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 with traverse of Invention 1, claims 1-7 in the reply filed on October 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden for the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the inventions require different search strategies.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuo et al. (US 2023/0299073 A1; hereafter Kuo) in view of Choi et al. (US 2021/0111178 A1; hereafter Choi).
Regarding claim 1, Kuo teaches a semiconductor device (see e.g., Figures 1A, 1B and 2):
a peripheral circuit including a substrate; and (see e.g., peripheral circuit comprising the serpentine-shaped resistor 20 disposed on a substrate 10, Paras [0017] – [[0021], Figure 2)
an active pattern on the substrate (see e.g., serpentine-shaped resistor 20 disposed on the substrate 10, Para [0020], Figures 1A and 1B),
wherein when viewed in a plan view (see e.g., plan view shown in Figure 1A),
the active pattern includes corners in a first direction and corners in a second direction opposite to the first direction, and (see e.g., the serpentine resistor 20 includes a plurality curved portions 220, Para [0022], Figure 1A)
Kuo does not explicitly teach
“at least some of the corners in the first direction have different shapes from at least some of the corners in the second direction”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Choi (Figures 1I and 1J) establishes that corner geometry is a tunable parameter in semiconductor fabrication, teaching that a corner 11e maybe either a sharp tip 110 (rounding index being 0) as shown in Figure 1I or a rounded tip 110r (rounding index ≤ 15 nm) as shown in Figure 1J.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide rounded corners in one direction while maintaining squared/sharp corners in the opposite direction in order to optimize the device performance and achieve the predictable result of improved circuit layout and integration.
Regarding claim 2, Kuo, as modified by Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kuo further teaches
wherein when viewed in a plan view, at least some of the corners in the first direction have a rounded shape (see e.g., the plan view of Figure 1A shows that one side of the serpentine-shaped resistor 20 has at least some corners which are rounded), and all corners in the second direction have rounded shapes (see e.g., plan view of Figure 1A shows that another side of the serpentine-shaped resistor 20 has all corners rounded).
Kuo does not explicitly teach
“at least some of the corners in the first direction have an angular shape”,
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Choi (Figures 1I and 1J) establishes that corner geometry is a tunable parameter in semiconductor fabrication, teaching that a corner 11e maybe either a sharp tip 110 (rounding index being 0) as shown in Figure 1I or a rounded tip 110r (rounding index ≤ 15 nm) as shown in Figure 1J.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide at least some rounded corners and at least some squared/sharp corners in one direction in order to optimize the device performance and achieve the predictable result of improved circuit layout and integration.
Regarding claim 3, Kuo, as modified by Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 2 as mentioned above. Kuo further teaches
wherein when viewed in a plan view, a lowermost corner and an uppermost corner among the corners in the first direction have a rounded shape (see e.g., the plan view of Figure 1A shows that the lowermost and the uppermost corners on one side of the serpentine-shaped resistor have a rounded shape).
Regarding claim 4, Kuo, as modified by Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 3 as mentioned above. Kuo does not explicitly teach
“wherein when viewed in a plan view, all corners between the lowermost corner and the uppermost corner among the corners in the first direction have angular shapes”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Choi (Figures 1I and 1J) establishes that corner geometry is a tunable parameter in semiconductor fabrication, teaching that a corner 11e maybe either a sharp tip 110 (rounding index being 0) as shown in Figure 1I or a rounded tip 110r (rounding index ≤ 15 nm) as shown in Figure 1J.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide squared/sharp corners in between rounded corners in one direction in order to optimize the device performance and achieve the predictable result of improved circuit layout and integration.
Regarding claim 5, Kuo, as modified by Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 2 as mentioned above. Kuo does not explicitly teach
“wherein all of the corners having the angular shapes have a corner angle of 90”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Choi (Figures 1I and 1J) establishes that corner geometry is a tunable parameter in semiconductor fabrication, teaching that a corner 11e maybe either a sharp tip 110 (rounding index being 0) as shown in Figure 1I or a rounded tip 110r (rounding index ≤ 15 nm) as shown in Figure 1J.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide squared/sharp corners in one direction in order to optimize the device performance and achieve the predictable result of improved circuit layout and integration.
Regarding claim 6, Kuo, as modified by Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 2 as mentioned above. Kuo does not explicitly teach
“wherein each of the corners having the angular shapes has a rounding index of 0, the rounding index being a distance between a corner tip when the corner is not rounded and a corner tip when the corner is rounded”.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Choi (Figures 1I and 1J) establishes that corner geometry is a tunable parameter in semiconductor fabrication, teaching that a corner 11e maybe either a sharp tip 110 (rounding index being 0) as shown in Figure 1I or a rounded tip 110r (rounding index ≤ 15 nm) as shown in Figure 1J.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide squared/sharp corners with rounding index being 0 in one direction in order to optimize the device performance and achieve the predictable result of improved circuit layout and integration.
Regarding claim 7, Kuo, as modified by Choi, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Kuo further teaches
wherein the active pattern has a serpentine shape (see e.g., serpentine-shaped resistor 20, Para [0022], Figure 1A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893