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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yun et al. (US 2024/0395900 A1; hereinafter “Yun”). In regard to claim 15, Yun teaches a nanosheet semiconductor structure (a semiconductor device 20 containing a plurality of nanosheet channel layers 110) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 6 and 37), comprising: a backside contact structure (backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3) directly beneath and contacting a first source drain region (the backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3 are formed under source/drain regions SD2, SD3 and SD5) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 42), wherein the backside contact structure comprises a faceted profile (the backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3 are shown with faceted structures in Fig. 2); a placeholder (placeholder structures P1 and P4) adjacent to the backside contact structure and directly beneath a second source drain region (the placeholder structures P1 and P4 are formed under source/drain regions SD1 and SD4) (Fig. 2); and a dielectric liner (a contact spacer 103) surrounding a bottom portion of the placeholder (a bottom spacer 103B surrounds each of the backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 44). In regard to claim 17, Yun teaches stack spacers (side spacer 103A) between and physically separating the backside contact structure from the one or more gates (the side spacer 103A are shown between the backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3 and gate structures G1-G6 in Fig. 2) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 45). 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. Claims 1, 3, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun et al. (US 2024/0395900 A1; hereinafter “Yun”), in view of Park et al. (US 2024/0413213 A1; hereinafter “Park”). In regard to claim 1, Yun teaches a nanosheet semiconductor structure (a semiconductor device 20 containing a plurality of nanosheet channel layers 110) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 6 and 37), comprising: a backside contact structure (backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3), a placeholder (placeholder structures P1 and P4) adjacent to the backside contact structure and directly beneath a source drain region (the placeholder structures P1 and P4 are formed under source/drain regions SD1 and SD4) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 42); and a dielectric liner (a contact spacer 103) surrounding a bottom portion of the placeholder (a bottom spacer 103B surrounds each of the backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 44). Yun doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the backside contact structure comprises a faceted profile extending beneath one or more gates. Park teaches a nanosheet semiconductor structure (a 3D-stacked semiconductor device) (Fig. 3D and paragraph 81), wherein a backside contact structure (a backside contact structure 133) comprises a faceted profile extending beneath one or more gates (the backside contact structure 133 is shown with a faceted surface under the gate structure 155) (Fig. 3D and paragraph 58). It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to combine the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Park to have the backside contact structure comprises a faceted profile extending beneath one or more gates since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In regard to claim 3, Yun teaches stack spacers (side spacer 103A) between and physically separating the backside contact structure from the one or more gates (the side spacer s 103A are shown between the backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3 and gate structures G1-G6 in Fig. 2) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 45). In regard to claim 8, Yun teaches a nanosheet semiconductor structure (a semiconductor device 20 containing a plurality of nanosheet channel layers 110) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 6 and 37), comprising: a placeholder (placeholder structures P1 and P4) adjacent to a backside contact structure and directly beneath a source drain region (the placeholder structures P1 and P4 are formed under source/drain regions SD1 and SD4) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 42); and a dielectric liner surrounding a bottom portion of the placeholder (a bottom spacer 103B surrounds each of the backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3) (Fig. 2 and paragraphs 44). Yun doesn’t explicitly teach a backside contact structure having a faceted profile extending laterally in a direction perpendicular to one or more gates. Park teaches a nanosheet semiconductor structure (a 3D-stacked semiconductor device) (Fig. 3D and paragraph 81), wherein a backside contact structure (a backside contact structure 133) having a faceted profile extending laterally in a direction perpendicular to one or more gates (the backside contact structure 133 is shown with a faceted surface under the gate structure 155) (Fig. 3D and paragraph 58). It would’ve been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time to combine the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Park to have a backside contact structure having a faceted profile extending laterally in a direction perpendicular to one or more gates since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In regard to claim 10, Yun teaches stack spacers (side spacer 103A) between and physically separating the backside contact structure from the one or more gates (the side spacer 103A are shown between the backside source/drain contact structures BC1-BC3 and gate structures G1-G6 in Fig. 2) (Fig. 2 and paragraph 45). Claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Park as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2024/0421154 A1; hereinafter “Lee”) In regard to claim 2, Yun in view of Park don’t explicitly teach a buffer layer between and physically separating the placeholder from the source drain region. Lee teaches a semiconductor structure (an integrated circuit device 100) (Fig. 2A and paragraph 16), further comprising: a buffer layer (a conductive layer 222) between and physically separating a placeholder from source drain region (the conductive layer 222 may be in the first interlayer 210 between each of the placeholders 216 and a respective one of the second, third, and fourth source/drain regions 102b, 102c, and 102d) (Fig. 2A and paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Lee to have a buffer layer between and physically separating the placeholder from the source drain region since this layer can facilitate connections of power networks to the source and drain regions as taught by Lee (paragraph 6). In regard to claim 4, Yun in view of Park