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 .
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:
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18 and 21-22) in the reply filed on 5/4//2026 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chan (US 20210257296), hereinafter Chan.
Regarding claim 1, Chan (US 20210257296) teaches a resistive device (i.e. comprises “resistive element 216A” – see para 40; also refer to Figure 7-8 and their markups provided below; also see variations of Figures 10-13), comprising:
a conductive structure (comprising 216A, para 40) having a first side (216A-s1, see markup of Figure 8) and a second side (216A-s2, see markup of Figure 8 below) opposite to the first side, and a first surface (216A-s3, see markup of Figures 8 below) connected between the first side and the second side;
a row of vias (708 and 712, para 42 and 47; see Figure 7-8) extending through (best seen in Figure 7) the conductive structure (216A) in a first direction (z-direction in markup of Figure 7) substantially perpendicular to the first surface (216-s3, which extends parallel to x-y plane in markup of Figure 8).
Although only one row of vias 708 and 712 is shown in Figures 7-8, para 47 describes a variation showing three rows of vias similarly extending through the conductive structure (916A of Figure 9, which is equivalent of 216A of Figure 7-8). Para 47 describes that rows of vias can be not just three but may be “between about 1 conductive via and 15 conductive vias” (especially see last two sentences of para 47). To represent the case with “15 conductive vias”, Figures 7 and 8 have been marked up so that instead of one each 708 and 712, there are 15 of 708 (in sequence > 708-1 to 708-15) and 15 of 712 (in sequence > 712-1 to 712-15), arranged similar to Figure 8, i.e. along x-direction (best seen in markup of Figure 8) with 708-1 and 712-1 being closest to first side (216A-s1) and 708-15 and 712-15 being closest to second side (216A-s2)
As modified above (refer to markup of Figure 7 and Figure 8 below), Chan now discloses:
a row of first vias (708-2 or 708-6, or alternatively 708-2 & 712-2; or alternatively 708-6 and 712-6) extending through the conductive structure (comprising 216A) in a first direction (z-direction in markup of Figures 7-8) substantially perpendicular to the first surface (216A-s3, which extends parallel to x-y plane – see markup of Figure 8), wherein the row of first vias (708-2 or 708-6, or alternatively 708-2 & 712-2; or alternatively 708-6 and 712-6) is closer to the first side (216A-s1) than the second side (216A-s2); and
a row of second vias (708-1 or 708-5, or alternatively 708-1 & 712-1; or alternatively 708-5 and 712-5) extending through the conductive structure (comprising 216A) in the first direction (z-direction in markup of Figures 7-8), wherein the row of second vias (708-1 or 708-5, or alternatively 708-1 & 712-1; or alternatively 708-5 and 712-5) is disposed between the first side (216A-s1) of the conductive structure (comprising 216A) and the row of first vias (708-2 or 708-6, or alternatively 708-2 & 712-2; or alternatively 708-6 and 712-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
469
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
446
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
406
314
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Chan teaches the resistive device of claim 1, wherein the resistive device is disposed between a plurality of back-end-of-line (BEOL) elements (i.e. disposed between “dielectric layer 402” and “dielectric layer 204” where “metal interconnect structure” above a “substrate 202” – see para 42 and 44, best seen in Figure 7) in the first direction (i.e. z-direction in markup of Figure 7).
Regarding claim 3, Chan teaches the resistive device of claim 1, further comprising: a row of third vias (708-14, or 708-14 & 712-14) extending through the conductive structure in the first direction (i.e. z-direction), wherein
the row of third vias (708-14, or 708-14 & 712-14) is closer to the second side (216A-s2) than the first side (216A-s1); and
a row of fourth vias (708-15, or 708-15 & 712-15) extending through the conductive structure (comprising 216A) in the first direction (i.e. z-direction),
wherein the row of fourth vias (708-15, or 708-15 & 712-15, which are vias closest to 216A-s2) is disposed between the second side (216A-s2) of the conductive structure and the row of third vias (708-14, or 708-14 & 712-14).
Regarding claim 4, Chan teaches the resistive device of claim 3, wherein the conductive structure comprises a conductive layer (216A) disposed between the row of first vias (708-2, or 708-2 & 712-2) and the row of third vias (708-14, or 708-14 & 712-14), wherein the conductive layer (i.e. 216A which extends in Y-direction, see markup of Figure 7 and 8) has a dimension (i.e. dimension along x-direction from 216A-s1 to 216-s2) greater than that of the row of first vias (because 216A spans 15 sets of similar rows of vias).
Regarding claim 5, Chan teaches the resistive device of claim 4, wherein a distance between the row of first vias (708-2, or 708-2 & 712-2) and the row of second vias (708-1, or 708-1 & 712-1) in a second direction (x-direction) perpendicular to the first side (216A-s1, which extends along Y-direction – see markup of Figure 8) is smaller than a dimension of the conductive layer (216A) in the second direction (i.e. (x-direction; because conductive layer 216A as modified above for 15 vias extends in x-direction 15 similar vias).
Regarding claim 6, Chan teaches the resistive device of claim 4, further comprising an M row (i.e. 3 rows) of vias (rows corresponding to 708-2/712-2, 708-3/712-3 and 708-4/712-4) disposed between the first side (216A-s1) and the row of second vias (708-5 and 712-5, which is an option), wherein M is an integer more than 2 (i.e. it is 3, as shown above).
Regarding claim 7, Chan teaches the resistive device of claim 4, but does not specifically disclose “wherein a first current signal is input to the row of first vias and output from the row of third vias to determine a resistance of the conductive layer”. However, the claimed recitation of “a first current signal is input to the row of first vias and output from the row of third vias to determine a resistance of the conductive layer” is a statement of intended use, and it has been held by the courts that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. how the claimed “resistive device” is employed) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 8, Chan teaches the resistive device of claim 7, but does not specifically disclose “wherein a first voltage signal across the conductive layer is measured with the row of second vias and the row of fourth vias”. However, again, the claimed recitation of “wherein a first voltage signal across the conductive layer is measured with the row of second vias and the row of fourth vias” is a statement of intended use, and it has been held by the courts that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. how the claimed “resistive device” is employed) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 9, Chan teaches the resistive device of claim 4, but does not specifically disclose “wherein a second current signal is input to the row of first vias and output from the row of third vias to determine an overall resistance of the conductive layer, the row of the first vias, and the row of third vias”. However, again, the claimed recitation of “wherein a second current signal is input to the row of first vias and output from the row of third vias to determine an overall resistance of the conductive layer, the row of the first vias, and the row of third vias” is a statement of intended use, and it has been held by the courts that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. how the claimed “resistive device” is employed) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 10, Chan teaches the resistive device of claim 9, but does not specifically disclose “wherein a second voltage signal across the conductive layer, the row of the first vias, and the row of the third vias is measured with the row of first vias and the row of third vias”. However, again, the claimed recitation of “wherein a second voltage signal across the conductive layer, the row of the first vias, and the row of the third vias is measured with the row of first vias and the row of third vias” is a statement of intended use, and it has been held by the courts that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. how the claimed “resistive device” is employed) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-18 and 21-22 are allowable. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 11-18 are allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of base claim 11 that requires “a second resistor comprising: a second conductive structure having a third side and a fourth side opposite to the third side; and a second array of vias disposed closer to the third side than the fourth side” in conjunction with “the second conductive structure of the second resistor comprises a second conductive layer”.
Claims 21-22 are allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of base claim 21 that requires “the first conductive vias has a third property calculated based on a first linear relationship associated with the first property and the second property” in conjunction with “a dimension of the second conductive layer is different from that of the first conductive layer and a dimension of the first conductive vias is substantially identical to that of the second conductive vias”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY ARORA whose telephone number is (571)272-8347. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 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, Drew Richards can be reached at 5712721736. 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.
/AJAY ARORA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights