DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-7 and 14-20) in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/23/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17-19 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 pinched off within spaces between the NFET nanosheets” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, “pinch off” would be understood to mean “to separate (something) from something else, using a pinching motion.” The first workfunction metal, understood as disclosed element 130, cannot be construed as being separated, in any manner, “within spaces between the NFET nanosheets.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “a thin layer” are unclear because “thin” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a doped metal between the PFET nanosheets surrounded by a thin layer of a workfunction setting metal,” is unclear as to what element is “surrounded by a thin layer” (i.e. the PFET nanosheets or the doped metal) and as to how “a thin layer of a workfunction setting metal” is related to the previously recited first and second workfunction setting metals.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “the NFET nanosheets (PFET nanosheets) comprise a first (second) interfacial layer and a first (second) high-κ layer beneath the first (second) workfunction setting metal,” are unclear in light of the specification. Specifically, the “nanosheets” are disclosed as a separate element from the interfacial layer and first high-κ layer, and not as comprising the interfacial layer and the high-κ layer. Accordingly, the proper interpretation of “nanosheets” is unclear.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the nanosheets” is unclear as to which nanosheets the limitation refers, and as to how it is related to the previously recited NFET nanosheets and PFET nanosheets.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation “the workfunction metal” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “workfunction setting metal.”
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the NFET workfunction setting metal pinches off between the first nanosheet of the NFET transistor and the second nanosheet of the NFET transistor,” is unclear as to what is required by the claim. Specifically, “pinch off” would be understood to mean “to separate (something) from something else, using a pinching motion.” As currently recited it appears the workfunction setting metal is required to separate another element, however what other element is unclear. Additionally, the first workfunction metal, understood as disclosed element 130, cannot be construed as being separated, in any manner, “within spaces between the NFET nanosheets.”
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “a same elemental material” 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) 1-2, 4-7, 14, and 16-20 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”).
Regarding claim 1, 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) pinched off within spaces between the NFET nanosheets;
a PFET transistor comprising: PFET nanosheets (215, see col. 6 para. 2) surrounded by a thin layer of a second workfunction setting metal (222, see col. 5 para. 6); and
a metal (e.g. 212, see col. 5 para. 2) between the PFET nanosheets surrounded by a thin layer of a workfunction setting metal (215 surrounded by 222).
Huang does not explicitly disclose the metal being a doped metal.
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).
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, in order to adjust the work function of the layer (see Jang [0080] and [0100] at least).
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
the NFET nanosheets comprise a first interfacial layer (216) and a first high-κ layer (218) beneath the first workfunction setting metal; and
the PFET nanosheets comprise a second interfacial layer (216) and a second high-κ layer (218) 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 nanosheets comprise a thickness between 2 nanometers and 9 nanometers (see col. 5 para. 3), and a separation distance between the 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 and 16-20, 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, 4, and 6 above.
Claim(s) 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao in view of Jang, as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Hsiung et al. (US 20220310814; herein “Hsiung”).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Bao in view of Jang does not disclose wherein the doped metal comprises palladium.
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 Boa and Jang by having the metal comprise palladium, as taught by Hsiung, 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.
Conclusion
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 4/16/2026
Prosecution Insights