don’t explicitly teach wherein a bottommost surface of the backside contact structure is substantially flat and directly contacts a backside power rail. Lee teaches wherein a bottommost surface of a backside contact structure (a backside contact 218 including a conductive plug 220 may be collectively referred to as a backside contact structure) is substantially flat and directly contacts a backside power rail (the backside contact structure is shown to be flat and contacting a power 226) (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 36-37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Lee to have bottommost surface of the backside contact structure is substantially flat and directly contacts a backside power rail since this layout is well known to allow connections to the a backside power distribution network structure (BSPDNS) within the device as taught by Lee (paragraph 6). In regard to claim 7, Yun in view of Park don’t explicitly teach wherein a topmost surface of the backside contact structure is above a topmost surface of the placeholder. Lee teaches wherein a topmost surface of a backside contact structure (a conductive layer 222, a backside contact 218, and a conductive plug 220 and may be collectively referred to as a backside contact structure) is above a topmost surface of a placeholder (the backside contact structure is shown to have upper most surface than the placeholder 216 due to the backside contact structure containing the conductive layer 222) (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 36 and 41). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Lee to have a topmost surface of the backside contact structure above a topmost surface of the placeholder since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In regard to claim 9, Yun in view of Park don’t explicitly teach a buffer layer between and physically separating the placeholder from the source drain region. Lee teaches a semiconductor structure (an integrated circuit device 100) (Fig. 2A and paragraph 16), further comprising: a buffer layer (a conductive layer 222) between and physically separating a placeholder from source drain region (the conductive layer 222 may be in the first interlayer 210 between each of the placeholders 216 and a respective one of the second, third, and fourth source/drain regions 102b, 102c, and 102d) (Fig. 2A and paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Lee to have a buffer layer between and physically separating the placeholder from the source drain region since this layer can facilitate connections of power networks to the source and drain regions as taught by Lee (paragraph 6). In regard to claim 11, Yun in view of Park don’t explicitly teach wherein a bottommost surface of the backside contact structure is substantially flat and directly contacts a backside power rail. Lee teaches wherein a bottommost surface of a backside contact structure (a backside contact 218 including a conductive plug 220 may be collectively referred to as a backside contact structure) is substantially flat and directly contacts a backside power rail (the backside contact structure is shown to be flat and contacting a power 226) (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 36-37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Lee to have bottommost surface of the backside contact structure is substantially flat and directly contacts a backside power rail since this layout is well known to allow connections to the a backside power distribution network structure (BSPDNS) within the device as taught by Lee (paragraph 6). In regard to claim 14, Yun in view of Park don’t explicitly teach wherein a topmost surface of the backside contact structure is above a topmost surface of the placeholder. Lee teaches wherein a topmost surface of a backside contact structure (a conductive layer 222, a backside contact 218, and a conductive plug 220 and may be collectively referred to as a backside contact structure) is above a topmost surface of a placeholder (the backside contact structure is shown to have upper most surface than the placeholder 216 due to the backside contact structure containing the conductive layer 222) (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 36 and 41). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Lee to have a topmost surface of the backside contact structure above a topmost surface of the placeholder since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose these particular dimensions because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0131004 A1; hereinafter “Chen”). In regard to claim 5, Yun in view of Park don’t explicitly teach wherein the backside contact structure is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions. Chen teaches a semiconductor structure (a workpiece 200) (Fig. 4A and paragraph 13), wherein a backside contact structure (backside contacts 270) is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions (the backside contact is shown aligned with an isolation feature 204 in Fig. 4A) (Fig. 4A and paragraphs 15 and 24). Furthermore the examiner notes the limitation “the backside contact structure is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions” is a process limitation as the term self-alignment refers to aspects of the backside contact 270 during the manufacture of the device. The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Therefore, a device with a backside contact aligned with adjacent shallow trench isolation regions meets the claim limitation . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Chen to have the backside contact structure is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions as this layout allows for proper separation of elements within the device and avoids unwanted shorts. In regard to claim 12, Yun in view of Park don’t explicitly teach wherein the backside contact structure is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions. Chen teaches a semiconductor structure (a workpiece 200) (Fig. 4A and paragraph 13), wherein a backside contact structure (backside contacts 270) is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions (the backside contact is shown aligned with an isolation feature 204 in Fig. 4A) (Fig. 4A and paragraphs 15 and 24). Furthermore the examiner notes the limitation “the backside contact structure is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions” is a process limitation as the term self-alignment refers to aspects of the backside contact 270 during the manufacture of the device. The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Therefore, a device with a backside contact aligned with adjacent shallow trench isolation regions meets the claim limitation . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Chen to have the backside contact structure is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions as this layout allows for proper separation of elements within the device and avoids unwanted shorts. