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 .
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 1, 4, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 24-36 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.
The originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicant had possession of the newly amended limitation reciting exact longitudinal-axis perpendicularity among the bottom electrically conductive line, the top electrically conductive line, and the electrically conductive via.
In particular, claim 1 recites, in relevant part, “wherein a longitudinal axis of the bottom electrically conductive line is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the top electrically conductive line, and wherein the longitudinal axis of the bottom electrically conductive line and the longitudinal axis of the top electrically conductive line both are perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the electrically conductive via”. Claim 14 contains substantially the same limitation.
The originally filed disclosure does not provide adequate written description support for this exact limitation. The specification does not describe the claimed structure in terms of respective “longitudinal axes” having the now-claimed exact geometric relationship. Rather, the disclosure uses broader directional language. For example, paragraph [0039] states that the top metal line opening “extends in a direction substantially perpendicular to that in which the bottom metal line 245 extends.” Paragraphs [0012] and [0025] similarly describe vias as extending “substantially perpendicular” to the planes of the metal lines or to the IC chip. Thus, the originally filed disclosure supports, at most, an arrangement in which the features extend in directions that are substantially perpendicular, not the exact perpendicular axis-to-axis relationship now recited.
Further, the originally filed specification does not reasonably convey possession of defining the invention by the exact relationship of three recited longitudinal axes. Although a person of ordinary skill may understand that a line or via can have an axis, the disclosure does not expressly identify a longitudinal axis for the bottom electrically conductive line, the top electrically conductive line, and the via, and then describe those axes as being exactly perpendicular to one another as now claimed. Instead, the disclosure describes the features more generally as extending in particular directions relative to the support structure and to one another. See, e.g., [0031] and [0039].
Nor is it clear that the drawings cure this deficiency. Paragraph [0021] explains that the figures are schematic and are provided for ease of illustration, and that actual structures may be curved, rounded, or otherwise irregularly shaped due to manufacturing limitations. Paragraph [0024] further explains that perspective-based descriptions are used to facilitate discussion and are not intended to restrict the disclosed embodiments. Accordingly, the figures do not provide adequate written description support for the newly claimed exact longitudinal-axis and perpendicular limitations.
Applicant has not identified where the originally filed disclosure supports this amendment, and the Office has not found support for the exact recited longitudinal-axis perpendicularity. Therefore, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the subject matter now recited in claims 1 and 14. Claims 4, 8, 10, 15, and 24-36 are rejected for the same reason because they depend from and incorporate the unsupported subject matter of claims 1 or 14.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUE A PURVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1236. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0830 to 1630.
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.
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.
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights