feature with the layer pinching off spaces between the nanosheets, which as best understood amounts to the space between the nanosheets being completely filled as shown in Fig. 4A. If the thickness is understood to be a thickness of the whole layer 130 between the nanosheets, it is unclear how a thickness with a lower limit of “half the separation distance” could achieve this feature. However, if the thickness is understood to be a thickness of each portion of the layer coating a top or bottom surface of a corresponding nanosheet, it is unclear how the thickness could be anything more than half. It is additionally noted that the separation distance between nanosheets would be understood as the separation between element 120, and it is unclear how the additional layer 128 on 120 impacts any assessment of a thickness relative to the spacing between 120. Accordingly, the proper interpretation of the limitation cannot be ascertained and the scope of the claim is unclear.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “a same elemental composition” is unclear as to if the limitation requires each to comprise the same element, or if it requires each to be an elemental material and further the elemental material is the same.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US 9997519; herein “Bao”) in view of Jang et al. (US 20180174845; herein “Jang”) and Hsiung et al. (US 20220310814; herein “Hsiung”).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Bao discloses in Fig. 6C and related text a semiconductor structure, comprising:
an NFET transistor comprising NFET nanosheets (214, see col. 6 para. 2) and a first workfunction setting metal (226, see col. 5 para. 6) deposited at a deposition thickness that is greater than half of a separation distance between the NFET nanosheets (interpreted as requiring, e.g., filling a space between the nanosheets, see Fig. 6C); and
a PFET transistor comprising:
PFET nanosheets (215, see col. 6 para. 2) surrounded by a second workfunction setting metal (222, see col. 5 para. 6) deposited at a deposition thickness that is less than half of a separation distance between the PFET nanosheets (interpreted as requiring, e.g., not filling a space between the nanosheets, see Fig. 6C); and
a metal (e.g. 212, see col. 5 para. 2) between the second workfunction setting metal surrounding the PFET nanosheets surrounded by a thin layer of a workfunction setting metal (215 surrounded by 222).
Boa does not explicitly disclose
the metal being a doped metal and providing a compression strain on the PFET nanosheets;
wherein the doped metal comprises palladium.
In the same field of endeavor, Jang teaches in Fig. 4 and related text a semiconductor structure comprising the metal being a doped metal (see [0080] and [0100] at least).
In the same field of endeavor, Hsiung teaches in Fig. 12A and related text a semiconductor device wherein the metal comprises palladium (work function layer 72, see [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Bao by having the metal being a doped metal, as taught by Jang, having the metal comprise palladium, as taught by Hsiung, in order to adjust the work function of the layer (see Jang [0080] and [0100] at least) in order to employ a suitable and well-known material for a work function material for a PFET transistor (see Hsiung [0030]). Additionally, Hsiung shows that Pd and TiN are equivalent structures known in the art for work function layers. Therefore, because these two were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the Pd of Hsiung for the TiN of Boa and Jang. Furthermore, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125. See also MPEP 2144.07. The limitation “the doped metal comprises palladium” is taught by the combination of the layer comprising Pd, as shown by Hsiung, and the layer being doped as shown by Jang.
The limitation “providing a compression strain on the PFET nanosheets” is taught because the material of the second workfunction setting material of the combined device is the same material as applicant’s disclosed invention, and therefore it would be understood to have the same function and/or property, and therefore would have the same effect on the nanosheets. Note that the limitation is a property or function of the claimed device. It is the position of the Office that when the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, that a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established in regards to the claimed properties or functions. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP 2114.I and 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Bao further discloses wherein the first workfunction setting metal (226) and the second workfunction setting metal (222) comprise a selection from the group consisting of: titanium nitride and aluminum alloy (see col. 7 para. 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, the combined device shows wherein the doped metal is doped with hydrogen (Jang: see [0080]).
Regarding claim 5, Bao further discloses
a first interfacial layer (216) and a first high-κ layer (218) surrounding the NFET nanosheets beneath the first workfunction setting metal; and
a second interfacial layer (216) and a second high-κ layer (218) surrounding the PFET nanosheets beneath the second workfunction setting metal (see col. 7 para. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Bao further discloses further comprising a fill metal (228/230, see col. 6 para. 6 and col. 8 para. 3) around the doped metal, wherein the fill metal fills a replacement metal gate trench between a first source/drain (S/D) and a second S/D (see Fig. 6D).
Regarding claim 7, Bao further discloses wherein the PFET nanosheets and the NFET nanosheets comprise a thickness between 2 nanometers and 9 nanometers (see col. 5 para. 3), and a separation distance between the PFET nanosheets and the NFET nanosheets is between 5 and 15 nanometers (see col. 8 para. 5).
Note that the ranges disclosed by Bao overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the thickness and spacing to be a result effective variable affecting the overall device size and electrical characteristics of and between the channels. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Bao to have the thickness and the spacing within the claimed range in order to achieve a desired balance of characteristics, and since optimum or workable ranges of such variables are discoverable through routine experimentation. see MPEP 2144.05 II.B and 2143. Furthermore, it has also been held that the applicant must show that a particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936, (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some dimensional limitation or other variable within the claims, patentability cannot be found. The instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claims 14-20, Bao in view of Jang teaches the invention in substantially the same manner and for substantially the same reasons as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights