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 group I in the reply filed on 12/31/25 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, and 10 of copending Application No. 18/470,655 (reference application) in view of Yeh et al., US 2022/0320075. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the ‘655 application shows the invention substantially as claimed including a fuse structure comprising a fuse wire and a deep via contact that is connected to the fuse wire and to a frontside back end of the line (BEOL) network; and a backside contact that is connected to a FEOL microdevice, to a backside BEOL network, and to the fuse wire. However, claim 1 of the ‘655 application do not expressly disclose where the FEOL microdevice includes a transistor. Yeh et al. discloses that a transistor is a common form of a FEOL microdevice (see, for example, paragraph 0030). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention depicted by claim 1 of the ‘655 application so as to use a transistor as the FEOL microdevice since transistors are shown by Yeh et al. to be a common type of FEOL microdevice.
Regarding dependent claim 2, note that in claim 2 of the ‘655 application the fuse wire is between the deep via contact and the backside BEOL network.
Concerning dependent claim 3, note that in claim 3 of the ‘655 application a top surface of the fuse wire is connected to a bottom surface of the deep via contact.
With respect to dependent claim 7, note that in claim 7 of the ‘655 application when the fuse structure is in a programmed state, an open circuit exists within the fuse wire that prevents the fuse wire from routing current between the fronside BEOL network and the backside BEOL network.
As to dependent claim 10, note that in claim 10 of the ‘655 application the fuse wire is underneath a shallow trench isolation (STI) region.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Furthermore, note that a provisional obviousness type double patenting is warranted even when applications are filed on the same date (see MPEP 1490).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8-9, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the following limitations in combination with the other claim limitations: wherein a side surface of the fuse wire is connected to a sidewall of the backside contact, as required by dependent claim 4, and wherein a top surface of the backside contact is connected to a source/drain region of the transistor, as required by dependent claim 5. Additionally, the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the following limitations in combination with the other claim limitations: wherein, when the fuse structure is in a non-programmed state, the backside contact is a terminal for routing current through the transistor and for routing current between the frontside BEOL network and the backside BEOL network by way of the fuse wire, as required by dependent claim 6, and when the fuse structure is in a programmed state, an open circuit exists within the backside contact that prevents the backside contact from routing current through the transistor and the backside contact from routing current between the frontside BEOL network and the backside BEOL network by way of the fuse wire, as required by dependent claim 8. Moreover, the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the following limitations in combination with the other claim limitations: wherein a diffusion break region is between the transistor and the deep via contact, as required by dependent claim 9, and wherein the fuse wire is coplanar with a backside resistor wire, as required by dependent claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Erickson et al., US 2012/0268195 discloses a fuse with an enhanced blow operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
March 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights