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
Claims 4 and 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/26/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (assumed to be Species A) in the reply filed on 1/26/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that since the independent claim is generic the search for one species would necessarily encompass the search for the other. This is not found persuasive because the physical differences between the species would require different text searches to specially find the electrode arrangements claimed. This is further evidenced by the actual search conducted by the examiner.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-3 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakaiso et al. (US PGPub 2017/0345577).
Claim 1: Nakaiso teaches (Fig. 2-4A, 10A) a capacitor of a semiconductor device comprising: a lower electrode layer (40); a plurality of upper electrode layers (41,42) disposed over the lower electrode layer in a third direction; a plurality of dielectric layers (21,22) disposed between the lower electrode layer and each of the plurality of upper electrode layers, each dielectric layer configured to include a plurality of storage nodes [0021-0023]; a plurality of line layers (51,52) disposed over at least one of the plurality of upper electrode layers, and configured to receive a voltage for measuring an equivalent series resistance (ESR); and a plurality of contacts (81,82) that electrically couple the plurality of line layers to the at least one of the plurality of upper electrode layers, wherein a resistance resulting from position information of the plurality of line layers and the plurality of contacts in a routing pattern corresponds to the equivalent series resistance (ESR) [0140-0143]. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case the capacitor in Nakaiso reads on the physical claim limitations presented in the current claim and therefore would be able to function as claimed.
Claim 2: Nakaiso teaches (Fig. 12A-B), wherein each of the plurality of upper electrode layers (51-54) further includes: an extension region that extends from an edge region in a second direction, wherein the extension region does not overlap with the lower electrode layer (91) in the third direction. In this case the line layers are (TI2) and contacts are (EE).
Claim 3: Nakaiso teaches (Fig. 12A-B), wherein: the plurality of line layers are disposed over, in the third direction, the extension region of the at least one of the plurality of upper electrode layers.
Claim 5: Nakaiso teaches (Fig. 2-4A) the plurality of line layers (51,52) are disposed to traverse the plurality of upper electrode layers (41, 42) in a first direction.
Claim 6: Nakaiso teaches (Fig. 2-4A, 10A) the plurality of line layers configured to receive a voltage for measuring ESR are disposed, over the plurality of upper electrode layers, in parallel to each other while extending in a first direction, and each of the plurality of line layers has a line shapes.
Claim 7: Nakaiso teaches (Fig. 2-4A, 10A) the plurality of line layers are spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance in a second direction.
Claim 8: Nakaiso teaches (Fig. 2-4A, 10A) the plurality of upper electrode layers include: a first upper electrode layer disposed over the lower electrode layer in the third direction; and a second upper electrode layer disposed over the lower electrode layer in the third direction, and spaced apart from the first upper electrode layer by a predetermined distance in a first direction.
Claim 9: Nakaiso teaches (Fig. 2-4A, 10A) a first line layer is configured to receive a first voltage as an input and is electrically coupled to the first upper electrode layer through a first contact; and a second line layer is configured to receive a second voltage as an input and is electrically coupled to the second upper electrode layer through a second contact. [0140-0143]. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case the capacitor in Nakaiso reads on the physical claim limitations presented in the current claim and therefore would be able to function as claimed.
Claim 10: Nakaiso teaches (Fig. 2-4A, 10A) the first voltage and the second voltage have different voltage levels [0021-0023, 0140-0143]. It is noted that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior arts teach the identical chemical structure the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case the capacitor in Nakaiso reads on the physical claim limitations presented in the current claim and therefore would be able to function as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH KATE SALERNO whose telephone number is (571)270-1266. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-2:30pm.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached at 5712721705. 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.
/SARAH K SALERNO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814