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 Status
Previous action: claims 1 through 15 rejected
Present action: claims 1 through 15 rejected
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 39 of the applicant’s disclosure recites “when vied from above” in sentence four. The examiner suggests “when viewed from above”.
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.
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.
Claims 1 through 15 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “a second direction opposite to the first direction” in lines 11 and 12. The word “opposite” is unclear and ambiguous is in this context, examiner believes that the applicant intended “perpendicular” or “orthogonal”.
Claims 2 through 15 depend from and incorporate claim 1.
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.
Rejection Note: Italicized and struck through claim limitations indicate limitations that are not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference, but disclosed in the secondary reference(s).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
He (US 2005/0083078) in view of Wu (US 2014/0097862)
Regarding claim 1.
He teaches:
A test element group for a metal routing layer, comprising: a line region comprising: a connection portion (fig 2:10; [para 0017]);
and a plurality of comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) arranged in a first direction (fig 2 annotated), connected to and perpendicular to the connection portion (fig 2:10; [para 0017]), wherein each of the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) has a plurality of extending segments (fig 2:18; [para 0018]) that are separated from each other;
and a bulk region (fig 2:20’; [para 0015]) surrounding the extending segments (fig 2:18; [para 0018]) of the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]), wherein the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) are separated from the bulk region (fig 2:20’; [para 0015]) by a plurality of first gaps that respectively extend along outlines of the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]), wherein the line region and the bulk region (fig 2:20’; [para 0015]) are at a same layer, wherein along a second direction opposite to the first direction, a shortest width of the bulk region (fig 2:20’; [para 0015]) between the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) a shortest width of one of the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]), and wherein the shortest width of the one of the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) is greater than a shortest width of one of the first gaps (fig 1,2 annotated).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
He does not teach the shortest width of the bulk region is greater than the width of the comb teeth
Wu teaches:
a shortest width of the bulk region (fig 1:102a; [para 0026]) between the comb teeth portions (fig 1:105; [para 0026]) is greater than a shortest width of one of the comb teeth portions (fig 1:105; [para 0026])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the width of the connection portions in order to accommodate circuit requirements (He paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 2.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1,
He teaches:
wherein a second gap is between the bulk region (fig 2:20’; [para 0015])and the connection portion (fig 2:10; [para 0017]) of the line region.
Regarding claim 3.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1,
He teaches:
the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) of the line region extend along a lengthwise direction of the bulk region (fig 2:20’; [para 0015]).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1,
He teaches:
the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016])of the line region extend along a widthwise direction of the bulk region (fig 2:20’; [para 0015]).
PNG
media_image3.png
301
717
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1,
He teaches:
any two adjacent extending segments (fig 2:18; [para 0018]) of each of the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) have a same distance.
PNG
media_image4.png
422
525
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1,
He teaches:
the extending segments (fig 2:18; [para 0018])of each of the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) are line-shaped and parallel to a lengthwise direction of the connection portion (fig 2:10; [para 0017]).
Regarding claim 10.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1,
He teaches:
the extending segments (fig 2:18; [para 0018])of each of the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) are hook-shaped.
Regarding claim 11.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 10,
He teaches:
each of the extending segments (fig 2:18; [para 0018]) comprises a vertical portion and a horizontal portion, an end of the vertical portion adjoins an end of the horizontal portion, and the vertical portion extends in a lengthwise direction of the connection portion (fig 2:10; [para 0017]).
Regarding claim 12.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1,
He teaches:
the extending segments (fig 2:18; [para 0018])of each of the comb teeth portions (fig 2:20; [para 0016]) are T-shaped.
PNG
media_image5.png
318
623
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 12,
He teaches:
each of the extending segments (fig 2:18; [para 0018]) comprises a vertical portion and a horizontal portion adjoining an end of the vertical portion, and the vertical portion extends in a lengthwise direction of the connection portion (fig 2:10; [para 0017]).
PNG
media_image6.png
375
627
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
He (US 2005/0083078) in view of Wu (US 2014/0097862) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Milor (US 6054721)
Regarding claim 7.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1,
He in view of Wu does not teach cross shaped profiles
Milor teaches:
each of the comb teeth portions presents a cross-shaped profile when viewed from above (fig 11).
PNG
media_image7.png
343
601
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form cross shaped comb teeth in order to further increase the outline length of the teeth.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
He (US 2005/0083078) in view of Wu (US 2014/0097862) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Weiner (US 6861666)
Regarding claim 8.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1, above
He in view of Wu does not teach fork shaped segments.
Weiner teaches:
the extending segments of each of the comb teeth portions are fork-shaped (fig 2; [column 4 lines 50-65]).
PNG
media_image8.png
326
635
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the extension segment with a fork shape in order to control the conduction properties of the stub segments and thereby enable location defects (column 2 lines 1-15)
Regarding claim 9.
He in view of Wu in view of Weiner teaches the test element group of claim 8,
Weiner teaches:
wherein each of the extending segments comprises three vertical portions and one horizontal portion adjoining the three vertical portions, and one of the vertical portions is longer than the other two vertical portions (fig 2).
PNG
media_image9.png
426
550
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2005/0083078) in view of Wu (US 2014/0097862) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Nagasaki (US 2010/0045304)
Regarding claim 14.
He in view of Wu teaches the test element group of claim 1, above.
He in view of Wu does not teach the comb teeth extending portions are 9 shaped.
Nagasaki teaches:
the extending segments of each of the comb teeth portions (fig 4:112; [para 0031,0032]) are 9-shaped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the test elements with a 9 shape segment in order to effectively monitor for spiral shaped such as inductors.
Regarding claim 15.
He in view of Wu in view of Nagasaki teaches the test element group of claim 14
Nagasaki teaches:
each of the extending segments comprises two vertical portions and two horizontal portions that surround a portion of the bulk region, one of the vertical portions is longer than the other vertical portion, and the two vertical portions extend in a lengthwise direction of the connection portion (fig 4; [para 0031,0032]).
PNG
media_image10.png
360
626
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DAVID J GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8451. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 - 19:00.
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.
/D.J.G/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/Kretelia Graham/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights