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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 20, 2023 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Independent claims 1, 8 & 15, all recite “a horizontal antifuse structure”. It is not clear why the applicant chose to call it a horizontal antifuse structure in drafting the claims whereas throughout the detailed description, the antifuse structure has been consistently called as a vertical antifuse structure. Is it to indicate the conductive link that is created between the two slanted annular metal structure during fuse programming is horizontal or is it to indicate that the bottom of the two slanted annular metal structures is horizontal or is it due to some other undefined characteristics? If there is implied “support” for this term, why is it then repeatedly called the vertical antifuse structure instead of horizontal antifuse structure? The use of this term has created lot of uncertainties, and it is dubious that they have support for “a horizontal antifuse structure” in the specification. .Appropriate correction/clarification is requested.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 & 16-20 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejections based on their dependencies on claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively.
.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Independent claims 1, 8 & 15, all recite “a horizontal antifuse structure”. It is not clear why the applicant chose to call it a horizontal antifuse structure in drafting the claims whereas throughout the detailed description, the antifuse structure has been consistently called as a vertical antifuse structure. Is it to indicate the conductive link that is created between the two slanted annular metal structure during fuse programming is horizontal or is it to indicate that the bottom of the two slanted annular metal structures is horizontal or is it due to some other undefined characteristics? If there is implied “support” for this term, why is it then repeatedly called the vertical antifuse structure instead of horizontal antifuse structure? The use of this term has created lot of uncertainties and the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be ascertained with confidence. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested. Appropriate correction/clarification is requested. Claims 2-7, 9-14 & 16-20 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejections based on their dependencies on claims 1, 8 & 15, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tigelaar et al. (Patent No.: US 5,300,456) – This prior art teaches horizontal antifuse structure comprising: a fuse dielectric layer (Col. 2, L 50-67 ; Fig. 1 – fuse dielectric layer 20); and two slanted Col. 2, L 50-67 ; Fig. 1 – slanted metal structures 48, bottom portion of one of the slanted metal structures 48 could be considered. under BRI, as partially embedded in the fuse dielectric layer 20).
Yang et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0233843 A1) – This prior art teaches horizontal antifuse structure comprising: a fuse dielectric layer (Par. 0052 ; Fig. 7 – fuse dielectric layer 12); and two slanted annular metal structures arranged adjacent to and opposite one another, wherein bottom portions of the Par. 0052 ; Fig. 7 – two slanted metal structures 18L and 18, bottom portion of the slanted annular metal structures 48 could be considered. under BRI, as partially embedded in the fuse dielectric layer 12).
Adusumilli et al. (Patent No.: US 10,008,507 B2) – This prior art teaches horizontal antifuse structure comprising: a fuse dielectric layer (Par. 0052 ; Fig. 7 – fuse dielectric layer 28); and two slanted Par. 0052 ; Fig. 7 – two slanted metal structures 34L and 34R).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
12/08/2025
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893