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 device invention, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on June 24, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1,4,5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Edelstein et al (US Patent 9,991,330 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Edelstein teaches a structure, comprising: a multi-layer resistive body including a layer of a resistive material (58/58P) having an oxidized surface region (60/60P, column 5, lines 14-67 and column 11, lines 40-53) between a first end and a second, opposite end of the layer of the resistive material; a first contact structure (66L) at the first end of the layer of the resistive material, in direct contact with the resistive material, and adjacent to a first end of the oxidized surface region; and a second contact structure (66R) at the second, opposite end of the layer of the resistive material, in direct contact with the resistive material, and adjacent to a second, opposite end of the oxidized surface region, wherein the oxidized surface region includes an oxidant of the resistive material (lines 14-67 and column 11, lines 40-53), and wherein the oxidized surface region is exclusively between the first contact structure and the second contact structure (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 4, Edelstein teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the oxidized surface region is included in a range of approximately 20 angstroms to approximately 35 angstroms (1 to 3 nm, column 5, lines 52-55 and column 11, lines 40-53).
Regarding claim 5, Edelstein teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the multi-layer resistive body is included in a range of approximately 35 angstroms to approximately 75 angstroms (5 nm, column 11, lines 37-39, column 5, lines 10-11, and column 11, lines 48-53).
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blessing et al (4,758,816).
Regarding claim 1, Blessing teaches a structure, comprising: a multi-layer resistive body including a layer of a resistive material (chromium 3, fig. 1 and 2) having an oxidized surface region (4, column 1) between a first end and a second, opposite end of the layer of the resistive material; a first contact structure (5) at the first end of the layer of the resistive material, in direct contact with the resistive material, and adjacent to a first end of the oxidized surface region; and a second contact structure (5) at the second, opposite end of the layer of the resistive material, in direct contact with the resistive material, and adjacent to a second, opposite end of the oxidized surface region, wherein the oxidized surface region includes an oxidant of the resistive material (oxide of silicon chromium, which includes oxidant of chromium in layer 3), and wherein the oxidized surface region is exclusively between the first contact structure and the second contact structure (figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 2, Blessing teaches the structure of claim 1, wherein the layer of the resistive material comprises: a silicon-chromium material (column 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelstein et al (US Patent 9,991,330 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Edelstein remain as applied in claim 1.
Edelstein does not explicitly teach the structure of claim 1, wherein a sheet resistance of the multi-layer resistive body is greater than approximately 500 ohms per square.
Edelstein teaches the resistance of the resistive body can be adjusted by the depth of the metal oxide (i.e. 60P/60, abstract, column 5, lines 44-51).
Thus, it would have been obvious to the skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the depth of the metal oxide layer to optimize the resistance of the resistive body according to the value required by the circuit to which the resistive body is connected. “[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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 21-30 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art does not teach
“a resistor structure…comprising: a multi-layer resistive body, comprising: a layer of a silicon-chromium material; and a layer of an oxidized silicon-chromium material in direct contact with the layer of the silicon-chromium material” (claim 6);
“A semiconductor device, comprising: a film resistor structure within an interconnect region of the semiconductor device…comprising: a multi-layer resistive body including a silicon-chromium layer and an oxidized silicon-chromium region that is an oxidized surface region of the silicon- chromium layer and is in direct contact with the silicon-chromium layer” (claim 21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8am to 4pm EST.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571 270 7877. 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.
/FEIFEI YEUNG LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights