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 Group I and Species A in the reply filed on 6/3/2026 is acknowledged.
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 22 and 23 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 22, the limitation “a ratio of the first height (understood to be disclosed element 123h1) to the fourth height (understood to be disclosed element 122nh2) ranges from about 1.1 to about 1.5,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation “wherein a ratio of the third height (understood to be disclosed element 122nh1) to the fourth height (understood to be disclosed element 122nh2) ranges from about 1.5 to about 3.0,” does not appear to have support in the originally filed disclosure.
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) 4 and 24-28 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 4, the limitation “wherein the extension structure has a fourth height adjacent to the end portion of the channel structure and a fifth height adjacent to the S/D structure greater than the fourth height,” is unclear as to how the heights are related to the third height and the required relationship between the third height and the second height recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “wherein the stack of channel structures comprises a central portion and an end portion,” is unclear if a central portion and an end portion of the stack is required or a central portion and an end portion of each channel structure of the stack of channel structures.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “an extension structure between the stack of channel structures and the S/D structure” is unclear as to if an extension structure is required between the stack and the S/D structure or if an extension structure is required between each channel structure of the stack of channel structures and the S/D structure.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “an inner spacer structure…between the end portion of the stack of channel structures” is unclear as to between the end portion of the stack and what other element.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
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) 1, 4-6, 11-13, 15-16, 24, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20190181224; herein “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses in Fig. 8 and related text a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a channel structure (e.g. structure including at least 14) on a substrate (10), wherein the channel structure comprises a central portion (e.g. central portion of 14) having a first height and an end portion (e.g. end portion of 22) having a second height greater than the first height (note that one can choose portions such that the limitation is met);
an extension structure (e.g. 26) in contact with the end portion of the channel structure, wherein the extension structure has a third height greater than the second height; and
a source/drain (S/D) structure (28, see [0052]) on the substrate, wherein the extension structure is between the channel structure and the S/D structure.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang further discloses wherein the extension structure has a fourth height adjacent to the end portion of the channel structure (e.g. height of 26 at a portion above or below 22) and a fifth height adjacent to the S/D structure greater than the fourth height (e.g. height of 26 at 28).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang further discloses an inner spacer (24S) structure in contact with the extension structure, the S/D structure, and the end portion of the channel structure.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang further discloses wherein the inner spacer structure has a fourth height adjacent to the end portion of the channel structure (e.g. height of 24S between adjacent 14) and a fifth height adjacent to the S/D structure less than the fourth height (e.g. height of 24S between adjacent 26).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses in Fig. 8 and related text a semiconductor device comprising:
a channel structure (e.g. structure including at least 14) on a substrate (10), wherein the channel structure comprises a central portion (e.g. central portion of 14) and an end portion (e.g. end portion of 22);
a gate structure (30/32, see [0058]) wrapped around the central portion of the channel structure;
a source/drain (S/D) structure (28, see [0052]) on the substrate and adjacent to the end portion of the channel structure; and
an extension structure (e.g. 26) between the channel structure and the S/D structure, wherein a first sidewall of the extension structure adjacent to the end portion (e.g. sidewall in direct contact with 22) of the channel structure has a first height and a second sidewall of the extension structure adjacent to the S/D structure (e.g. sidewall in direct contact with 28) has a second height greater than the first height.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang further discloses wherein the central portion has a third height and the end portion has a fourth height greater than the third height (note that one can choose portions such that the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang further discloses wherein the first height (of sidewall of 26 in direct contact with 22) is greater than the fourth height (of central portion of 14) (note that one can choose a portion of 14 such that the limitation is met).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang further discloses an inner spacer structure (24S) in contact with the gate structure, the extension structure, the S/D structure, and the end portion of the channel structure.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang further discloses wherein the inner spacer structure has a third height adjacent to the end portion of the channel structure (e.g. height of 24S between adjacent 14) and a fourth height adjacent to the S/D structure less than the third height (e.g. height of 24S between adjacent 26).