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Park as applied to claims 1 or 8 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. (US 2021/0134721 A1; hereinafter “Chiang”). In regard to claim 6, Yun in view of Park doesn’t explicitly teach the dielectric liner further disposed along sidewalls and bottoms of shallow trench isolation regions. Chiang teaches a semiconductor structure (semiconductor device 300) (Fig. 25 and paragraph 64), wherein a dielectric liner (a contact etch stop layer (CESL) 91 and a second ILD 100 functions as a dielectric liner) further disposed along sidewalls and bottoms of shallow trench isolation regions (the a contact etch stop layer (CESL) 91 and a second ILD 100 are shown on the sidewalls and bottom of a first ILDs 92 which functions as the shallow trench isolation regions) (Fig. 25 and paragraphs and 62). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Chiang to have the dielectric liner further disposed along sidewalls and bottoms of shallow trench isolation regions as this layout allows for more coverage of insulator material which results in increased device protection from unwanted s h orts. In regard to claim 13, Yun in view of Park doesn’t explicitly teach the dielectric liner further disposed along sidewalls and bottoms of shallow trench isolation regions. Chiang teaches a semiconductor structure (semiconductor device 300) (Fig. 25 and paragraph 64), wherein a dielectric liner (a contact etch stop layer (CESL) 91 and a second ILD 100 functions as a dielectric liner) further disposed along sidewalls and bottoms of shallow trench isolation regions (the a contact etch stop layer (CESL) 91 and a second ILD 100 are shown on the sidewalls and bottom of a first ILDs 92 which functions as the shallow trench isolation regions) (Fig. 25 and paragraphs and 62). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun in view of Park with the teachings of Chiang to have the dielectric liner further disposed along sidewalls and bottoms of shallow trench isolation regions as this layout allows for more coverage of insulator material which results in increased device protection from unwanted shorts. Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Lee. In regard to claim 16, Yun doesn’t explicitly teach a buffer layer between and physically separating the placeholder from the source drain region. Lee teaches a semiconductor structure (an integrated circuit device 100) (Fig. 2A and paragraph 16), further comprising: a buffer layer (a conductive layer 222) between and physically separating a placeholder from source drain region (the conductive layer 222 may be in the first interlayer 210 between each of the placeholders 216 and a respective one of the second, third, and fourth source/drain regions 102b, 102c, and 102d) (Fig. 2A and paragraph 42). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Lee to have a buffer layer between and physically separating the placeholder from the source drain region since this layer can facilitate connections of power networks to the source and drain regions as taught by Lee (paragraph 6). In regard to claim 18, Yun doesn’t explicitly teach wherein a bottommost surface of the backside contact structure is substantially flat and directly contacts a backside power rail. Lee teaches wherein a bottommost surface of a backside contact structure (a backside contact 218 including a conductive plug 220 may be collectively referred to as a backside contact structure) is substantially flat and directly contacts a backside power rail (the backside contact structure is shown to be flat and contacting a power 226) (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 36-37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Lee to have bottommost surface of the backside contact structure is substantially flat and directly contacts a backside power rail since this layout is well known to allow connections to the a backside power distribution network structure (BSPDNS) within the device as taught by Lee (paragraph 6). Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Chen. In regard to claim 19, Yun doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the backside contact structure is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions. Chen teaches a semiconductor structure (a workpiece 200) (Fig. 4A and paragraph 13), wherein a backside contact structure (backside contacts 270) is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions (the backside contact is shown aligned with an isolation feature 204 in Fig. 4A) (Fig. 4A and paragraphs 15 and 24). Furthermore the examiner notes the limitation “the backside contact structure is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions” is a process limitation as the term self-alignment refers to aspects of the backside contact 270 during the manufacture of the device. The presence of process limitations on product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965). Therefore, a device with a backside contact aligned with adjacent shallow trench isolation regions meets the claim limitation . It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Chen to have the backside contact structure is self-aligned to adjacent shallow trench isolation regions as this layout allows for proper separation of elements within the device and avoids unwanted shorts. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Chiang. In regard to claim 20, Yun doesn’t explicitly teach the dielectric liner further disposed along sidewalls and bottoms of shallow trench isolation regions. Chiang teaches a semiconductor structure (semiconductor device 300) (Fig. 25 and paragraph 64), wherein a dielectric liner (a contact etch stop layer (CESL) 91 and a second ILD 100 functions as a dielectric liner) further disposed along sidewalls and bottoms of shallow trench isolation regions (the a contact etch stop layer (CESL) 91 and a second ILD 100 are shown on the sidewalls and bottom of a first ILDs 92 which functions as the shallow trench isolation regions) (Fig. 25 and paragraphs and 62). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Yun with the teachings of Chiang to have the dielectric liner further disposed along sidewalls and bottoms of shallow trench isolation regions as this layout allows for more coverage of insulator material which results in increased device protection from unwanted s h orts. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0078 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thur: 7:30AM-3:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Sue Purvis can be reached at 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 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. /SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893