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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/10/23, 12/16/25 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al (US 20200328311 A1 hereinafter Verma).
Regarding Claim 10, Verma discloses in Fig 1: A radio-frequency (RF) device, comprising:
a gate structure (52/51) on a substrate (20);
a source/drain region (33/32) adjacent to the gate structure;
a first metal routing (61) on the source/drain region; and
a second metal routing (See mark-up below) on the gate structure, wherein a sum of an area of the first metal routing and an area of the second metal routing divided by an area of the gate structure is less than a ratio. Even though Verma specifically does not disclose a ratio, Examiner notes that “a ratio” as claimed is being interpreted as any ratio and hence the claim limitation is considered met. Additionally, the claim does not specify area of what surface or part of the gate or the metal structures or the direction of viewing as claimed and hence one of ordinary skilled in the art could arbitrarily choose a direction or surface so as to meet claim limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Verma discloses in Fig 1: The RF device of claim 10, wherein the first metal routing and the second metal routing comprises:
a first contact plug on the source/drain region (32/33);
a second contact plug on the gate structure (51/52);
a first metal interconnection connecting the first contact plug;
a second metal interconnection connecting the second contact plug;
a first connection pole connecting the first metal interconnection; and
a second connection pole connecting the second metal interconnection. See mark-up above showing the contact plugs to gate and S/D; metal interconnections to gate and S/D and connection pole to gate and S/D.
Regarding Claim 16, Verma discloses in Fig 1: The RF device of claim 11, wherein a sum of an area of the first contact plug and an area of the second contact plug divided by the area of the gate structure (51/52) is less than the ratio. Even though Verma specifically does not disclose a ratio, Examiner notes that “a ratio” as claimed is being interpreted as any ratio and hence the claim limitation is considered met. Additionally, the claim does not specify area of what surface or part of the gate or the metal structures or the direction of viewing as claimed and hence one of ordinary skilled in the art could arbitrarily choose a direction or surface so as to meet claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 17, Verma discloses in Fig 1: The RF device of claim 11, wherein a sum of an area of the first metal interconnection (62 connected t the S/D) and an area of the second metal interconnection (62 connected to gate) divided by the area of the gate structure (51/52) is less than the ratio. Even though Verma specifically does not disclose a ratio, Examiner notes that “a ratio” as claimed is being interpreted as any ratio and hence the claim limitation is considered met. Additionally, the claim does not specify area of what surface or part of the gate or the metal structures or the direction of viewing as claimed and hence one of ordinary skilled in the art could arbitrarily choose a direction or surface so as to meet claim limitations.
Claim(s) 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al (US 20200328311 A1 hereinafter Verma) in view of Le Bars et al (US 2015/0364508 A1 hereinafter LeBars).
Regarding Claim 12, Verma discloses: The RF device of claim 11.
Verma does not disclose: further comprising: a first antenna connecting the first connection pole; and a second antenna connecting the second connection pole.
However, LeBars in a similar device teaches in Fig 6: a first antenna (603) connecting the gate; and a second antenna (601) connecting the source [0123].
References Verma and LeBars are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Verma with the specified features of LeBars because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Verma and LeBars so that a first antenna connecting the first connection pole; and a second antenna connecting the second connection pole as taught by LeBars in Verma’s device since, it makes it possible to obtain optimal adaptation between the antenna and the transistor [0019].
Regarding Claim 13, Verma and LeBars disclose: The RF device of claim 12.
Verma does not disclose: wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are on the same level.
However, LeBars in a similar device teaches in Fig 6: wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are on the same level [0123].
References Verma and LeBars are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Verma with the specified features of LeBars because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Verma and LeBars so that wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are on the same level as taught by LeBars in Verma’s device since, it makes it possible to obtain optimal adaptation between the antenna and the transistor [0019].
Regarding Claim 14, Verma and LeBars disclose: The RF device of claim 12, Verma discloses in Fig 1: further comprising: a first pad (CS) connecting the first connection pole; and a second pad (64) connecting the second connection pole.
Regarding Claim 15, Verma and LeBars disclose: The RF device of claim 14, Verma discloses in Fig 1: wherein the first pad (CS) and the second pad (64) are on the same level (See Fig 1).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verma et al (US 20200328311 A1 hereinafter Verma) in view of Citla et al (US 2022/0351969 A1 hereinafter Citla).
Regarding Claim 18, Verma discloses in Fig 1: The RF device of claim 10.
Verma does not disclose: wherein the substrate comprises a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate.
However, Citla in a similar device teaches in [0071] wherein the substrate comprises a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate.
References Verma and Citla are analogous art because they both are directed to semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify device of Verma with the specified features of Citla because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the invention to combine teachings of Verma and Citla so that the substrate comprises a silicon-on-insulator (SOI) substrate as taught by Citla in Verma’s device since, dielectric layers and SOI are commonly used substrates in semiconductor arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights