DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to Applicant’s August 13, 2026, submission. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Claim Objections
The spacing of the lines of the Claims is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) are required.
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)(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, 3, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aurola et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 8,426,897 B2, hereinafter “Aurola”).
Specifically, regarding Claim 1, Aurola discloses a semiconductor structure (100, 105, 106, 106, 110; FIG. 1) comprising: a three-dimensional resistor (e.g., 105, 106, 111; FIG. 1) with at least two horizontal resistive metal elements (105, 106) parallel to a major surface of the semiconductor structure (FIG. 1) connected by at least one vertical resistive metal element (111; FIG. 1), wherein the at least one vertical resistive metal element (111) completely surrounds a portion (a sidewall) of a first dielectric material (100; e.g., between 111 and 112, and 112 and 113, FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Aurola discloses that the at least one vertical resistive metal element (111) contacting the at least two horizontal resistive metal elements (105, 106) is a tube around the first dielectric material (100; FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Aurola discloses that the at least one vertical resistive metal element (111) is composed of one resistive metal (FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 7, Aurola discloses that the at least one vertical resistor resistive element and the at least two horizontal resistive elements are composed of different resistive metals (col. 6, ll. 49-53).
Regarding Claim 8, Aurola discloses that the tube of the at least one resistive metal element (111) has a shape selected from the group consisting of a circle (FIG. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Aurola discloses that the portion of the first dielectric material (100) is between two of the at least two horizontal resistive metal layers (FIG. 1), and wherein each layer of the at least two horizontal resistive metal layers is a single layer of resistive metal material (FIG. 1).
Claim 11 includes language substantially similar to that of Claim 1 and is rejected for reasons at least similar to those discussed above.
Regarding Claim 12, Aurola discloses that the first dielectric material (100) is directly contacting one horizontal surface of a first of the two adjacent horizontal resistive metal elements (105, 106; FIG. 1) and the vertical resistive metal element (111; FIG. 1), and wherein the vertical resistive metal element (111) is a sidewall of a second of the two adjacent horizontal resistive metal elements (105, 106; FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Aurola discloses that the first dielectric material (100) has a shape selected from the group consisting of a rectangle (FIGS. 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Aurola discloses that the two horizontal resistive metal elements (105, 106) and the vertical resistive metal element (111) are composed of different resistive metal materials (col. 6, ll. 49-53, col. 17, ll. 12-15).
Regarding Claim 16, Aurola discloses that the two horizontal resistive metal elements (105, 106) and the vertical resistive metal element (111) are composed of a same resistive metal material (col. 8, ll. 50-53).
Regarding Claim 18, Aurola discloses that a portion of a first metal layer (111; FIG. 1) contacting a first horizontal resistive metal element of the two horizontal resistive metal elements (105; FIG. 1), and a portion of a second metal layer (112; FIG. 1) contacting a second horizontal resistive metal element of the two horizontal resistive metal elements (106; FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Aurola discloses the portion of a first metal layer (111) is a portion of a first metal line, and wherein the portion of a second metal layer (112) is a portion of a second metal line (col. 5, ll. 55-59).
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 of this title, 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 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aurola.
Aurola discloses substantially all of the limitations of the present invention but does not disclose the claimed thickness. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize (i) a sidewall thickness that is less than 5 nm and (ii) two horizontal resistive metal elements and a vertical resistive metal element having a thickness of one to five nanometers to increase substrate circuitry capacity since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617, F. 2d 272, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 10, and 17, 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. Claim 20 would be allowable but for the Claim objection identified above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Luebke, can be reached at (571) 272-2009. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
/ANTHONY R JIMENEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2831
Prosecution Insights