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 .
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Regarding Claim 4,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the gate conductor includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer”. However this feature is missing from the instant drawings.
Regarding Claim 11,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the gate conductor includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer”. However this feature is missing from the instant drawings.
Regarding Claim 18,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the gate conductor includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer”. However this feature is missing from the instant drawings.
Therefore, the features listed above must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Objections
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1,
Lin. 4 – 5 recite the limitation “connecting between the buffer layer at end portions of the dog bone channels”. However, in this context “connecting” implies between. Therefore, the sentence structure is redundant. For the sake of clarity of record, this limitation will be interpreted as “connecting
Regarding Claim 6,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the dog bone channels include a sheet width thickness that is less than an active area island thickness”. Grammatically, the phrase “width thickness” is a noun stack error and is, thus, unclear. Further, Par. 42 of the instant specification describes the claimed “sheet width thickness” as a “diminished width”. For the sake of clarity of the record, this limitation will be interpreted as “the dog bone channels include a diminished width that is less than an active area island thickness”.
Regarding Claim 8,
Lin. 5 – 6 recite the limitation “connecting between the source/drain regions”. However, in this context “connecting” implies between. Therefore, the sentence structure is redundant. For the sake of clarity of record, this limitation will be interpreted as “connecting
Regarding Claim 13,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the dog bone channels include a sheet width thickness that is less than an active area island thickness”. Grammatically, the phrase “width thickness” is a noun stack error and, thus, unclear. Further, Par. 42 of the instant specification describes the claimed “sheet width thickness” as a “diminished width”. For the sake of clarity of the record, this limitation will be interpreted as “the dog bone channels include a diminished width that is less than an active area island thickness”.
Regarding Claim 15,
Lin. 5 – 6 recite the limitation “connecting between the source/drain regions”. However, in this context “connecting” implies between. Therefore, the sentence structure is redundant. For the sake of clarity of record, this limitation will be interpreted as “connecting
Regarding Claim 19,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the dog bone channels include a sheet width thickness that is less than an active area island thickness”. Grammatically, the phrase “width thickness” is a noun stack error and, thus, unclear. Further, Par. 42 of the instant specification describes the claimed “sheet width thickness” as a “diminished width”. For the sake of clarity of the record, this limitation will be interpreted as “the dog bone channels include a diminished width that is less than an active area island thickness”.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, & 18—and their respective dependent claims—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 3,
Lin. 2 – 3 recite the limitation “the gate dielectric including a portion in contact with the buffer layer which overlaps with the width of the spacers”. However, based on the sentence structure of this claim, it is unclear if the portion of the gate dielectric is overlapping with the width of the spacers, or the buffer layer is overlapping with the width of the spacers, rendering this claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the gate dielectric including a portion in contact with the buffer layer, and wherein the portion
Regarding Claim 4,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the gate conductor includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer which overlaps with the width of the spacers”. However, based on the sentence structure of this claim, it is unclear if the portion of the gate conductor is overlapping with the width of the spacers, or the buffer layer is overlapping with the width of the spacers, rendering this claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the gate conductor includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer, and wherein the buffer layer
Regarding Claim 10,
Lin. 2 – 3 recite the limitation “the gate dielectric including a portion in contact with the buffer layer which overlaps with the width of the spacers”. However, based on the sentence structure of this claim, it is unclear if the portion of the gate dielectric is overlapping with the width of the spacers, or the buffer layer is overlapping with the width of the spacers, rendering this claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the gate dielectric including a portion in contact with the buffer layer, and wherein the portion
