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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12-22 are pending. Claims 7, 14, 16, 18-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1,2,5,6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 22 are rejected.
Claim amendments
No claim amendments are made.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Regarding claim 1 and 12. Claims 1 and 12 recites the limitations “wherein the first dummy side and the first contact side are linear” in the last paragraph of the claim language.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (U.S. 2021/0233843), and Cheng et al (U.S. 2017/0148734).
Regarding claim 1. Yang et al discloses an antifuse device (FIG. 6) comprising:
a first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) in a substrate (FIG. 6, item 14) having a substrate top surface (FIG. 6, top surface item 14), the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) having a contact top surface (FIG. 6, top of item 18L) coplanar ([0043], i.e. coplanar) with the substrate top surface (FIG. 6, top surface item 14), the contact top surface (FIG. 6, top of item 18L) comprises a first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side) and a second contact side (FIG. 6, item 18L right side) adjoining the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side), the first contact side (FIG. 6, item right side of item 18L top side) forming a first contact corner (FIG. 6, corner where right side of 18L meet with top side of 18) in the contact top surface (FIG. 6, top of item 18L), the first contact corner (FIG. 6, corner where right side of 18L meet with top side of 18) having an acute angle (Claim 7);
a second contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18R) in the substrate (FIG. 6, item 14), wherein the second contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18R) is spaced ([0033]) from and not electrically (FIG. 6, item 12; [0024]) connected to the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L); and
a first dummy structure (FIG. 6, item 18) adjacent to the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) and in the substrate (FIG. 6, item 14), the first dummy structure (FIG. 6, item 18) having a first dummy side (FIG. 6, item 18) nearest to and spaced ([0033]) from the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side) of the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L),
wherein the first dummy side (FIG. 6, item 18) and the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side) are linear ([0043], i.e. each of the via interconnect structures (18L, 18, 18R) has a topmost surface that is coplanar with each other).
Yang et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first contact side and the second contact side form a first contact corner in the contact top surface.
However, Cheng et al teaches wherein the first contact side and the second contact side form a first contact corner in the contact top surface ([0011] FIG. 5A is an isometric view of the anti-fuse after formation of anti-fuse tips having a triangular shape. [0012] FIG. 5B is an isometric view of the anti-fuse tips shown in FIG. 5A).
Since Yang et al and Cheng et al teach antifuse devices, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the antifuse device as disclosed to modify Yang et al with the teachings of wherein the first contact side and the second contact side form a first contact corner in the contact top surface as disclosed by Cheng et al. The use of an isometric view of the anti-fuse after formation of anti-fuse tips having a triangular shape in Cheng et al provides for set values for a semiconductor on insulator component present in an anti-fuse that can allow the opening (e.g., gap) between semiconductor links and size of semiconductor links to be adjusted to allow sizes greater than the maximum photolithographic dimensions (Cheng et al, [0016]).
Regarding claim 2. Yang et al and Cheng et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 1 above.
Yang et al further discloses wherein at least a portion (FIG. 6, item 18 left side) of the first dummy side (FIG. 6, item 18) is immediately adjacent to the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side) of the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L).
Regarding claim 5. Yang et al and Cheng et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 2 above.
Yang et al further discloses wherein the portion (FIG. 6, item 18) of the first dummy side (FIG. 6, item 18) is spaced from the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side) of the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) by a distance ([0033]) more than a minimum design rule spacing ([0033], i.e. each via of the at least one set of vias is spaced apart from a nearest neighboring via by a distance of from 15 nm to 60 nm).
Regarding claim 6. Yang et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 1 above.
Yang et al further discloses wherein the second contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18R) further comprises a third contact side (FIG. 6, item 18R on left side) nearest to and spaced (FIG. 6, item 18R is spaced apart from item 18 ; [0033]) from the first dummy structure (FIG. 6, item 18), and the first dummy structure (FIG. 6, item 18) further comprises a third dummy side (FIG. 6, item 18 on right side) nearest to and spaced (FIG. 6, item 18 is spaced apart from item 18R; [0033]) from the third contact side (FIG. 6, item 18R), wherein at least a portion (FIG. 6, item 18 on right side) of the third dummy side (FIG. 6, item 18 on right side) is immediately adjacent (FIG. 6, item 18 is immediately adjacent to item 18R) to the third contact side (FIG. 6, item 18R).
Regarding claim 8. Yang et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 1 above.
Yang et al further discloses wherein the first contact corner (FIG. 6, item 18L corner closest to item 18R) is nearest to the second contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18R) compared to the rest of the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L corner farthest from item 18F).
Regarding claim 9. Yang et al and Cheng et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 1 above.
Yang et al further discloses wherein the substrate (FIG. 6, item 14) has a top surface (FIG. 6, top surface of item 18R; [0043]), the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) has a top surface ([0043]), the second contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18R) has a top surface ([0043]), and the substrate (FIG. 6, item 14) top surfaces ([0043]),and the top surface (FIG. 6, top surface of item 18R; [0043]) of the second contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18R) are substantially coplanar ([0043]).
Regarding claim 10. Yang et al and Cheng et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 9 above.
Yang et al further discloses wherein the first dummy structure (FIG. 6, item 18) has a top surface ([0043]) and the top surface ([0043]) of the first dummy structure (FIG. 6, item 18) is substantially coplanar ([0043]) with the substrate (FIG. 6, item 14) top surface (FIG. 6, item 14; [0043]).
Regarding claim 12. Yang et al discloses an antifuse device (FIG. 6 and 10) comprising:
a first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) in a substrate (FIG. 6, item 14) having a substrate top surface (FIG. 6, top of item 14; [0043]), the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) having a contact top surface (FIG. 6, top of item 18L) coplanar ([0043], i.e. coplanar) with the substrate top surface (FIG. 6, top surface item 14), the contact top surface (FIG. 6, top of item 18L) comprises a first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side) and a second contact side (FIG. 6, item 18L right side) adjoining the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side), the second contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L) forming a first contact corner (FIG. 6, corner where right side of 18L meet with top side of 18) in the contact top surface (FIG. 6, top of item 18L), the first contact corner (FIG. 6, corner where right side of 18L meet with top side of 18) having an acute angle (Claim 7);
a second contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18R) in the substrate (FIG. 6, item 14), wherein the second contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18R) is spaced ([0033]) from and not electrically (FIG. 6, item 12; [0024]) connected to the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L); and
a first dummy structure (FIG. 6, item 18) adjacent to the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) and in the substrate (FIG. 6, item 14), the first dummy structure (FIG. 6, item 18) having a first dummy side (FIG. 6, item 18) nearest to and spaced from the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side) of the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) by a first spacing ([0033]); and
a second dummy structure (FIG. 10, item 18 second dummy structure) adjacent to the first contact structure (FIG. 10, item 18L) and in the substrate (FIG. 10, item 14), the second dummy structure (FIG. 10, item 18 second dummy structure) having a second dummy side (FIG. 10, item 18 second dummy side) nearest to and spaced (FIG. 10, item 18L is spaced apart from item 18; [0033]) from the second contact side (FIG. 6, item 18L right side) of the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) by a second spacing ([0033]), and wherein the first spacing ([0033]) is substantially the same as the second spacing ([0033]),
wherein the first dummy side (FIG. 6, item 18) and the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side) are linear ([0043], i.e. each of the via interconnect structures (18L, 18, 18R) has a topmost surface that is coplanar with each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yang et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first contact side and the second contact side form a first contact corner in the contact top surface.
However, Cheng et al teaches wherein the first contact side and the second contact side form a first contact corner in the contact top surface ([0011] FIG. 5A is an isometric view of the anti-fuse after formation of anti-fuse tips having a triangular shape. [0012] FIG. 5B is an isometric view of the anti-fuse tips shown in FIG. 5A).
Since Yang et al and Cheng et al teach antifuse devices, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art of semiconductors before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the antifuse device as disclosed to modify Yang et al with the teachings of wherein the first contact side and the second contact side form a first contact corner in the contact top surface as disclosed by Cheng et al. The use of an isometric view of the anti-fuse after formation of anti-fuse tips having a triangular shape in Cheng et al provides for set values for a semiconductor on insulator component present in an anti-fuse that can allow the opening (e.g., gap) between semiconductor links and size of semiconductor links to be adjusted to allow sizes greater than the maximum photolithographic dimensions (Cheng et al, [0016]).
Regarding claim 13. Yang et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 12 above.
Yang et al further discloses wherein the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side; [0032];[0043]) and the second contact side (FIG. 6, item 18L right side; [0032];[0043]) are linear (Claim 7).
Regarding claim 15. Yang et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 13 above.
Yang et al further discloses wherein the first dummy side (FIG. 6, item 18) is linear ([0032]) and substantially parallel ([0032];[0043]) to the first contact side (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L top side).
Regarding claim 17. Yang et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 12 above.
Yang et al further discloses wherein the second contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18R) has an edge (FIG. 6, left side of item 18R) nearest to the first contact structure (FIG. 6, item 18L) and the first contact corner (FIG. 6, right side of item 18L) is nearest to and spaced ([0033]) from the edge (FIG. 6, left side of item 18R).
Regarding claim 21. Yang et al and Cheng et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 1 above.
Cheng et al further discloses wherein the contact top surface comprises a polygonal shape ([0011] FIG. 5A is an isometric view of the anti-fuse after formation of anti-fuse tips having a triangular shape).
Regarding claim 22. Yang et al and Cheng et al discloses all the limitations of the antifuse device of claim 1 above.
Cheng et al further discloses wherein the contact top surface comprises a triangular shape ([0011] FIG. 5A is an isometric view of the anti-fuse after formation of anti-fuse tips having a triangular shape).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of applicant’s remarks, applicant appears to argue that the claim 1 limitation that the contact top surfaces are linear is not disclosed by Yang et al.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the contact top surfaces are linear) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner respectfully points out that applicant’s claim limitation only requires wherein the first dummy side and the first contact side are linear, which the prior art of record discloses.
On page 9, of applicant’s remarks applicant appears to argue that the submitted amendments overcome the prior art of rejection and therefore allowable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assessment. Applicant has not submitted any claim amendments in in Applicant’s response dated July 15, 2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Porter (U.S. 2004/0041233) discloses SHALLOW TRENCH ANTIFUSE AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING SAME.
Min et al (U.S. 2006/0226509) discloses Antifuse Element And Electrically Redundant Antifuse Array For Controlled Rupture Location.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SCOTT E BAUMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9045. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 CST.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/S.E.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/JOSHUA BENITEZ ROSARIO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights