Detailed Action
Attempts were made to reach the attorney of record, Bob Gnuse, for a potential proposed examiner’s amendment, but those attempts were unsuccessful.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, final paragraph of applicant’s arguments, filed 10/09/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and dependent claims under Wei(US 20230215803 A1, hereafter Wei) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Maekawa et al. (US 20160190145 A1, hereafter Maekawa). The amendments overcome the existing rejection. However, there is still prior art which satisfies the present limitations of claim 1 at hand, as well as some of the dependent claims. New rejections are below.
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)(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) 1-3, 6, 8, 11, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maekawa et al.(US 20160190145 A1, hereafter Maekawa).
Regarding Claim 1, Maekawa discloses:
A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device(Figs. 6-22), comprising:
Providing a substrate(Fig. 8 [1]) having an active area(Fig. 8 [4]);
Forming a fuse component(Fig. 19 [AF]) having a bottom electrode(Fig. 19 [4a/EX11]) in the active area(Fig. 19 [4]), a first dielectric layer(Fig. 19 [GI11]) on the active area(Fig. 19 [4]) and a top electrode(Fig. 19 [GE11]) on the first dielectric layer(Fig. 19 [GI11]); and
Forming a nitride layer(Fig. 19 [OF1]) on the active area(Fig. 19 [4]) and surrounding the first dielectric layer(Fig. 19 [GI11]);
Wherein a bottom surface of the nitride layer(Fig. 19 [OF1]) is in contact with a top surface of the bottom electrode(Fig. 19 [4a/EX11]) of the fuse component(Fig. 19 [AF]).
Regarding Claim 2, Maekawa further discloses:
Forming a transistor(Fig. 19 [ST]) coupling a first voltage to the bottom electrode(Fig. 19 [4a/EX11]) of the fuse component(Fig. 19 [AF]).
Regarding Claim 3, Maekawa further discloses:
Forming the transistor(Fig. 19 [ST]) comprises forming a buried conductor(Fig. 19 [EX12]) in the active area(Fig. 19 [4]).
Regarding Claim 6, Maekawa further discloses:
Forming the bottom electrode(Fig. 19 [4a/EX11]) comprises forming a diffusion area(Fig. 19 [SD11]) adjacent to a surface of the active area(Fig. 19 [4]).
Regarding Claim 8, Maekawa further discloses:
A width of the bottom electrode(Fig. 19 [4a/EX11]) is greater than a width of the first dielectric layer(Fig. 19 [GI11]) of the fuse component(Fig. 19 [AF]).
Regarding Claim 11, Maekawa further discloses:
Forming the nitride layer(Fig. 19 [OF1]) comprises forming an opening(Fig. 14 See figure below) and the bottom electrode(Fig 19 [4a/EX11]) is exposed from the opening(Fig. 14 See figure below).
Regarding Claim 20, Maekawa further discloses:
The nitride layer(Fig. 19 [OF1]) comprises silicon nitride(See paragraph 0086).
Regarding Claim 21, Maekawa further discloses:
Nitrides in the nitride layer(Fig. 19 [OF1]) and the dielectric layer(Fig. 19 [GI11]) are different(silicon oxide and silicon nitride, See paragraphs 0080, 0086).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Above: Fig. 14 of Maekawa with opening disclosed by examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa in view of Lin(US 10818592 B1, hereafter Lin).
Regarding Claim 4, Maekawa discloses a fuse component(Fig. 19 [AF]).
Maekawa does not teach or disclose the bottom electrode of the fuse component is configured to receive a first voltage to change a resistivity of the first dielectric layer of the fuse component.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin discloses a bottom electrode(Fig. 1 [46]) of a fuse component(Fig. 1 [46/47/49]) which is configured to receive a first voltage(from control bit line, Fig. 1 [48]) to change a resistivity of the first dielectric layer(Fig. 1 [47]) of the fuse component(Fig. 1 [46/47/49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand to produce the method of Maekawa along the lines of Lin. In the formation of Maekawa’s anti-fuse cell, Maekawa discloses the programming voltage to come from the Gate electrode of Fig. 19 GE11. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized the possibility of a method of forming Maekawa’s device in such a way such that, for example, the source/drain region SD11 is used as the voltage by which to write the anti-fuse cell. Writing the cell would require one of these two options, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this as a potential alternative to forming an anti-fuse cell. Performing this modification would have generated a predictable result in the creation of a method for forming Maekawa’s device with a programmable voltage in the lower electrode of Maekawa’s anti-fuse cell.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maekawa in view of Ou et al.(US 20210249421 A1, hereafter Ou).
Regarding Claim 12, Maekawa discloses a top electrode(Fig. 19 [GE11]).
Maekawa does not teach or disclose forming the top electrode of the fuse component comprises forming a recessing portion over the first dielectric layer of the fuse component.
In the same field of endeavor, Ou discloses the forming of a recessing portion(Fig. 8C [R]) over the first dielectric layer(Fig. 8C [192]) of a fuse component(Fig. 8C [AF]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the method disclosed by Maekawa along the lines of Ou. One might have been motivated to apply a recessing part to the top electrode disclosed by Maekawa in order to form an upper contact in Maekawa’s device, as to provide the necessary voltage to program the anti-fuse structure given by Maekawa. Performing this modification would have generated a predictable result in the creation of a method for the formation of Maekawa’s device with a via structure in the upper electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 5, the closest prior art of Maekawa discloses a method for forming a device in accordance with the limitations of claim 1(see above rejection). However, while there may exist a motivation as to form the device in such a way to receive a programmable lower electrode, as in claim 4, there exists no limitation or suggestion in the prior art to make the fuse structure programmable from both the top and bottom electrodes, as is claimed by the limitations of claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hao et al.(US 20210118797 A1) discloses a fuse embedded in a substrate. Lee et al.(US 20160336332 A1) discloses a fuse structure with a first and a second diffusion area in a substrate. Chang et al.(US 20190131238 A1) discloses a fuse structure.
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 MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD whose telephone number is (703)756-1506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 11:00 AM-9:00PM 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. 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.
/MARSHALL MU-NUO HATFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897