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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-14 with traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of the entire application can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the claims directed towards apparatus (i.e., Group I) require a search in CPC H10D 62/127, and the claims directed towards method (i.e., Group II) require a search in CPC H10D 84/0153 as outlined in restriction requirements. In addition, the search also requires to search additional related CPC areas e.g. G06F 30/392, H10D 30/611, H10D 89/10 , H10D 84/0186, H10D 84/0188 .Therefore, since the claims of Group I and Group II require two separate searches in two separate fields as well as all associated CPC sub groups, the requirement is still deemed proper.
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
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 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 teaches d 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.
Claims 1-4 & 7-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doornbos (US 10,950,546 B1) in view of Chien et al. (US 2020/0402979 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Doornbos teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
620
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A device (FIG. 2A) comprising:
a skew cell architecture having diffusion regions including P-type diffusion regions (first and second P type diffusion regions PFIN as marked above) disposed between N-type diffusion regions (first and second N type diffusion regions NFIN as marked above);
power rails including a voltage supply rail (buried Vdd) disposed between ground rails (buried Vss);
and poly-gate rails (40, col. 4, l. 23) disposed between the ground rails,
wherein the poly-gate rails are cut to provide an open space (as marked) between at least one N- type diffusion region (NFIN right below top buried Vss, see as marked above) and at least one P-type diffusion region (PFIN right below buried Vdd, see as marked above)
But Doornbus does not explicitly teach,
gate electrode 40 is a poly-gate and is silent about material of the gate electrode 40.
Meanwhile, Chien teaches, gate rail 120a crossing VSS and VDD rail is a poly-gate rail (see Para [0052], Fig. 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention form the gate rail 40 as a poly-gate rail, according to the teaching of Chien, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as poly-gate rail crossing VSS and VDD rails, as taught by Chien, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Doornbos & Chien teach the device of claim 1 and further teach , wherein: the at least one N-type diffusion region (see as marked) is cut-off or separated by the open space (see as marked above) from the other N-type diffusion regions and the P-type diffusion regions (see FIG. 2A above, the open space is separating the NFIN/PFIN above and below buried Vdd) so as to provide a rise skew cell structure.
Regarding claim 3, Doornbos & Chien teach the device of claim 1 and further teach , wherein: the N-type diffusion regions include a first N-type diffusion region (as marked) and a second N- type diffusion region (as marked) , and the P-type diffusion regions include a first P-type diffusion region (as marked) and a second P-type diffusion region (as marked).
Regarding claim 4, Doornbos & Chien teach the device of claim 3 and further teach, wherein: the first N-type diffusion region and the first P-type diffusion region are disposed between the voltage supply rail (Vdd) and a first ground rail of the ground rails (top buried Vss, see as marked) , and the second N-type diffusion region and the second P-type diffusion region are disposed between the voltage supply rail (Vdd) and a second ground rail of the ground rails (bottom buried Vss as marked).
Regarding claim 7, Doornbos & Chien teach the device of claim 4 and further teach, wherein: the skew cell architecture comprises a double-height skew cell having the voltage supply rail (buried Vdd) as a shared voltage supply rail disposed between a first pair of NP diffusion regions (first N-type and first P-type diffusion region as marked) and a second pair of NP diffusion regions (second N-type and second P-type diffusion region as marked), the first pair of NP diffusion regions includes the first N-type diffusion region and the first P-type diffusion region that are disposed between the shared voltage supply rail (buried Vdd) and the first ground rail (top buried Vss as marked), and the second pair of NP diffusion regions includes the second N-type diffusion region and the second P-type diffusion region disposed between the shared voltage supply rail (buried Vdd) and the second ground rail (bottom buried Vdd as marked).
Regarding claim 8, Doornbos teaches,
PNG
media_image2.png
1133
1300
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A device (see FIG. 2A with expanded view in downward direction ) comprising:
a skew cell architecture (see cell boundary as marked) having diffusion regions including N-type diffusion regions (first and second N type diffusion region as marked) disposed between P-type diffusion regions (first and second P type diffusion region as marked);
power rails including a ground rail (buried VSS as marked) disposed between voltage supply rails (buried VDD as marked) ;
and poly-gate rails (gate electrode 40) disposed between the voltage supply rails,
wherein the poly-gate rails are cut to provide an open space (as marked) between at least one P- type diffusion region (as marked) and at least one N-type diffusion region (as marked).
But Doornbus does not explicitly teach,
gate electrode 40 is a poly-gate and is silent about material of the gate electrode 40.
Meanwhile, Chien teaches, gate rail 120a crossing VSS and VDD rail is a poly-gate rail (see Para [0052], Fig. 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention form the gate rail 40 as a poly-gate rail, according to the teaching of Chien, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as poly-gate rail crossing VSS and VDD rails, as taught by Chien, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Doornbos & Chien teach the device of claim 8 and further teaches, wherein: the at least one P-type diffusion region is cut-off or separated by the open space from the other P-type diffusion regions and the N-type diffusion regions so as to provide a fall skew cell structure (as seen)
Regarding claim 10, Doornbos & Chien teach the device of claim 8 and further teaches , wherein: the P-type diffusion regions include a first P-type diffusion region (as marked) and a second P-type diffusion region (as marked) , and the N-type diffusion regions include a first N-type diffusion region (as marked) and a second N- type diffusion region (as marked) .
Regarding claim 11, Doornbos & Chien teach the device of claim 10 and further teaches , wherein: the first P-type diffusion region and the first N-type diffusion region are disposed between the ground rail (buried Vss as marked) and a first voltage supply rail (top buried Vdd) of the voltage supply rails, and the second P-type diffusion region and the second N-type diffusion region (as marked) are disposed between the ground rail (buried Vss as marked) and a second voltage supply rail (bottom buried Vdd as marked) of the voltage supply rails.
Regarding claim 14, Doornbos & Chien teach the device of claim 11 and further teaches ,wherein: the skew cell architecture comprises a double-height skew cell having the ground rail (buried Vss as marked) as a shared ground rail disposed between a first pair of PN diffusion regions and a second pair of PN diffusion regions, the first pair of PN diffusion regions includes the first P-type diffusion region (as marked) and the first N-type diffusion region (as marked) that are disposed between the shared ground rail (buried Vss) and the first voltage supply rail (top buried Vdd as marked) , and the second pair of PN diffusion regions includes the second P-type diffusion region (as marked) and the second N-type diffusion region (as marked) disposed between the shared ground rail (buried Vss) and the second voltage supply rail (bottom buried Vdd as marked).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 5-6, 12-13, the prior art of record does not appear to teach, suggest, or provide motivation for combination to following limitation:
wherein:
wherein:
wherein:
wherein: the poly-gate rails are cut between the second P-type diffusion region and the second N-type diffusion region so as to provide the open space between the second P-type diffusion region and the second N-type diffusion region(claim 13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHATIB A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0494. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI 8:00 am- 5:00 pm (Arizona).
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 Steven Gauthier, can be reached on (571)270-0373. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.A.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/SHAHED AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813