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 without traverse of the invention of Group III, claim 15-20 in the “Response To Restriction Requirement” filed on May 20, 2026 (hereinafter the “Response”) is acknowledged. The Response cancelled claims 1-14 and added new claims 21-34. The Response states that “[n]ew claims 21-34 recite subject matter similar to that of the claims of elected Group III, and, as such, should be searched as well.” The Examiner respectfully submits that this statement fails to comply with paragraph 10 of the Restriction Requirement dated March 23, 2026 which requires that “[i]f claims are added after the election, Applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention”; Applicant’s Response fails to do so (i.e., “similar to” is not the same as “readable upon”). Also, the Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant has failed to indicate where the originally filed application provides support for new claims 21-34.
Newly submitted claims 28-34 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed in elected Group III, claims 15-20 for at least the following reasons. The inventions of elected Group III, claims 15-20, drawn to a method, classified in H10D 62/01, and new Group IV (claims 28-34, drawn to a method, classified in H10W 10/01) are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (i) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (ii) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (iii) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. Please see, MPEP § 806.05(j) and MPEP § 802.01.
In the instant case, the elected invention as claimed in Group III is a materially different process than the invention as claimed in Group IV for at least the following reasons. For example, the claimed invention of Group IV requires “requires “forming a plurality of dielectric layers, of a semiconductor device, in a stacked arrangement; forming a plurality of etch stop layers, of the semiconductor device, interspersed with the plurality of dielectric layers” which the claimed invention of elected Group III does not require. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for at least the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
In the present application, the inventions as claimed have nothing of current record to show them to be obvious variants. The claims to the different inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different class/subclass combinations) and/or employing different search strategies and search queries to find at least the different features listed above.
Because Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, newly added claims 28-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Please see, 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, Applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the Examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “A Method Of Forming A Multi-Layer Thin Film Resistor Including Lower And Upper Resistive Layers With Different Silicon Concentrations”.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 5, “lesser less than” should be “less than”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0121057 A1 (Le Neel).
Regarding claim 15, Le Neel discloses, A method, comprising:
forming a lower resistive layer (lower resistive layer (100); FIG. 15; [0126]), of a multi-layer film structure ([0010]; FIG. 15), that includes a first concentration of silicon ([[0126]—first concentration of silicon = 45%) over a dielectric layer (dielectric layer (90); FIG. 15; [0105]);
forming an upper resistive layer (upper resistive layer (102); FIG 15; [0126]), of the multi-layer film structure ([0010]; FIG. 15), that includes a second concentration of silicon ([0126]—second concentration of silicon = 10%) over the lower resistive layer (100),
wherein the second concentration of silicon is different than the first concentration of silicon (first concentration of silicon = 45% which is different than second concentration of silicon = 10%); and
forming a capping layer (capping layer (88); FIG. 15; [0100]) of the multi-layer film structure ([0010]; FIG. 15), over the upper resistive layer (102).
PNG
media_image1.png
553
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Le Neel discloses, The method of claim 15, wherein forming the lower resistive layer (100) includes:
forming the lower resistive layer (100) using a physical vapor deposition process ([0126]).
Regarding claim 18, Le Neel discloses, The method of claim 15, wherein forming the upper resistive layer (102) includes:
forming the upper resistive layer (102) using a physical vapor deposition process ([0126]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of US 2018/0277757 A1 (Mori).
Regarding claim 17, Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein forming the lower resistive layer includes:
performing an ion implantation operation to dope the lower resistive layer with oxygen or nitrogen.
However, in analogous art, Mori discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that doping1 with oxygen or nitrogen can be predicably used to increase the resistivity of a layer ([0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Yang and Mori before him/her that forming the lower resistive layer (100) of Yang includes: performing an ion implantation operation to dope the lower resistive layer (100) with oxygen or nitrogen, as taught by Mori, to change the resistivity of lower resistive layer (100), as additionally taught by Mori.
Regarding claim 19, Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein forming the upper resistive layer includes:
performing an ion implantation operation to dope the upper resistive layer with oxygen or nitrogen.
