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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 – 2, 4, 7 – 9, & 12 – 14 addressing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the reply—filed 18 December 2025—are acknowledged. These rejections have been overcome by the amendments of said claims, and the associated rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s traversal regarding the prior art rejections of Claims 1 – 2, 4, 7 – 9, 12 – 14 on pages 5 – 9 of the reply—filed 18 December 2025—is acknowledged; however, said arguments are moot because they do not apply to the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action, necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lin. 23 recites the limitation “the fuse doped region has…a bottom boundary in contact with a bottom surface of the resistance modification doped [region]”; however, the original disclosure does not appear to support this limitation.
Referring to the elected species in Fig. 2, the original disclosure, instead, appears to support “the fuse doped region (222) has…a top boundary in contact with a bottom surface of the resistance modification doped region (224)”
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 4 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 4 recites the limitation " the resistance modification doped" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “the resistance modification doped region”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KUBOTA (US 20110108923 A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
KUBOTA discloses:
A semiconductor device (KUBOTA Fig. 1: 190 & Fig. 11), comprising:
a substate (KUBOTA Fig. 1: 102);
a well region (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: 104) within the substrate, wherein the well region has a first conductive type (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: P-type);
a fuse medium (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: 114) disposed on and in contact with a top surface of the substrate;
a gate electrode (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: 116; ¶ [0060]) disposed over the fuse medium;
a fuse doped region (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: 126) under the gate electrode,
wherein the fuse doped region has a second conductive type (KUBOTA ¶ [0062] n type) different from first conductive type;
a source/drain (S/D) region (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: 132a; ¶ [0060]) adjacent to the fuse doped region,
wherein the S/D has the second conductive type (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: n type); and
a resistance modification doped region partially overlapping the fuse doped region,
wherein the resistance modification doped region (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: 112a) has the second conductive type (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: n type);
wherein the fuse doped region is recessed from the top surface of the substrate (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: As seen);
wherein the resistance modification doped region is in direct contact with the fuse medium (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: As seen).
Regarding Claim 2, KUBOTA discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
KUBOTA further discloses:
wherein the fuse doped region is in contact with the S/D region (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: 126 is in electrical contact with 132a.).
Regarding Claim 4, KUBOTA discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
KUBOTA further discloses:
wherein a portion of the fuse doped region is located below the resistance modification doped region (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: all portions of 126 are located below the upper portion of 112a),
wherein the fuse doped region has
two lateral boundaries in contact with two side surfaces of the resistance modification doped region (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: leftmost and rightmost boundaries of 126 in contact with corresponding inner side surfaces of 112a.)
and a bottom boundary in contact with a bottom surface of the resistance modification doped region (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: bottom boundary of 126 is in electrical contact with 112a, including the bottom surface of 112a.),
wherein a top surface of the of the resistance modification doped region is in contact with the fuse medium (KUBOTA Fig. 1 & 11: as seen).
Regarding Claim 9, KUBOTA discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
KUBOTA further discloses:
wherein the resistance modification doped region comprises nitrogen (KUBOTA ¶ [0008] teaches “nitrogen implantation in [112a]”.).
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 7 – 8 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUBOTA.
Regarding Claim 7, KUBOTA discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
KUBOTA does not disclose:
wherein a dopant concentration of the resistance modification doped region ranges from about 1015 cm-3 to about 1016 cm-3
KUBOTA ¶ [0078] does, however, teach the general condition that 112a is doped, stating “the concentration of…112a can be set at, for example, from 1*1018 to 2*1019 atoms/cm3”.
Further, KUBOTA discloses the claimed invention except for the dopant concentration of the resistance modification doped region falling within the claimed range. However, KUBOTA does teach the general condition of this claim, as stated, and the instant disclosure teaches no criticality of the claimed range relative to the disclosed dopant concentration of the resistance modification doped region of KUBOTA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the dopant concentration of the resistance modification doped region to fall within the claimed range since it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation".
Regarding Claim 8, KUBOTA discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
KUBOTA is silent to:
wherein the fuse doped region comprises phosphorous, arsenic, antimony, or a combination thereof.
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the fuse doped region to comprise phosphorous, arsenic, antimony, or a combination thereof, as these elements are common n-type dopants and the fused doped region is n-type.
Regarding Claim 12, KUBOTA discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
KUBOTA further discloses:
further comprising a first conductive contact (KUBOTA Fig. 12B: Vg)…electrically connected with the gate electrode, and
a second conductive contact (KUBOTA Fig. 12B: Ground; ¶ [0056])…electrically connected with the S/D region,
wherein the resistance modification doped region is disposed under the gate electrode (KUBOTA Figs. 1 & 11: as seen).
KUBOTA does not disclose:
a first conductive contact extended into…the gate electrode, and
a second conductive contact extended into…the S/D region,
Regardless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, by the nature of making electrical connections in semiconductor devices known in the art, some non-zero amount of the first conductive contact and second conductive contact would extend into the gate electrode and S/D region, respectively.
Claims 13 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUBOTA in view of CHANG (US 20090029541 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, KUBOTA discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
KUBOTA does not disclose:
wherein the fuse medium is configured to be blown under a current ranging from about 0.4 mA to about 1.2 mA.
However, for a similar device, CHANG discloses:
wherein the fuse medium (CHANG Fig. 2C: 202a) is configured to be blown under a current ranging from about 0.4 mA to about 1.2 mA (CHANG ¶ [0029] teaches “after the anti-fuse is blown, an extremely low resistance value of the anti-fuse can be accomplished”. Further, CHANG ¶ [0037] teaches the fuse medium comprises silicon oxide or silicon nitride, just as is the case with the instant invention. However, CHANG does not teach the fuse medium is specifically configured to be blown under a current in the claimed range.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuse medium of KUBOTA with that of CHANG, as these inventions are from the same field of endeavor, and the materials specified in CHANG are common in the art for use as a fuse medium, CHANG ¶ [0037]. Further, as the invention of KUBOTA in view of CHANG is highly analogous to the instant invention and the same material may be used for the fuse material in both, one of ordinary skill in the art would also expect the fuse medium of KUBOTA in view of CHANG be configured to be blown under a current in the claimed range, thereby satisfying the limitations of this claim.
Regarding Claim 14, KUBOTA in view of CHANG discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13, upon which this claim depends.
KUBOTA and CHANG do not disclose:wherein a resistance of the fuse medium is positively proportional to a temperature.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fuse medium of KUBOTA with that of CHANG, as these inventions are from the same field of endeavor, and the materials specified in CHANG are common in the art for use as a fuse medium, CHANG ¶ [0037]. Further, as the invention of KUBOTA in view of CHANG is highly analogous to the instant invention and the same material may be used for the fuse material in both, one of ordinary skill in the art would also expect the fuse medium of KUBOTA in view of CHANG to have a resistance positively proportional to a temperature, thereby satisfying the limitations of this claim.
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 Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview—preferably at 4 P.M. (EST)—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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898