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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/19/203, 02/20/2024 and 10/15/2025 were filed before the first action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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)(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) 1-2, 4-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liaw (2022/0037341).
Re claim 1, Liaw teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1A-B & 2), comprising: a device layer (201-2) comprising a plurality of transistors [25]; a first electrode (210-1); a second electrode (210-2 / 210-3) over the first electrode (210-2); and a fuse material layer [22] within a via (204), the via (204) coupling the first (210-1) and second electrodes (210-2 / 210-3) together, wherein the fuse material layer [22] is to conduct a non-zero current responsive to a first voltage between the first and second electrodes [33], and is to form an irreversible open circuit responsive to a second voltage between the first and second electrodes [17], wherein a magnitude of the second voltage is less than two volts [20].
Re claim 2, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first electrode (210-1) comprises a layer comprising ruthenium [29].
Re claim 4, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first electrode (210-1) comprises molybdenum [29].
Re claim 5, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first electrode (210-1) comprises a first layer over a second layer [29], wherein the first layer comprises at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum and wherein the second layer comprises a conductive metal other than ruthenium and molybdenum [29].
Re claim 6, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the conductive metal is titanium [29].
Re claim 7, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the fuse material layer [22] comprises predominately a metal and oxygen [31].
Re claim 8, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the fuse material layer [22] comprises hafnium and oxygen [31]. Re claim 9, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein one or more of the first electrode (210-1) and the second electrode (210-2 / 210-3) comprises one or more of ruthenium or molybdenum [29]. Re claim 10, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising an integrated circuit die (200) comprising the device layer, first and second electrodes, and fuse material layer [22-34].
Re claim 12, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 10, further comprising at least one of a network interface, battery, or memory coupled to the integrated circuit die [14].
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liaw (2022/0037341).
Re claim 13, Liaw teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1A-B & 2) comprising: a device layer (201-2) comprising a plurality of transistors [25]; a plurality of programmable fuses (204B, 204T), individual fuses of the plurality of programmable fuses comprising: a first metallization feature (210-1); a second metallization (210-2 / 210-3) feature over the first metallization feature (210-1); and a fuse material layer [22] within a via (204), the via coupling the first (210-1) and second (210-2 / 210-3) metallization features together (Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the first (210-1) and second (210-2 / 210-3) metallization features comprise at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum [29].
Re claim 14, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the fuse material layer [22] is to conduct a non-zero current responsive to a first voltage between the first and second metallization features [33], and is to form an irreversible open circuit responsive to a second voltage between the first and second metallization features [17-20]. Re claim 15, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 14, wherein a magnitude of the second voltage is less than two volts [20].
Claim(s) 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liaw (2022/0037341).
Re claim 17, Liaw teaches a method (Figs. 1A-B & 2) comprising: forming a device layer (201-2) comprising a plurality of transistors [25]; and forming a via metal-insulator-metal (MIM) fuse (204) over the device layer (201-2), wherein a via MIM fuse includes a bottom electrode (210-1), a top electrode (210-2 / 210-3), and a fuse material [18-22] within a via (204) coupling the top electrode (210-1) to the bottom electrode (210-2 / 210-3), wherein the via MIM fuse [18-22] is programmable by a voltage having a magnitude less than two volts [20].
Re claim 18, Liaw teaches the method of claim 17, wherein forming the via MIM fuse [18-22] comprises forming the bottom electrode (210-2 / 210-3) by depositing at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum [29].
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) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liaw (2022/0037341). Re claim 3, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 2.
Liaw does not explicitly teach wherein the layer comprising ruthenium is between 5 and 10 nanometers thick.
However, Applicant has not shown wherein the layer comprising ruthenium is between 5 and 10 nanometers thick has a specific, disclosed criticality that is unexpected and would not have been determined through routine experimentation of one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the thickness of the layer comprising ruthenium so as to customize, optimize, or otherwise meet customer space and design requirements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liaw (2022/0037341) in view of Naylor et al. (2021/0111129).
Re claim 11, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 10.
Liaw does not explicitly teach further comprising a circuit board coupled to the integrated circuit die.
Naylor teaches a circuit board coupled to an integrated circuit die (Fig. 1, [51]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Liaw as taught by Naylor since all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to a skilled artisan at the time the invention was made. Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liaw (2022/0037341).
Re claim 16, Liaw teaches the apparatus of claim 13. Liaw does not explicitly teach wherein a layer of the first metallization feature that comprises at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum has a thickness of between 5 and 10 nanometers.
However, Applicant has not shown wherein a layer of the first metallization feature that comprises at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum has a thickness of between 5 and 10 nanometers thick has a specific, disclosed criticality that is unexpected and would not have been determined through routine experimentation of one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the thickness of the first metallization feature that comprises at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum so as to customize, optimize, or otherwise meet customer space and design requirements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liaw (2022/0037341). Re claim 19, Liaw teaches the method of claim 18.
Liaw does not explicitly teach wherein depositing at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum comprises depositing a layer comprising at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum to a thickness of between 5 and 10 nanometers. However, Applicant has not shown wherein depositing at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum comprises depositing a layer comprising at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum to a thickness of between 5 and 10 nanometers has a specific, disclosed criticality that is unexpected and would not have been determined through routine experimentation of one having ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the thickness of the layer comprising at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum so as to customize, optimize, or otherwise meet customer space and design requirements, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re claim 20, Liaw teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising depositing the layer comprising at least one of ruthenium or molybdenum (254) over another layer of the bottom electrode [29-30].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM S BOWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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 at 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.
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/ADAM S BOWEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897