However, in analogous art, Mori discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that doping with oxygen or nitrogen can be predicably used to increase the resistivity of a layer ([0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Yang and Mori before him/her that forming the upper resistive layer (102) of Yang includes: performing an ion implantation operation to dope the upper resistive layer (102) with oxygen or nitrogen, as taught by Mori, to change the resistivity of lower resistive layer (102), as additionally taught by Mori.
Claims 20-22, 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Neel in view of US 2012/0313220 A1 (Yang).
Regarding claim 20, La Neel does not appear to explicitly disclose, further comprising: forming contacts of a resistor structure on the capping layer.
However, in analogous art, Yang discloses, forming a lower resistive layer (lower resistive layer (22’); FIG. 8; [0052]), of a multi-layer film resistor structure ([0001]; FIG. 8), over a dielectric layer (dielectric layer (20); FIG. 6 and annotated FIG. 8, below; [0045]). Yang also discloses forming an upper resistive layer (upper resistive layer (24’); FIG. 8; [0052]), of the multi-layer film resistor structure ([0001]; FIG. 8), over the lower resistive layer (22’) and forming a capping layer (capping layer (26’); FIG. 8; [0052]), of the multi-layer film resistor structure ([0001]; FIG. 8), over the upper resistive layer (24’). Yang additionally discloses forming contacts (contacts (32); FIG. 8; [0053]) on the capping layer (26) to connect to resistor structure (22’ and 24’), thereby facilitating electrical connection to resistor structure (22’ and 24’) via first and second contact structures (32).
PNG
media_image2.png
542
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Le Neel and Yang before him/her to form contacts of a resistor structure (Le Neel, resistor structure (34); FIG. 15; [0054]) on the capping layer (88) of Le Neel, as taught by Yang, thereby facilitating electrical connection to resistor structure (34) of Le Neel via first and second contact structures.
Regarding claim 21, La Neel discloses, A method, comprising:
forming a resistor structure (resistor structure (34); FIG. 15; [0054]); and
forming a multi-layer film structure ([0010]; FIG. 15), of the resistor structure (34),
wherein forming the multi-layer film structure ([0010]; FIG. 15) comprises:
forming a capping layer (capping layer (88); FIG. 15; [0100]);
forming an upper resistive layer (upper resistive layer (100); FIG 15; [0126]) below the capping layer (88)2,
wherein the upper resistive layer (100) includes a first concentration of silicon ([0126]—first concentration of silicon = 45%); and
forming a lower resistive layer (lower resistive layer (102); FIG 15; [0126]) below the upper resistive layer (100),
wherein the lower resistive layer (102) includes a second concentration of silicon ([0126]—second concentration of silicon = 10%) that is lesser relative to the first concentration of silicon (second concentration of silicon = 10% which is lesser relative to first concentration of silicon = 45%).
Regarding claim 21, Le Neel does not appear to explicitly disclose, forming a first contact structure;
forming a second contact structure adjacent to the first contact structure; and
the first contact structure and the second contact structure are connected by a muli-layer film structure of a resistor structure.
However, in analogous art, Yang discloses forming a first contact structure (first contact structure (first contact structure (32); annotated FIG. 8, above; [0053]) and a second contact structure (second contact structure (32); annotated FIG. 8, above; [0053]) adjacent to the first contact structure (32). Yang also discloses forming a multi-layer film structure ([0001]; FIG. 6) of a resistor structure (resistor structure (22’ and 24’); FIG. 8; [0052]) to connect to the first contact structure (22) and the second contact structure, thereby facilitating electrical connection to resistor structure (22’ and 24’) via first and second contact structures (32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Le Neel and Yang before him/her to form a first contact structure of the resistor structure (34) of Le Neel and a second contact structure, of the resistor structure (34), adjacent to the first contact structure; as taught by Yang, and to form the multi-layer film structure (Le Nell, [0010]; FIG. 15), of the resistor structure (34) of Le Neel, to connect to the first contact structure and the second contact structure, thereby facilitating electrical connection to resistor structure (34) of Le Neel via the first and second contact structures.