Regarding Claim 11,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the gate conductor includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer which overlaps with the width of the spacers”. However, based on the sentence structure of this claim, it is unclear if the portion of the gate conductor is overlapping with the width of the spacers, or the buffer layer is overlapping with the width of the spacers, rendering this claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the gate conductor includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer, and wherein the buffer layer
Regarding Claim 17,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the gate dielectric includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer which overlaps with a width of the spacers”. However, based on the sentence structure of this claim, it is unclear if the portion of the gate dielectric is overlapping with the width of the spacers, or the buffer layer is overlapping with the width of the spacers, rendering this claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the gate dielectric including a portion in contact with the buffer layer, and wherein the portion
Regarding Claim 18,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the limitation “the gate conductor includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer which overlaps with a width of the spacers”. However, based on the sentence structure of this claim, it is unclear if the portion of the gate conductor is overlapping with the width of the spacers, or the buffer layer is overlapping with the width of the spacers, rendering this claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the gate conductor includes a portion in contact with the buffer layer, and wherein the buffer layer
Examiner’s Note
For the prior art rejections to follow, consider both the original figures of the given reference as well as the annotated and cropped figures of the same provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
689
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
580
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 13, & 15 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE (US 20220285533 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
LEE discloses:
A semiconductor device (Fig. 12: 300), comprising:
source/drain regions (802/502/804) including
(Note that components 502 and 804 are in immediate contact with the source/drains 802. That is, components 802, 502, and 804 are all within “regions” associated with the “source/drains”. Thus, the combination of the components 802/502/804 may be construed to be “source/drain regions” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.)
a main portion (802) and
a buffer layer (502/804) partially encapsulating the main portion (802); and
(Note, components 502 and 804 provide a physical separation or “buffer” for 802 from other components of 300. As such, the combination of components 502/804 may be construed to be a “buffer layer” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.)
(Note, when Fig. 3 & 12 as well as Par. 18 – 20 are considered as a whole, LEE clearly teaches that while only half of 802 is shown on either side of 300 in Fig. 12, 502/804 encapsulates both lateral sides and the lower portion of at least the 802 between adjacent fins 306 where Fig. 3 shows said adjacent fins 306 before further processing that leads to Fig. 12 where only one such fin is shown.)
dog bone channels (310)
extending across a gate conductor (1104) and connecting the buffer layer (502/804) at end portions (EP) of the dog bone channels (310),
the end portions (EP) being thicker than a central portion (CP) of the dog bone channels (310).
Regarding Claim 2,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 1,
wherein the gate conductor (1104) includes
a portion disposed between spacers (328) and
the end portions (EP)
overlap with a width (WDS) of the spacers (328).
Regarding Claim 3,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 2, further comprising
a gate dielectric (1102)
disposed between the dog bone channels (310) and the gate conductor (1104),
the gate dielectric (1102) including
a portion (GDP) in contact with the buffer layer, (502/804) and
wherein the portion (GDP) overlaps with the width (WDS) of the spacers (328).
Regarding Claim 4,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 2,
wherein the gate conductor (1104) includes
a portion in contact with the buffer layer (502/804), and
(As seen in Fig. 12, 1104 is in direct physical contact 1102, and 1102 is in direct physical contact with 502 of 502/804. Therefore, 1104 is in indirect contact with 502/804 where “contact” may be construed to include “indirect contact” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.)
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) overlaps with the width (WDS) of the spacers (328).
(As seen in Fig. 12.)
Regarding Claim 5,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 1,
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) includes
a uniform thickness that encapsulates lateral sides of the main portion (802).
(The uniform thickness can be seen from Fig. 12, and the encapsulation has discussed for Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 6,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 1,
wherein the dog bone channels (310) include
a diminished width (DW) that is less than an active area island (304A) thickness (AIT).
(Note, DW is the “width” of 310 over which the thickness of 310 is “diminished”. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, DW may be construed to be a “diminished width”. )
Regarding Claim 8,
LEE discloses:
A semiconductor device, (Par. 19) comprising:
a gate structure (Fig. 12: 300) including:
a gate conductor (1104) having
a lower portion disposed between source/drain regions (802/502/804) and
(For an argument that 802/502/804 may be construed as “source/drain regions”, see Claim 1.)
an upper portion;
(Portion of 1104 disposed between 328s)
dog bone channels (310)
extending through the gate conductor (1104) and
connecting the source/drain regions (802/502/804); and
spacers (328)
disposed on sidewalls of the upper portion (as described); and
the source/drain regions (802/502/804) including
a main portion (802) and
a buffer layer (502/804) encapsulating the main portion (802),
(For an argument that 502/804 may be construed as a “buffer layer”, see Claim 1.)
(For an argument that 502/804 encapsulates 802, see Claim 1.)
the buffer layer (502/804) contacting end portions (EP) of the dog bone channels (310),
the end portions (EP) being thicker than a central portion (CP) of the dog bone channels (310).
Regarding Claim 9,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 8,
wherein the end portions (EP)
overlap with a width (WDS) of the spacers (328).
Regarding Claim 10,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 9, further comprising
a gate dielectric (1102)
disposed between the dog bone channels (310) and the gate conductor (1104),
the gate dielectric (1102) including
a portion (GDP) in contact with the buffer layer (502/804), and
wherein the portion (GDP) overlaps with the width (WDS) of the spacers (328).
Regarding Claim 11,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 9,
wherein the gate conductor (1104) includes
a portion in contact with the buffer layer (502/804), and
(As seen in Fig. 12, 1104 is in direct physical contact 1102, and 1102 is in direct physical contact with 502 of 502/804. Therefore, 1104 is in indirect contact with 502/804 where “contact” may be construed to include “indirect contact” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.)
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) overlaps with the width (WDS) of the spacers (328).
Regarding Claim 12,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 8,
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) includes
a uniform thickness that encapsulates lateral sides of the main portion (802).
(The uniform thickness can be seen from Fig. 12, and the encapsulation has been discussed for Claim 8, referencing the argument of the same for Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 13,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 8,
wherein the dog bone channels (310) include
a diminished width (DW) that is less than an active area island (304A) thickness (AIT).
(Note, DW is the “width” of 310 over which the thickness of 310 is “diminished”. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, DW may be construed to be a “diminished width”. )
Regarding Claim 15,
LEE discloses:
A semiconductor device (Par. 19), comprising:
a gate structure (Fig. 12: 300) including:
a gate conductor (1104) having
a lower portion disposed between source/drain regions (802/502/804) and
(For an argument that 802/502/804 may be construed as “source/drain regions”, see Claim 1.)
an upper portion;
(Portion of 1104 disposed between 328s)
dog bone channels (310)
extending through the gate conductor (1104) and
connecting the source/drain regions (802/502/804);
spacers (328)
disposed on sidewalls of the upper portion (as described); and
a gate dielectric (1102)
disposed over the dog bone channels (310) and a surface of the spacers (328); and
the source/drain regions (802/502/804) including
a main portion (802) and
a buffer layer (502/804) encapsulating the main portion (802),
(For an argument that 502/804 may be construed as a “buffer layer”, see Claim 1.)
(For an argument that 502/804 encapsulates 802, see Claim 1.)
the buffer layer (502/804)
having a uniform thickness that encapsulates lateral sides of the main portion (802),
(The uniform thickness can be seen from Fig. 12, and the encapsulation has been discussed, referencing the argument of the same for Claim 1.)
the buffer layer (502/804)
contacting end portions (EP) of the dog bone channels (310),
the end portions (EP) being thicker than a central portion (CP) of the dog bone channels (310).
Regarding Claim 16,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 15,
wherein the end portions (EP)
overlap with a width (WDS) of the spacers (328).
Regarding Claim 17,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 15,
wherein the gate dielectric (1102) includes
a portion (GDP) in contact with the buffer layer (502/804), and
wherein the portion (GDP) overlaps with a width (WDS) of the spacers (328).
