CTNF 18/483,913 CTNF 72630 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 2/13/1986 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and 102 (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Jeong (US 10,636,703 B2) . With respect to Claim 1, Jeong et al discloses a semiconductor structure (Figures 1 and 2A - 2D) comprising: an interconnect wiring level (Figure 1, 136) with metal lines (Figure 2B, 160a and 160b) ; and an insulating cut shape (Figure 2A, 150) disposed through a run length of at least one of the metal lines wherein the insulating cut shape divides the at least one of the metal lines into electrically isolated nets (Figure 2B, 145) . See Figures 1-2D and corresponding text, especially column 3, line 20 to column 5, line 25. Even though Jeong et al does not disclose one metal line split by the insulating cut shape, two metal lines separated by the insulating cut shape would result in the same structure. The formation of two separate metal lines divided by an insulator is the same structurally as one metal line which has been divided into two by etching and depositing an insulator between the resulting two metal lines. In the absence of structural differences, the Claim is anticipated as the same claimed structure is disclosed. See MPEP 2113. 2113 Product-by-Process Claims [R-01.2024] I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE IMPLIED BY THE STEPS “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) With respect to Claim 8, Jeong discloses further comprising another interconnect wiring level (Figure 1, 144 and 143) disposed at a different level than the interconnect wiring level and including an insulating cut shape disposed through a run length of a metal line of another interconnect wiring level wherein the insulating cut shape divides the metal line of the another interconnect wiring level into electrically isolated nets . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 10,636,703 B2) . Jeong is relied upon as discussed above. However, Jeong does not explicitly disclose the limitations of the Claims at hand. With respect to Claim 2, and the limitation “wherein the insulating cut shape is off-center to provide the electrically isolated nets with different widths”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to change the shape, as changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). With respect to Claim 3, and the limitation “wherein the insulating cut shape includes an extended portion that extends beyond a surface of the at least one of the metal lines to provide self-alignment and overlay margin to a via landing on one of the electrically isolated nets”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to change the shape, as changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The optimization of the shape would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, in the absence of unobvious results. With respect to Claim 4, and the limitation “the insulating shape includes a plurality of layers”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a plurality of layers, as duplication of parts, for their known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). With respect to Claim 6, and the limitation “comprising one or more additional insulating cut shapes wherein the one or more additional insulating cut shapes divides at least one of metal lines into three or more electrically isolated nets”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a plurality of layers, as duplication of parts, for their known benefit, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). With respect to Claim 7 and the limitation “wherein the insulating cut shape includes periodic perturbations to reduce crosstalk between the electrically isolated nets”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to change the shape, as changes in shape are prima facie obvious in the absence of unobvious results. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The optimization of the shape would be within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, in the absence of unobvious results . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. Claim 7 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 comprises the phrase “the insulating cut shape includes periodic perturbations”. The claim is indefinites as the term “perturbation” is used to describe deviations of systems, moving objects or processes. It is unclear how a shape would contain “perturbations”. As the metes and bounds of the Claim are not clearly defined, the Claim is properly rejected as being indefinite. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 5 is 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. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6. 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. AGG March 2026 /ALEXANDER G GHYKA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/483,913 Page 2 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/483,913 Page 3 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/483,913 Page 4 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/483,913 Page 5 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/483,913 Page 6 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/483,913 Page 7 Art Unit: 2812 Application/Control Number: 18/483,913 Page 8 Art Unit: 2812