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 Title The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. (see MPEP § 606.01). This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. The following title is suggested: “ Method for forming a semiconductor device with stacked c hannel structures and cross-couple contacts ” Specification Number of figures submitted does not match the number of figures listed under Brief Description of Drawings in the specification. All of the figures with alphabets should be listed separately . For example, ‘Figs. 1A-1C’ should be ‘Figs. 1A, 1B and 1C’. In particular, ‘Figs. 1a-1d to 12-12d’ in the paragraph [0062], ‘Figs. 2a-2d’ in the paragraph [0063], ‘Figs. 3a-3d’ in the paragraph [0064], ‘Figs. 4a-4d’ in the paragraph [0065] are objected, ‘Figs. 5a-5d’ in the paragraph [0066], ‘Figs. 6a-6d’ in the paragraph [0067], ‘Figs. 7a-7d’ in the paragraph [0068], ‘Figs. 8a-8d’ in the paragraph [0063] ‘Figs. 9a-9d’ in the paragraph [0070], ‘Figs. 10a-10d’ in the paragraph [0071], ‘Figs. 11a-11d’ in the paragraph [0072] and ‘Figs. 12a-12d’ in the paragraph [0073]. See MPEP 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers, MPEP 507 - Drawing Review in the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP). This labeling convention ensures clarity and consistency in referencing figures throughout the patent application and publication. Improper labeling may result in an objection from OPAP and require correction. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim s 1 -17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding the claim 1, the claim recites: In line 7: “forming an opening in the sacrificial gate,” In line 8-9: “forming a cut through the first top channel structure by etching the first top channel structure from the opening,” and In line 12: “forming a dielectric plug in the cut and the opening.” The claim fails to define the structural and spatial relationship between the recited “opening” and the “cut.” The language does not specify whether: 1. the opening and the cut are separate and distinct voids, 2. the cut includes or encompasses the opening, 3. the opening extends into and becomes part of the cut, or 4. the opening and cut together form a single continuous cavity. Because two different structural terms are used, the claim presumptively defines two distinct features; however, the claim later recites forming a dielectric plug “in the cut and the opening,” thereby creating ambiguity as to whether the dielectric plug is a single continuous structure or multiple distinct portions. The ambiguity materially affects claim scope. The geometric configuration and vertical extent of the dielectric plug directly impact the subsequently recited step of: “forming a trench … the trench extending … over the dielectric plug” Without clarity as to the boundaries and configuration of the opening and cut, it is not reasonably certain what structure constitutes the “dielectric plug” over which the trench extends. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, claim 1 is indefinite. Applicant may overcome this rejection by clarifying the structural relationship between the opening and the cut. For example, the claim 1 could be amended to recite: “forming an opening in the sacrificial gate to expose a top surface of the first top channel structure; etching the first top channel structure through the opening to form a cut extending completely through the first top channel structure and terminating on a top surface of the first bottom channel structure, wherein the opening and the cut together define a continuous cavity; and filling the continuous cavity with a dielectric plug”. Further r egarding the claim 1, the claim recites that etching is “stopped over” the first bottom channel structure (claim 1) and the claim 7 recites that “stopped over or on” the dielectric separation layer. The term “stopped over” is unclear as to whether the etching stops directly on the underlying layer, above the underlying layer with a remaining portion of material, or partially exposes the underlying layer. Further, the recitation of “over or on” in claim 7 introduces additional ambiguity and demonstrates inconsistent usage of these terms. The claims therefore lack an objective boundary for determining the etch stop condition, such that the scope of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Applicant may overcome this rejection by clarifying the issue. For example, the claim 1 could be amended to recite: Claim 1: “… the etching extends completely through the first top channel structure and is stopped on the first bottom channel structure;” Claim 7: “… the etching is stopped on the dielectric separation layer;” Applicant may consider amending the claims to clarify the etch stop condition, for example, by specifying whether the etching is stopped on the underlying layer, above the underlying layer with a remaining portion of material, or on an etch stop layer, to provide an objective boundary for the scope of the claims. Regarding claim 1 5 , the claim recites the limitation “ the second dielectric contact capping layer ” in line(s) 26-27 . However, the method only previously defined “forming a dielectric contact capping layer” in the claim 1. There is no “second” capping layer established in the preceding steps of the claim 15. Thus, the examiner recommends amending the limitation to “ the dielectric contact capping layer ”. Regarding claims 2-17, because of their dependency on claim 1, these claims are also rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1. Paul (US 10840146 ) teaches forming stacked channel structures 12 over a substrate 20 (Fig 4B) , forming sacrificial (dummy) gates 26/27 (Fig 4B) extending across stacked channel structures (Fig 5B) , selectively removing semiconductor material from channel layers (Fig 5B) , forming dielectric isolation materials 14/15 (Fig 5B) , performing replacement metal gate (RMG) processing 70 (Fig 11B – Fig 13B) , and forming source/drain structures 42/44 (Fig 13B) , contacts 82/84 (Fig 15A). A nd. Ando (US 10879308 ) further teaches source/drain contact trenches Fig 16: 1604/1606) , gate contacts and source/drain contacts formed through dielectric layers (Fig 17) . However, the prior art does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination, the specific method steps and structural relationships recited in the independent claims, including: selectively etching completely through only a first top channel structure beneath a sacrificial gate while stopping on a corresponding first bottom channel structure , while a second stacked channel structure remains uncut under the same sacrificial gate; forming a dielectric plug in the cut through the first top channel structure and in the opening in the sacrificial gate prior to removal of the sacrificial gate , such that the dielectric plug remains during subsequent replacement metal gate processing; after removal of the sacrificial gate, forming a replacement metal gate structure comprising a first gate stack on only the first bottom channel structure and a second gate stack on both a second bottom channel structure and a second top channel structure , thereby resulting in different gate stack configurations formed from a common sacrificial gate; and forming a cross-couple contact by etching through a dielectric gate capping layer and a dielectric contact capping layer, the cross-couple contact extending from the second gate stack, over the dielectric plug , to a source/drain contact associated with the first bottom channel structure, thereby electrically interconnecting the second gate stack and the source/drain contact. The cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest this particular combination of selective channel cutting under a common sacrificial gate, dielectric plug formation prior to replacement metal gate processing, asymmetric replacement gate stack formation, and cross-coupled gate-to-source/drain contact routing over the dielectric plug. Nor does the prior art provide a teaching or suggestion that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the known processes to arrive at the claimed invention without impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, the claims are considered to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record and are allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Changhyun Yi whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7799 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday: 8A-4P . 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 Davienne Monbleau can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1945 . 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. /Changhyun Yi/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812