Regarding Claim 18,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 15,
wherein the gate conductor (1104) includes
a portion in contact with the buffer layer (502/804), and
(As seen in Fig. 12, 1104 is in direct physical contact 1102, and 1102 is in direct physical contact with 502 of 502/804. Therefore, 1104 is in indirect contact with 502/804 where “contact” may be construed to include “indirect contact” under a broadest reasonable interpretation.)
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) overlaps with a width (WDS) of the spacers (328).
Regarding Claim 19,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 15,
wherein the dog bone channels (310) include
a diminished width (DW) that is less than an active area island (304A) thickness (AIT).
(Note, DW is the “width” of 310 over which the thickness of 310 is “diminished”. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, DW may be construed to be a “diminished width”. )
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 7, 14, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of BASKAR (US 20190189769 A1) 103
Regarding Claim 7,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 1,
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) includes
…silicon.
(Par. 32 teaches 502 of 502/804 may include silicon. Further, Par. 32 teaches “502 may include a material composition that is substantially the same as the material composition of the [channels] 310”.)
LEE does not disclose:
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) includes
monocrystalline or predominately monocrystalline silicon.
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the buffer layer to include monocrystalline or predominately monocrystalline silicon in LEE as claimed, as LEE discloses in Par. 32 that said buffer layer may include silicon and, further, may be of a material composition that is substantially the same as the material composition of the associated, dog bone shaped, nanosheet channels. However, LEE fails to disclose details of said material composition of the nanosheet channels, particularly with regard to what allotrope of silicon may be used. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for an allotrope of silicon to be used for the associated channels of LEE—and thus the buffer layer of LEE—recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, monocrystalline silicon meets these criteria, as monocrystalline silicon is a known choice for the material composition of such nanosheet channels in similar devices, as evidenced by BASKAR Par. 44.
Regarding Claim 14,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 8,
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) includes
…silicon.
(Par. 32 teaches 502 of 502/804 may include silicon. Further, Par. 32 teaches “502 may include a material composition that is substantially the same as the material composition of the [channels] 310”.)
LEE does not disclose:
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) includes
monocrystalline or predominately monocrystalline silicon.
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the buffer layer to include monocrystalline or predominately monocrystalline silicon in LEE as claimed, as LEE discloses in Par. 32 that said buffer layer may include silicon and, further, may be of a material composition that is substantially the same as the material composition of the associated, dog bone shaped, nanosheet channels. However, LEE fails to disclose details of said material composition of the nanosheet channels, particularly with regard to what allotrope of silicon may be used. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for an allotrope of silicon to be used for the associated channels of LEE—and thus the buffer layer of LEE—recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, monocrystalline silicon meets these criteria, as monocrystalline silicon is a known choice for the material composition of such nanosheet channels in similar devices, as evidenced by BASKAR Par. 44.
Regarding Claim 20,
LEE discloses:
The semiconductor device as recited in claim 15,
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) includes
…silicon.
(Par. 32 teaches 502 of 502/804 may include silicon. Further, Par. 32 teaches “502 may include a material composition that is substantially the same as the material composition of the [channels] 310”.)
LEE does not disclose:
wherein the buffer layer (502/804) includes
monocrystalline or predominately monocrystalline silicon.
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the buffer layer to include monocrystalline or predominately monocrystalline silicon in LEE as claimed, as LEE discloses in Par. 32 that said buffer layer may include silicon and, further, may be of a material composition that is substantially the same as the material composition of the associated, dog bone shaped, nanosheet channels. However, LEE fails to disclose details of said material composition of the nanosheet channels, particularly with regard to what allotrope of silicon may be used. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would look to the prior art for an allotrope of silicon to be used for the associated channels of LEE—and thus the buffer layer of LEE—recognized for its suitability and intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). Further still, monocrystalline silicon meets these criteria, as monocrystalline silicon is a known choice for the material composition of such nanosheet channels in similar devices, as evidenced by BASKAR Par. 44.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (EST)..
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 Maldonado can be reached at (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 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898 /JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights