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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2023 was filed before the first action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 1 of the instant application.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 2 of the instant application.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 3 of the instant application.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 4 of the instant application.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 5 of the instant application. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 6 of the instant application. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 7 of the instant application.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 8 of the instant application. Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 9 of the instant application.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 10 of the instant application. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 11 of the instant application.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 12 of the instant application.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 13 of the instant application.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 14 of the instant application.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 15 of the instant application.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 16 of the instant application.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 17 of the instant application.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 18 of the instant application.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 19 of the instant application. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,854,907 recites all of the limitations in claim 20 of the instant application.
Prior art of record
Re claim 1, Bergendahl et al. (US Pat. 9,608,065) teaches a method of forming a semiconductor device (Figs. 2A-11B), comprising: forming a contact opening (38) adjacent to a gate structure (18), wherein a top portion of a sidewall surface of the contact opening is covered by a polymer layer (30); forming an air gap spacer (48) adjacent to the gate structure (18), wherein the cavity at least partially defines a shape of the air gap spacer (48).
Bergendahl does not explicitly teach etching the sidewall surface of the contact opening to form a cavity having a curved sidewall profile, wherein the top portion of the sidewall surface remains protected by the polymer layer during the etching; after forming the cavity, removing the polymer layer.
Re claim 11, Bergendahl et al. (US Pat. 9,608,065) teaches a method (Figs. 2A-11B), comprising: providing a contact opening (38) interposing a first gate structure (18, “left side”) and a second gate structure (18, “right side”); forming air gaps between a metal contact disposed in the contact opening and each of the first and second gate structures (Fig. 9), wherein the air gaps have the width along the first direction that varies as the function of depth along the second direction (52, Fig. 11B). Bergendahl does not explicitly teach forming a cavity along opposing sidewall surfaces of the contact opening, wherein a topmost portion of the cavity is disposed below a topmost portion of the contact opening, and wherein the cavity has a width along a first direction that varies as a function of depth along a second direction.
Re claim 18, Bergendahl et al. (US Pat. 9,608,065) teaches a semiconductor device (Figs. 11A-B), comprising: a metal plug (46);
an etch stop layer (20);
an air gap spacer (48) interposing the etch stop layer (20) and the metal plug (46), wherein the air gap spacer (48) includes a seal spacer (52) formed over a cavity (38), and wherein at least some of the seal layer penetrates into the cavity (Fig. 10A).
Bergendahl does not explicitly teach the etch stop layer disposed along a sidewall of a gate stack, the etch stop layer having a curved sidewall profile; and the cavity having the curved sidewall profile.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the method of claim 1, including each of the limitations and specifically conductive wires disposed within the trench and overlying the first magnetic layer, wherein a top surface of the conductive wires is vertically below a top surface of the first magnetic layer, for the same reasons as mentioned for claim 1 in the prior art of record above.
The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the method of claim 11, including each of the limitations and specifically forming a cavity along opposing sidewall surfaces of the contact opening, wherein a topmost portion of the cavity is disposed below a topmost portion of the contact opening, and wherein the cavity has a width along a first direction that varies as a function of depth along a second direction, for the same reasons as mentioned for claim 11 in the prior art of record above.
The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the device of claim 18, including each of the limitations and specifically the etch stop layer disposed along a sidewall of a gate stack, the etch stop layer having a curved sidewall profile; and the cavity having the curved sidewall profile, for the same reasons as mentioned for claim 18 in the prior art of record above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM S BOWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3984. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached on 571-272-1867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM S BOWEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/FERNANDO L TOLEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2897