Regarding claim 22, Le Neel in view of Yang discloses, The method of claim 21,
wherein the upper resistive layer (100) comprises a first silicon chromium composition with the first concentration of silicon ([0126]—45% silicon and 20% chromium), and
wherein the lower resistive layer (102) comprises a second silicon chromium composition with the second concentration of silicon ([0126]—10% silicon and 80-85% chromium).
Regarding claim 24, Le Neel in view of Yang discloses, The method of claim 21,
wherein a second atomic ratio corresponding to the second concentration of silicon is lesser less than approximately 66% ([0126]—second concentration of silicon = 10% which is a second atomic ratio less than approximately 66%).
But, Le Neel in view of Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein a first atomic ratio corresponding to the first concentration of silicon is greater than approximately 66%.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Le Neel and Yang before him/her that a first atomic ratio corresponding to the first concentration of silicon of lower resistive layer (102) is a result effective variable that affects the resistance value of lower resistive layer (102) because the resistance thereof is partially dependent on its material composition and that choosing this first atomic ratio to be greater than approximately 66% would have been an obvious matter of optimization of the resistance value of lower resistive layer (102) achieved through routine experimentation. Please see, MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 26, Le Neel in view of Yang discloses, The method of claim 21, wherein a thickness of the upper resistive layer (Yang, upper resistive layer (24); FIG. 6; [0046]) is included in a range of approximately 20 angstroms to approximately 60 angstroms (Yang, [0048]—because the claimed range of approximately 20 angstroms to approximately 60 angstroms lies inside the disclosed range of 2 nm to 50 nm for upper resistive layer (24)). Please see, MPEP 2144.05(I)—In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 27, Le Neel in view of Yang discloses, The method of claim 21, wherein a thickness of the lower resistive layer (Yang, lower resistive layer (22); FIG. 6; [0046]) is included in a range of approximately 40 angstroms to approximately 80 angstroms ([0048]— because the claimed range of approximately 40 angstroms to approximately 80 angstroms lies inside the disclosed range of 0.5 nm to 20 nm for lower resistive layer (22)). Please see, MPEP 2144.05(I), above
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Neel in view of Yang and further in view of US 2013/0299913 A1 (Lin).
Regarding claim 25, Le Neel in view of Yang does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein a thickness of the capping layer is included in a range of approximately 15 angstroms to approximately 25 angstroms.
However, in analogous art, Lin discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a capping layer (capping layer (210); FIG. 5; [0017]) may be predicably formed over a high-resistor region (high-resistor region (High-R); FIG. 5; [0017) and that a thickness of capping layer (210) may be predicably formed to be less than 50 angstroms (0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Le Neel, Yang, and Lin before him/her that a thickness of the capping layer (88) of Le Neel in view of Yang is included in a range of approximately 15 angstroms to approximately 25 angstroms because this claimed range lies inside the range of less than 50 angstroms for a capping layer over a resistor disclosed by Lin. Please see, MPEP 2144.05(I), above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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 23, Le Neel discloses first and second silicon chromium compositions that include a poly crystalline silicon chromium compound ([0094]). However, Le Neel does not appear to disclose first and second silicon chromium compositions that include a chromium silicate compound.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0181388 A1 (Chinthakindi)—Discloses a method of forming a thin-film resistor structure that includes multilayer structure (20”, 50a, and 50b) over a dielectric layer (16) and a capping layer (25) over multilayer structure (20”, 50a, and 50b) (FIG. 3D). Also discloses forming contacts (V1 and M2) on capping layer (25) (FIG. 3D).
US 2018/0211952 A1 (Shin)—Discloses a method of forming a multi-layer resistive structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 US 2009/0032794 A1 (Hsiao) discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a doping process includes ion implantation ([0024]).
2 Please see, paragraph [0011] of Applicant’s originally filed application regarding the use of “spatially relative terms, such as ‘beneath,’ ‘below,’ ‘lower,’ ‘above,’ ‘upper’ and the like” and how they “are intended to encompass different orientations of the device in use or operation in addition to the orientation depicted in the figures.”
Prosecution Insights