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
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, with traverse, of claims 1-20 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
Applicant’s arguments, in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made” with the reply “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 05/20/2026”, see “For example, all of claims 1-20 recite structural features described and illustrated with respect to FIGS. 24-27, and no claim recites limitations disclosed only for one of the alleged species and not the other. Additionally, the mutually exclusive features alleged on pages2 and 3 of the Office Action are disclosed in all of FIGS. 24-27.In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits the restriction is not proper, and respectfully requests the restriction be withdrawn” (remarks on page 7) have been fully considered.
The examiner has found the Applicant’s arguments to be persuasive. Therefore, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 03/25/2026 is hereby withdrawn.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a combination or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 122, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
This office action consider claims 1-20 pending for prosecution.
Drawings
2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the limitations in claims:
(related to device claim 1), “wherein a bottommost surface of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region (Claim 1)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant is reminded that the element, to be shown in the drawing, must not be a temporary element of a method or a lithographic process that does not exist in the final device structure as claimed. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.”
If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 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 Claim 1, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “wherein a bottommost surface of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region” (Claim 1; Lines 6-7). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “wherein a bottommost surface of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region” (Claim 1) is ambiguous and unclear. The first source drain region is (136; Fig. 26; [0072]; 136 in the 1st Array) and the second source drain region is ({136, 132}; Fig. 26; [0072]; {136, 132} in the 2nd Array). It is not clear how the bottommost surface of (136; Fig. 26; [0072]; i.e. the bottommost surface of 136 in the 1st Array) is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region ({136, 132}; Fig. 26; [0072]; i.e. the bottommost surface of {136, 132} in the 2nd Array, which would be the bottommost surface of 136 in the 2nd Array). Thus, it is not clear how “a bottommost surface of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region” (Claim 1). Therefore, the limitation of “wherein a bottommost surface of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region” (Claim 1; Lines 6-7) is indefinite and unclear.
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, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, those are rejected under 112(b) because of their dependency status from claim 1.
Regarding Claim 8, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “wherein a bottommost surface of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region” (Claim 8; Lines 5-7). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “wherein a bottommost surface of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region” (Claim 8) is ambiguous and unclear. The first source drain region is (136; Fig. 26; [0072]; 136 in the 1st Array) and the second source drain region is ({136, 132}; Fig. 26; [0072]; {136, 132} in the 2nd Array). It is not clear how the bottommost surface of (136; Fig. 26; [0072]; i.e. the bottommost surface of 136 in the 1st Array) is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region ({136, 132}; Fig. 26; [0072]; i.e. the bottommost surface of {136, 132} in the 2nd Array, which would be the bottommost surface of 136 in the 2nd Array). Thus, it is not clear how “a bottommost surface of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region” (Claim 8). Therefore, the limitation of “wherein a bottommost surface of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the second source drain region” (Claim 8; Lines 5-7) is indefinite and unclear.
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, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Regarding Claim 15, the instant claim recites limitations, wherein the metes and bounds of the claimed method are vague and ill-defined as a result of uncertainty in the different boundaries and new limitations “wherein the first source drain region comprises an epitaxial material; and a second transistor comprising a second gate-to-gate space and a second source drain region, wherein the second source drain region comprises the epitaxial material, and wherein the epitaxial material of the second source drain region surrounds at least two sides of a core material, wherein the first gate-to-gate space is less than the second gate-to-gate space, and wherein a bottommost surface of the epitaxy material of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the core material of the second source drain region” (Claim 15; Lines 3-10). The claim is indefinite because of the following:
i) The claim is indefinite because “wherein the first source drain region comprises an epitaxial material; and a second transistor comprising a second gate-to-gate space and a second source drain region, wherein the second source drain region comprises the epitaxial material, and wherein the epitaxial material of the second source drain region surrounds at least two sides of a core material, wherein the first gate-to-gate space is less than the second gate-to-gate space, and wherein a bottommost surface of the epitaxy material of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the core material of the second source drain region” (Claim 15) is ambiguous and unclear. The first source drain region comprises an epitaxial material (Claim 15, Line 3), the second source drain region comprises the epitaxial material (Claim 15, Line 5), and that the epitaxial material of the second source drain region surrounds at least two sides of a core material (Claim 15, Lines 6-7). Yet, later it is claimed that the core material is of the second source drain region, whereas the [0005] and [0096] of the “Specification” of the instant invention merely state that “where the epitaxial material of the second source drain region surrounds at least two sides of a core material” and never state that the “core material” is of the “the second source drain region”. Thus, it is not clear how the core material is part of the second source drain region. Therefore, the limitation of “wherein the first source drain region comprises an epitaxial material; and a second transistor comprising a second gate-to-gate space and a second source drain region, wherein the second source drain region comprises the epitaxial material, and wherein the epitaxial material of the second source drain region surrounds at least two sides of a core material, wherein the first gate-to-gate space is less than the second gate-to-gate space, and wherein a bottommost surface of the epitaxy material of the first source drain region is above a bottommost surface of the core material of the second source drain region” (Claim 15; Lines 3-10) is indefinite and unclear.
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, whereby the claims are rendered indefinite. Therefore, the resulting claim is indefinite and is failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. Appropriate clarification and/or correction are/is required within metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
As there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim, it would not be proper for the examiner to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. See MPEP § 706 and MPEP § 2173.II (second) wherein In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Relevant Prior Art
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. (US 12107135 B2)
Greene et al. (US 20220310602 A1)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. 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.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights