CTNF 18/533,683 CTNF 85787 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. 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 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. Election/Restrictions 08-25 AIA Applicant's election with traverse of species A, fig. 5, claims 1, 2 and 9-11 , in the reply filed on 3/31/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that : “Applicant respectfully submits that the alleged Species A-F are not mutually exclusive at least because claims directed to the alleged species overlap in scope.” “…whether alleged Species A and D are mutually exclusive.” “…whether alleged Species A and E are mutually exclusive…” “…whether alleged Species A and F are mutually exclusive...” “…whether alleged Species C and E are mutually exclusive…” (See Remarks at pages 7-9). A summary of Applicant’s arguments follows for Species A and D to present the rationale for the traversal. Dependent claims 3, 4, 12 and 13 are directed to both Species A and D. Claims 3, 4, 12 and 13 also depend from claims 1 and 10, respectively. Claims 1 and 10 are also directed to both Species A and D. Because claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 12 and 13 are directed to both Species A and D, they are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because MPEP 806.04(e) indicates: “Claims are definitions or descriptions of inventions. Claims themselves are never species. The scope of a claim may be limited to a single disclosed embodiment (i.e., a single species, and thus be designated a specific species claim). Alternatively, a claim may encompass two or more of the disclosed embodiments (and thus be designated a generic or genus claim). Species always refer to the different embodiments of the invention. ” (Emphasis added.) Claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 12 and 13 may be directed to both Species A and D. Because claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 12 and 13 encompass two more of the disclosed embodiments they are generic to Species A and D. While claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 12 and 13 may be generic to Species A and D, this does not mean Species A and D are not mutually exclusive. The presence of generic claim does not mean there does not exist different embodiments of the invention. Species always refer to the different embodiments of the invention and Species A and D are different embodiments of the invention because they comprise different fillings of the second spacing. In each of Species A to F the second, larger spacing is filled with different elements so different search queries are needed such that a search burden exists. (See Requirement for Restriction on page 2 indicating the species are independent or distinct because they comprise different fillings of the second spacing.) Further in response to Applicant’s specific examples, in Species A, the embodiment shown in fig. 5 requires the air gaps to be between the spacer. Whereas in Species D, the embodiment shown in fig. 8 requires the airgaps to be outside of the spacer. These different spatial orientations of the air gap are mutually exclusive. Also different search queries are needed for the different spatial orientations so a search burden exists. Further in response to Applicant’s specific examples, in Species A, the embodiment shown in fig. 5 requires the air gaps to be disposed in the adhesion layer. Whereas in Species E, the embodiment shown in fig. 13 requires the airgaps to be disposed in a metal line. These different dispositions of the air gap are mutually exclusive. Also different search queries are needed for the different dispositions of the air gap so a search burden exists. Further in response to Applicant’s specific examples, in Species A, the embodiment shown in fig. 5 requires the air gaps to be disposed in the adhesion layer. Whereas in Species F, the embodiment shown in fig. 14 requires the airgaps to be disposed in a metal line. These different dispositions of the air gap are mutually exclusive. Also different search queries are needed for the different dispositions of the air gap so a search burden exists. Further in response to Applicant’s specific examples, in Species C, the embodiment shown in fig. 7 requires the air gaps not to be enclosed. Whereas in Species E, the embodiment shown in fig. 13 requires the airgaps to be enclosed in a metal line. These different dispositions of the air gap are mutually exclusive. Also different search queries are needed for the different dispositions of the air gap so a search burden exists. The traversal is also on the ground(s) that: “For example, the Restriction Requirement fails to i) identify different classifications for each alleged species, ii) explain why each alleged species has acquired a separate status in the art due to divergent subject matter, and iii) identify different search queries that would be required for each alleged species.” (See Remarks at page 7) This is not found persuasive because MPEP 808.02 indicates: In order to demonstrate a serious search burden, the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following : (A) Separate classification thereof: … (B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together:… (C) A different field of search… As set forth in MPEP 808.02, the requirement is “one of the following”. The requirement is not all three as submitted by the Applicant (e.g. as denoted by “and”). As explained above, a different field of search exists for the mutually exclusive species so a serious search burden exists . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 08-05 AIA Claim s 3-8 and 12-20 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 3/31/26 . 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. 07-34-01 Claims 2 and 11 are 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. In claims 2 and 11, the limitation “the second air gap is disposed within the sidewall spacers” is indefinite. Referring to Applicant’s fig. 5, the air gap 124 is between sidewall spacers 122. The air gap 124 does not appear to be within or embedded inside the sidewall spacers 122. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 AIA Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Su et al., US Publication No. 2006/0264027 A1 . Su anticipates: A semiconductor device, comprising (see fig. 8 annotated below): PNG media_image1.png 270 528 media_image1.png Greyscale a plurality of metal lines (15) disposed in a layer, the plurality of metal lines including a first spacing and a second spacing (e.g. first spacing and second spacing annotated in fig. 8), the second spacing being larger than a minimum pitch between the metal lines; a gapping structure (30) disposed within the second spacing; and a second air gap (90) disposed adjacent to the gapping structure (30) within the second spacing. See Su at para. [0001] – [0035], figs. 1-8. 9. The semiconductor device as recited in claim 1, wherein a first air gap (90) is disposed within the first spacing, fig. 8 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 2 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al., US Publication No. 2018/0166383 A1 . Cao anticipates: A semiconductor device, comprising (see fig. 11 annotated below): PNG media_image2.png 362 754 media_image2.png Greyscale a plurality of metal lines (160) disposed in a layer, the plurality of metal lines including a first spacing and a second spacing (e.g. first spacing and second spacing annotated in fig. 11), the second spacing being larger than a minimum pitch between the metal lines; a gapping structure (130 and/or 140) disposed within the second spacing; and a second air gap (18) disposed adjacent to the gapping structure (130 and/or 140) within the second spacing. See Cao at para. [0001] – [0039], figs. 1-11. 2. The semiconductor device as recited in claim 1, wherein the gapping structure (130 and/or 140) includes sidewall spacers (e.g. vertical portion 130) and the second air gap (18) is disposed within the sidewall spacers, fig. 11 9. The semiconductor device as recited in claim 1, wherein a first air gap (18) is disposed within the first spacing, fig. 11. 10. A semiconductor device, comprising (see fig. 11 annotated): a plurality of metal lines (160) disposed in a layer, the plurality of metal lines including a first spacing associated with a minimum pitch and a second spacing being larger than a minimum pitch between the metal lines (e.g. first spacing and second spacing annotated in fig. 11); a first air gap (18) is disposed within an adhesive liner (140) within the first spacing; a gapping structure (130) is disposed within the second spacing; and at least one second air gap (18) is disposed adjacent to the gapping structure (130) within an adhesive liner (140) in the second spacing. See Cao at para. [0001] – [0039], figs. 1-11. 11. The semiconductor device as recited in claim 10, wherein the gapping structure (130) includes sidewall spacers (e.g. vertical portion 130) and the at least one second air gap (18) is disposed within the sidewall spacers, fig. 11. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele Fan whose telephone number is 571-270-7401. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 7:30 am to 4 pm. 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, Jeff Natalini, can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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. /Michele Fan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 3 June 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/533,683 Page 2 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/533,683 Page 3 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/533,683 Page 4 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/533,683 Page 5 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/533,683 Page 6 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/533,683 Page 7 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/533,683 Page 8 Art Unit: 2818
Prosecution Insights