Regarding claim 24, Zhang discloses in Fig. 8 and related text a semiconductor device comprising:
a stack of channel structures (e.g. structures including at least 14) on a substrate (10), wherein the stack of channel structures comprises (e.g. central portion of 14) and an end portion (e.g. end portion of 22);
a source/drain (S/D) structure (28, see [0052]) on the substrate and adjacent to the end portion of the stack of channel structures;
an extension structure (e.g. 26) between the stack of channel structures and the S/D structure; and
an inner spacer structure (24S) adjacent to the S/D structure and between the end portion of the stack of channel structures, wherein the inner spacer structure has a first height adjacent to the end portion (e.g. height of 24S between adjacent 14) and a second height adjacent to the S/D structure less than the first height (e.g. height of 24S between adjacent 26).
Regarding claim 26, Zhang further discloses wherein the extension structure has a third height adjacent to the end portion of the stack of channel structures (e.g. height of 26 at a portion above or below 22) and a fourth height adjacent to the S/D structure (e.g. height of 26 at 28), the fourth height being greater than the third height.
Regarding claim 27, Zhang further discloses
the inner spacer structure has a first thickness between the stack of channel structures and the S/D structure (e.g. taken horizontally across 24S);
the extension structure has a second thickness between the stack of channel structures and the S/D structure (e.g. taken horizontally across 26);
and the first thickness is greater than the second thickness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 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) 2, 3, 7, 21-23, 25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang.
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 7, Zhang further disclose
wherein a ratio of the second height (of end portion of 22) to the first height (of central portion of 14) ranges from about 1.1 to about 1.8 (note that one can choose portions such that the limitation is met; further note that “about” is being interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation and the limitations are therefore met because the features are of approximately the same scale);
wherein a ratio of the third height (of 26) to the second height (of end portion of 22) ranges from about 1.1 to about 1.5 (note that “about” is being interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation and the limitations are therefore met because the features are of approximately the same scale);
wherein a ratio of the fourth height (of 24s between adjacent 14) to the fifth height (of 24s between adjacent 26) ranges from about 1.5 to about 3.0 (note that “about” is being interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation and the limitations are therefore met because the features are of approximately the same scale).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the heights of the layers to be result effective variables affecting the size of the device, the electrical characteristics of the device, and ease and cost of manufacture. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Zhang to have the heights, and therefore the ratios, 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 21-23, Zhang further discloses
wherein a ratio of the fourth height (of end portion of 22) to the third height (of central portion of 14) ranges from about 1.1 to about 1.8 (note that one can choose portions such that the limitation is met; further note that “about” is being interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation and the limitations are therefore met because the features are of approximately the same scale);
wherein a ratio of the first height (of sidewall of 26 in contact with 22) to the fourth height (of end portion of 22) ranges from about 1.1 to about 1.5 (note that one can choose portions such that the limitation is met; further note that “about” is being interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation and the limitations are therefore met because the features are of approximately the same scale);
wherein a ratio of the third height (of 24S between adjacent 14) to the fourth height (or 24S between adjacent 26) ranges from about 1.5 to about 3.0 (note that “about” is being interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation and the limitations are therefore met because the features are of approximately the same scale).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the heights of the layers to be result effective variables affecting the size of the device, the electrical characteristics of the device, and ease and cost of manufacture. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Zhang to have the heights, and therefore the ratios, 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 25 and 28, Zhang further discloses
wherein a ratio of the first height (of 24S between adjacent 14) to the second height (of 24S between adjacent 26) ranges from about 1.5 to about 3.0 (note that “about” is being interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation and the limitations are therefore met because the features are of approximately the same scale);
wherein a ratio of the first thickness (of 24s) to the second thickness (of 26) ranges from about 1.5 to about 10 (note that “about” is being interpreted with its broadest reasonable interpretation and the limitations are therefore met because the features are of approximately the same scale).
In the alternative, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the heights and thicknesses of the layers to be result effective variables affecting the size of the device, the electrical characteristics of the device, and ease and cost of manufacture. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Zhang to have the heights, and therefore the ratios, 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.
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
Prosecution Insights