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 claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 04/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/14/2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it appears, “Embodiments of the invention include”, in the first line is unnecessary. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 7 is 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.
In the last two lines of claim 7, the limitation, “wherein the second source/drain contact passes through the first ILD and the second dielectric liner”, does not appear to be possible. Accordingly, for the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted to read, “wherein the second source/drain contact passes through the second ILD and the second dielectric liner.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(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, 7, 10-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2025/0169161 A1; hereinafter, “Wang”).
Regarding claims 1-4 and 7:
re claim 1, Wang discloses a semiconductor structure comprising:
a first transistor 204a (Fig. 8B, [0019] and [0043]) having a first source/drain region 236 (Fig. 8A and [0055]);
a second transistor 204b (Fig. 8B, [0022])wherein the second transistor is stacked above the first transistor; and
a first dielectric liner 238 (Fig. 8A and [0058]) between a first interlayer dielectric (ILD) 240 and a second ILD 248 (Fig. 8A, [0058], [0061], and it is noted, in Fig. 8A, the dielectric liner 236 is between ILD 240 and ILD 248 because a line drawn from the bottom left corner of “240” to the top right corner of “248” will pass through layer “238”) wherein the first dielectric liner 238 (Fig. 8A) is below a top surface of the first source/drain region 236 (at least a part of “238” is below a top surface of region “236”);
re claim 2, the semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein the first ILD 240 and the second ILD 248 are each composed of an oxide [0058, 0061];
re claim 3, the semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric liner 238 is composed of silicon nitride (SiN) [0058];
re claim 4, the semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein the second transistor 204b (Figs. 8A-8B) has a second source/drain region 244 [0055], further comprising a second dielectric liner 246 [0061], wherein the second dielectric liner 246 [partially] surrounds the second source/drain region 244 such that a [slanted] bottom surface of the second source/drain region 244 is covered; and
re claim 7(as interpreted), the semiconductor structure of claim 4, further comprising a second source/drain contact 268 (Fig. 11C and [0075]) contacting the second source/drain region 244, wherein the second source/drain contact 268 passes through the second ILD 248 (Figs. 8A and 11C) and the second dielectric liner 246 (Fig. 11C).
Therefore, Wang anticipates claims 1-4 and 7.
Regarding claims 10-13 and 16:
re claim 10, Wang discloses a semiconductor structure comprising:
a bottom source/drain region 236 (Fig. 8A);
a top source/drain region 244 (Fig. 8A); and
a dielectric liner 238 (Fig. 8A) between a bottom interlayer dielectric (ILD) 240 and a top ILD 248 (it is noted, in Fig. 8A, the dielectric liner 236 is between ILD 240 and ILD 248 because a line drawn from the bottom left corner of “240” to the top right corner of “248” will pass through layer “238”), wherein
the dielectric liner 238 is below a top surface of the bottom source/drain region 236 (at least a part of “238” is below a top surface of region “236”);
re claim 11, the semiconductor structure of claim 10, wherein the bottom ILD 240 and the top ILD 248 are each composed of an oxide [0058, 0061];
re claim 12, the semiconductor structure of claim 10, wherein the first dielectric liner 238 is composed of silicon nitride (SiN) [0058];
re claim 13, the semiconductor structure of claim 10, wherein a second dielectric liner 246 [partially] wrapping around the top source/drain region 244 such that sidewalls and a [slanted] bottom surface of the top source/drain region 244 are in contact with the second dielectric liner; and
re claim 16, the semiconductor structure of claim 10, further comprising a top source/drain contact 268 (Fig. 11C and [0075]) contacting the top source/drain region 244, wherein the top source/drain contact 268 passes through the top ILD 248 (Figs. 8A and 11C) and the second dielectric liner 246 (Fig. 11C).
Therefore, Wang anticipates claims 10-13 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Lin et al. (US 2021/0202497 A1; hereinafter, “Lin”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14:
Wang anticipates claims 1 and 10 but does not provide details regarding a gate and gate insulating layer. Lin teaches, in a similar device, gate spacers having an L-shape (e.g., 1130 in Fig. 1L-2, or 1420 in Fig. 1P, [0060, 0082]) are incorporated to provide isolation for a gate 1320.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically incorporate L-shaped gate spacers into Wang, because Lin teaches such spacers provide proper isolation for a gate stack.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 9, 15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Xie et al. (US 2021/0296184 A1; hereinafter, “Xie”).
Regarding claims 6 and 15:
Wang anticipates claims 1 and 10 but does not provide details for a first (bottom) source/drain contact.
Xie teaches, in a similar device, a first (bottom) source/drain contact 77 (Fig. 11 and [0069]) contacting a first (bottom) source/drain region 50, wherein the first (bottom) source/drain contact 77 passes through a first (top) ILD 64 and the first dielectric liner 60.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically incorporate a source/drain contact into Wang, because Xie teaches such a contact structure provides staggard contacts the allow contact to source/drain regions at a bottom of the stack.
Regarding claims 8 and 17:
Xie discloses the first (bottom) source/drain contact 77 (left side of Fig. 11) passes between a first gate region 70 and a second gate region 70 ([0018, 0065], i.e., gate regions 70 are on both sides of contact 77 in Fig. 11).
Regarding claims 9 and 18:
Xie discloses a first (bottom) source/drain region 50 is larger than the second (top) source/drain region 54, wherein such a structure allows staggard connections to the source/drain regions.
Therefore, claims 6, 8, 9, 15, 17 and 18 are rendered obvious by Wang (in view of Xie).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEX H MALSAWMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (4-12 Hours, between 5:30AM-10PM).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at 571-272-1736. 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.
/LEX H MALSAWMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights