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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
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 5 (and dependent claims 6-8 dependent therefrom) 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.
Regarding claim 5, “the second power rail using the same layer with the first cell” in line 7 is unclear whether it is referring to the first layer or the second layer. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 5 is interpreted in the instant Office action as follows: “the same layer” in line 7 is equivalent to “the second layer” based on Fig. 5 of Applicant’s disclosure. This interpretation is to be confirmed by applicant in next office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 9 are allowed.
Claims 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claims 1-4 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the first power rail has a first section which is in direct contact with the first cell in the first direction and a second section which, along the first direction, is only in direct contact with the second cell, wherein a width of the second section in a second direction is greater than a width of the first section in the second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the second power rail has a third section which is connected with the first cell in the first direction and a fourth section which is connected with the second cell in the first direction, wherein the first layer and the second layer are spaced apart from each other in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, wherein the first power rail and the second power rail are spaced apart from each other in the third direction, and wherein the first cell is a standard cell, and the second cell is a filler cell or a decoupling capacitor cells wherein the first power rail is expandable only in the second section, and wherein the width of the first power rail is uniform except the second section” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record teaches modification to the shape of power rail sections, but fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed limitations “only in direct contact”, “width”, “only in the second section”, and “except the second section” in combination with the cells, power rail sections, directions and arrangements of these structures in combination with all other limitations in claim 1. Thus, the prior art fails to teach shapes or shape modifications in the way claimed.
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claims 5-8 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the first power rail has a first section which is in direct contact with the first cell in the first direction and a second section which, along the first direction, is only in direct contact with the second cell, wherein a width of the second section in a second direction is greater than a width of the first section in the second direction, the second direction being perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the second power rail has a third section which is connected with the first cell in the first direction and a fourth section which is connected with the second cell in the first direction, wherein a width of the third section in the second direction and a width of the fourth section in the second direction are uniform, and wherein the first layer and the second layer are spaced apart from each other in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, wherein the first power rail and the second power rail are spaced apart from each other in the third direction, and wherein the first cell is a standard cell, and the second cell is a filler cell or a decoupling capacitor cell wherein the first power rail is expandable only in the second section, and wherein the width of the first power rail is uniform except the second section” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record teaches modification to the shape of power rail sections, but fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed limitations “only in direct contact”, “width”, “only in the second section”, and “except the second section” in combination with the cells, power rail sections, directions and arrangements of these structures in combination with all other limitations in claim 5. Thus, the prior art fails to teach shapes or shape modifications in the way claimed.
The primary reason for the allowable subject matter of claim 9 is the inclusion of the limitation “wherein the first power rail has a first section which is in direct contact with the first cell in the first direction and a second section which, along the first direction, is only in direct contact with the second cell, wherein a width of the second section in a second direction is greater than a width of the first section in the second direction, the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction, wherein the second power rail has a third section which is connected with the first cell in the first direction and a fourth section which is connected with the second cell in the first direction, wherein the first power rail and the second power rail are spaced apart from each other in a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and wherein the first cell is a standard cell, and the second cell is a filler cell or a decoupling capacitor cells wherein the first power rail is expandable only in the second section, and wherein the width of the first power rail is uniform except the second section” in combination with the other limitations in the claim. For example, prior art of record teaches modification to the shape of power rail sections, but fails to teach or be reasonably combined to render obvious the claimed limitations “only in direct contact”, “width”, “only in the second section”, and “except the second section” in combination with the cells, power rail sections, directions and arrangements of these structures in combination with all other limitations in claim 9. Thus, the prior art fails to teach shapes or shape modifications in the way claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the new limitation added to amended claims 1, 5, and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
You (US 20220020691 A1) discloses power rail section widths in relation to cells but fails to teach the specific limitation to the section widths in relation to the cells.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2534. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-5:00.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/WILLIAM H ANDERSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2817