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 without traverse of species II in the reply filed on 07/20/26 is acknowledged.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al., US 2007/0120220.
Lim et al. shows the invention as claimed including a semiconductor device comprising:
First conductive patterns 110 disposed over an insulating layer formed over a semiconductor substrate (note that the substrate can be a silicon on insulator substrate---see paragraph 0030);
A second conductive pattern 120 disposed to extend lengthwise to a side of the first conductive patterns over the insulating layer (see, for example, figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 0031-0050); and
Third conductive patterns 115 (see, for example, fig. 5) connected to the first conductive patterns and the second conductive patterns.
Concerning dependent claim 2, note that Lim et al. discloses wherein: the first conductive patterns are formed to have island features that are spaced apart from each other and disposed at predetermined intervals, and the second conductive pattern is formed to have a line form feature that laterally faces the island features (see figs. 1-2 and their descriptions).
Regarding dependent claim 4, note that in Lim et al. discloses wherein the second conductive pattern is formed to surround an outside of the first conductive patterns.
As to dependent claim 6, note that Lim et al. discloses the semiconductor device wherein: the semiconductor substrate comprises a first region and a second region that surrounds the first region, the first conductive patterns are disposed within the first region of the semiconductor substrate, and the second conductive pattern is disposed within the second region of the semiconductor substrate (see, for example, figs. 1-2 and their descriptions).
Concerning dependent claim 9, Lim et al. discloses wherein the third conductive patterns include fourth conductive patterns and fifth conductive patterns, the fourth conductive patterns are connected to the first conductive patterns, respectively, and a plurality of the fifth conductive patterns is connected to the second conductive pattern.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7-8, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al., US 2007/0120220.
Lim et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose the particular shape and dimensions of the second and fifth conductive patterns, as well as the relative widths of the first and second conductive patterns. However, a prima facie case of obviousness still exists because e configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container is significant (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). Additionally, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding the relative widths of the first and second conductive patterns, note that they are disclosed by Lim et al. to be substantially the same (see paragraph 0036) which implies the first and second conductive patterns can have different widths, with the first wider than the second or vice versa. This notwithstanding, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second conductive patterns wider than the first conductive patterns because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984))
As to dependent claim 7, note that Lim et al. does not expressly disclose the use of an insulating layer through which conductive contacts are formed to connect the first and second conductive patterns to the semiconductor substrate. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize an insulating layer and contacts to connect to the semiconductor substrate because in such a way areas of the substrate which are not electrically connected to the patterns can be adequately protected.
Regarding dependent claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to connect the first and second conductive patterns to the substrate using first and second conductive contacts, respectively.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al., US 2007/0120220 in view of Seo, KR 100955940B1, submitted by applicant.
Lim et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose wherein the third conductive patterns are formed as storage nodes of capacitors and further comprising a floating support layer that is spaced apart from the insulating layer and that supports the third conductive patterns. Seo discloses conductive patterns being formed as storage nodes 116 and further comprising a floating support layer 114 that is spaced apart from the substrate and that supports the storage node patterns (see abstract and figures). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Lim et al. so as to form the third conductive pattern as storage nodes along with the corresponding support layer because Seo shows the use of conductive patterns as storage nodes and also shows the use of floating support layers to provide stability to the memory device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al., US Patent 8,546,870 discloses the use of first and second conductive patterns (20b and 25a) of different widths (see abstract and fig. 1C), and Baek et al. US 2013/0267088 discloses the use of conductive patterns of different widths comprising intervening airgap structures (see fig. 3 and its description).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
October 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights