DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Election filed on May 5, 2026.
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 of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on May 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US Pub. 2023/0050415 A1).
In re claim 1, Huang et al. shows (fig. 2A) a static random access memory (SRAM) [0014], comprising: a substrate comprising a first active region (224) and a second active (not labeled, but at 122 and 118) region parallel to the first active region; a first gate structure (226) crossing the first active region and the second active region; a first lower contact (not labeled, top left) and a second lower contact (234, lower left) respectively on the first active region and the second active region at a first side (left) of the first gate structure; and a third lower contact (not labeled, top right) and a fourth lower contact (230, lower right) respectively on the first active region and the second active region at a second side (right) of the first gate structure, wherein in a top view, the first lower contact, the second lower contact, the third lower contact and the fourth lower contact respectively have a first edge between the first active region and the second active region and a second edge opposite to the first edge, wherein the first edge of the first lower contact is aligned to the first edge of the third lower contact (since they are coplanar along that first edge), the first edge of the second lower contact is aligned to the first edge of the fourth lower contact (since they are coplanar along that second edge), the second edge of the first lower contact is not aligned to the second edge of the third lower contact (since they have different shapes-the first lower contact being a rectangle and the third lower contact being a square), and the second edge of the second lower contact is not aligned to the second edge of the fourth lower contact (since they have different shapes-the second lower contact 234 being a rectangle and the fourth lower contact 230 being a square).
In re claim 2, Huang et al. shows (fig. 3A) wherein a top surface of the first lower contact, a top surface of the second lower contact, a top surface of the third lower contact and a top surface of the fourth lower contact (212, 208, 220) are flush with a top surface of the first gate structure (204, 216).
In re claim 3, Huang et al. shows (fig. 2A) a first upper contact (not labeled, another version of 236, top left) on the first lower contact and offset in a direction away from the first edge of the first lower contact; and a second upper contact (236, bottom left). on the second lower contact and offset in a direction away from the first edge of the second lower contact.
In re claim 4, Huang et al. shows (fig. 3A) wherein in a cross-sectional view, a sidewall of the first upper contact and a top surface of the first lower contact comprise a first step portion, a sidewall of the second upper contact and a top surface of the second lower contact comprise a second step portion, and the first step portion is opposite to the second step portion. (Huang shows in figure 3A the step portions between components (208, 210).
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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US Pub. 2023/0050415 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the cited case law.
In re claims 5-9, Huang does not specifically disclose the third upper contact on the third lower contact and the fourth lower contact to electrically connect the third lower contact and the fourth lower contact. Huang does not specifically disclose wherein in a cross-sectional view, a sidewall of the third upper contact and a top surface of the third lower contact comprises a third step portion, another sidewall of the third upper contact and a top surface of the fourth lower contact comprises a fourth step portion. Huang does not specifically disclose the a third active region and a fourth active region parallel to the second active region. Huang does not specifically disclose wherein in a cross-sectional view, a sidewall of the fourth upper contact and a top surface of the fifth lower contact comprises a fifth step portion, another sidewall of the fourth upper contact and a top surface of the sixth lower contact comprises a sixth step portion. Huang does not specifically disclose a third gate structure aligned with the first gate structure and crossing the fourth active region, wherein the sixth lower contact is between the second gate structure and the third gate structure. These elements of the claims are merely duplicate parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use three, four, etc., upper contacts, step portions, active regions and gate structures since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP 2144.04 VI. (B).
In re claim 10, Huang does not specifically disclose wherein in the top view, a distance between the first edge and the second edge of the first lower contact is larger than a distance between the first edge and the second edge of the third lower contact, a distance between the first edge and the second edge of the second lower contact is larger than a distance between the first edge and the second edge of the fourth lower contact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the edges having any desired distances from each other, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hwang (US Pub. 2023/0354570 A1), Blatchford (US Pub. 2010/0167513 A1), Kudo (US Pub. 2008/0061445 A1), Matsui (US Pub. 2007/0023832-A), Kudo (WO-2006101068-A1), and Zhang (CN-219917173-U) disclose various elements of the claims pertaining to SRAM devices having various shapes, sizes, and dispositions of contacts to the active regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E WARREN whose telephone number is (571)272-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am - 6pm.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at 571-272-5055. 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.
/MATTHEW E WARREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights