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 invention group I, species 1 in the reply filed on 02/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant is noted that, regardless if Examiner identify any claim in the restriction, the restriction is made very clear that “Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.” Thus, Applicant is required to identify all claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species when reply to restriction/election requirement. Failing to identify all claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species or providing a vague statement that “any other pending claims reading on the embodiment of Figure 1” or intentionally including claims encompassing non-elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species is considered incomplete and nonresponsive response.
For compact prosecution, the Notice of Non-Responsive will not be mailed out. Only claims 1-11 direct to elected invention of species 1, Fig. 1 will be examined.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is not generic for invention group I because claim 12 directs to non-elected species 3, Fig. 20 and does not read on elected invention of species 1, Fig. 1. The backside back end of line (BEOL) network of elected species 1, Fig. 1 only has one conductive pathway directly connected to the backside resistor. The backside back end of line (BEOL) network of elected species 1, Fig. 1 does not have two (first and second) conductive pathways directly connected to the backside resistor as required in claim 12.
Accordingly, claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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)(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 1-7, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wong et al. (US Pub. 20240421074).
Regarding claim 1, Wong et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 10, paragraph [0047]-[0049] a semiconductor integrated circuit (IC) device comprising:
a frontside back end of line (BEOL) network [106a, 106b, 112c, 114c];
a deep via contact [108c] that is directly connected to a backside resistor [R1] and that is directly connected to the frontside BEOL network [106a, 106b, 112c, 114c]; and
a backside BEOL network [110, 102, 114a, 112a] comprising a conductive pathway [110] directly connected to the backside resistor [R1].
Regarding claim 2, Wong et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 10
wherein the backside resistor [R1] is vertically between the deep via contact [108c] and the backside BEOL network [110, 102, 114a, 112a].
Regarding claim 3, Wong et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 10
wherein a top surface of the backside resistor [R1] is directly connected to a bottom surface of the deep via contact [108c].
Regarding claim 4, Wong et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 10,
wherein a bottom surface of the backside resistor [R1] is connected to the backside BEOL network [110, 102, 114a, 112a].
Regarding claim 5, Wong et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 10, paragraph [0028], [0044]
wherein the backside resistor [R1] is composed of a first conductive material [cermet material, ruthenium oxide, titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, nickel chromium, silicon chromium, copper nickel, copper chromium] and the deep via contact [108c] is composed of a second conductive material [copper] that is different than the first conductive material [cermet material, ruthenium oxide, titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, nickel chromium, silicon chromium, copper nickel, copper chromium].
Regarding claim 6, Wong et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 10,
wherein the deep via contact [108c] and the backside resistor [R1] route current between the frontside BEOL network [106a, 106b, 112c, 114c] and the backside BEOL network [110, 102, 114a, 112a].
It is noted that the above limitation of claim 6 directs to intended function and manner operation of the deep via contact and the backside resistor. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Further, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “provide a substantially same electrical potential to both the frontside BEOL network and to the backside BEOL network” of claim 7 directs to intended function and manner operation of the deep via contact and the backside resistor. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Further, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In this case, Wong et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 10 all the structural limitations of the claim including structural limitations of the deep via contact and the backside resistor, thus it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Wong et al. discloses in Fig. 7, Fig. 8, paragraph [0047]
wherein the backside resistor [R1] is below a shallow trench isolation (STI) region [118].
The insulating layer 118 is an isolation region. Per MPEP 2131: The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US Pub. 20240421074) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hong et al. (US Pub. 20230095421).
Regarding claims 8-9, Wong et al. fails to disclose
wherein a top surface of the backside resistor is coplanar with a bottom surface of a backside contact associated with a front end of line (FEOL) microdevice;
wherein a bottom surface of the backside resistor is below a bottom surface of a backside contact associated with a front end of line (FEOL) microdevice.
Hong et al. discloses in Fig. 5, paragraph [0020]-[0021], [0029]-[0031]
wherein a top surface of the backside resistor [32] is coplanar with a bottom surface of a backside contact [62] associated with a front end of line (FEOL) microdevice [20];
wherein a bottom surface of the backside resistor [32] is below a bottom surface of a backside contact [62] associated with a front end of line (FEOL) microdevice [20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hong et al. into the method of Wong et al. to include wherein a top surface of the backside resistor is coplanar with a bottom surface of a backside contact associated with a front end of line (FEOL) microdevice; wherein a bottom surface of the backside resistor is below a bottom surface of a backside contact associated with a front end of line (FEOL) microdevice. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wong et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable location of the backside resistor of an integrated circuit device.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US Pub. 20240421074) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Arai et al. (US Pub. 20170263598).
Regarding claim 11, Wong et al. fails to disclose
wherein the backside resistor is horizontally between a first front end of line (FEOL) diode and a second FEOL diode.
Arai et al. discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0032]
wherein a resistor [108 or 110] is horizontally between a first front end of line (FEOL) diode [106] and a second FEOL diode [112]
Wong et al. discloses the resistor is the backside resistor.
Thus, the combination of Wong et al. and Arai et al. would result to “wherein the backside resistor is horizontally between a first front end of line (FEOL) diode and a second FEOL diode.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Arai et al. into the method of Wong et al. to include wherein the backside resistor is horizontally between a first front end of line (FEOL) diode and a second FEOL diode. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wong et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable location of the backside resistor with respect to diodes of an integrated circuit device with reduced size [paragraph [0009], [0044] of Arai et al.].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (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 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893