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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 3A to 3G include enlarged views. Each of the view and the enlarged view must be labeled as separate views. Further, respective “profiles 032a-302g” in the Figs. 3A to 3G also require separate labeling.
In Figs. 5A to 5J, “cross-section A-A” should be removed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al., US Pat. 7,332,403 in view of Yang et al., US Pat. 8,530,320.
Regarding claim 13, Hill teaches the method (detailed in figs. 1-21), comprising:
forming a resistor layer (SiCr thin film resistor 210; col. 4, line 47-53) over a dielectric layer (dielectric material substrate layer 130; see col. 4, lines 44-46);
forming a capping structure (TiN layer deposited over the thin film resistor 210; col. 5, lines 7-19); and
forming an interconnect structure (conductive filler 1610; col. 7, lines 17-20).
Hill teaches the claimed invention except for the resistive layer being a graded resistive layer.
Yang teaches a graded resistive layer (metal nitride layer 22 and 24, forming of the graded resistive layer; see at least col. 1, lines 55-62 and col. 8, lines 24-49), the graded resistive layer providing higher electrical resistance as compared to prior art metal resistors having the same dimension.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yang with Hill, since the graded resistive layer taught by Yang provides higher resistance resistor, thus allowing for decreasing the size of the resistive device of Hill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggest the graded resistive layer below the capping structure comprising: a bulk silicon chromium region; and a chromium-rich region.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or suggest the graded resistive layer below the capping structure comprising: a bulk silicon chromium region; and a silicon-rich region.
Claims 8-12 depend on claim 7.
Claims 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not teach or suggest a method, wherein forming the graded resistive layer over the dielectric layer comprising: depositing a layer of a bulk silicon chromium material over the dielectric layer; and depositing a layer of a chromium-rich material on the layer of the bulk silicon chromium material.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not teach or suggest a method, wherein forming the graded resistive layer over the dielectric layer comprising: depositing a layer of a bulk silicon chromium material over the dielectric layer; and depositing a layer of a silicon-rich material on the layer of the bulk silicon chromium material.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach or suggest a method, wherein forming the graded resistive layer over the dielectric layer comprising: depositing a layer of a silicon-rich material over the dielectric layer; and depositing a layer of a bulk silicon chromium material on the layer of the silicon-rich material.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach or suggest a method, wherein forming the graded resistive layer over the dielectric layer comprising: depositing a first layer of a silicon-rich material over the dielectric layer; depositing a layer of a bulk silicon chromium material on the first layer of the silicon-rich material; and depositing a second layer of a silicon-rich material on the layer of the bulk silicon chromium material.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1994. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM M-F.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009.
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.
/KYUNG S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833