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 4/5/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Note applicable to all claims being rejected in this Office action: Examiner notes that the limitations "overlap", "layer", "portion" “between” “embed” are being interpreted broadly in accordance with MPEP. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification. The claim presently disclose a structural limitation (i.e. overlap, layer, portion, contact) that is taught by prior art of record, therefore, the limitation is considered met by the prior art of record. Additionally, Merriam Webster dictionary defines the above limitations as “to occupy the same area in part”, “one thickness lying over or under another”, “an often limited part of a whole”, “in the intervening space” “to enclose closely” respectively. Further note the limitation “contact” is being interpreted to include "direct contact" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between) and "indirect contact" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed there between).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheng et al (US 2011/0254121 A1 hereinafter Cheng).rtthe second Regarding Claim 1, Cheng discloses in Fig 6: An anti-fuse structure comprising:
a first vertical metal pillar (38 on the left) having a first bottom portion and a first top portion;
a second vertical metal pillar (38 on the right) having a second bottom portion and a second top portion (See mark-up below);
and
a fuse dielectric (32) between the first bottom portion of the first vertical metal pillar and the second bottom portion of the second vertical metal pillar, wherein a width of the first bottom portion of the first vertical metal pillar is wider than a width of the first top portion of the first vertical metal pillar or a width of the second bottom portion of the second vertical metal pillar is wider than a width of the second top portion of the second vertical metal pillar [0053-0054]. See note above for interpretations of “between” and “portion”. The limitation “portion” is being interpreted to mean a part of the “whole” pillar and thus one of ordinary skilled in the art can choose “a first portion” and a “second portion” to satisfy the claim limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
544
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Cheng discloses in Fig 6: The anti-fuse structure of claim 1, wherein a first horizontal distance between the first bottom portion of the first vertical metal pillar (38 on left) and the second bottom portion of the second vertical metal pillar (38 on right side) is shorter than a second horizontal distance between the first top portion of the first vertical metal pillar and the second top portion of the second vertical metal pillar (See mark-up above).
Regarding Claim 3, Cheng discloses in Fig 6: The anti-fuse structure of claim 2, wherein a horizontal cross-section of the first bottom portion of the first vertical metal pillar is larger than a horizontal cross-section of the first top portion of the first vertical metal pillar, and a horizontal cross-section of the second bottom portion of the second vertical metal pillar is larger than a horizontal cross-section of the second top portion of the second vertical metal pillar (See mark-up above).
Regarding Claim 4, Cheng discloses in Fig 6: The anti-fuse structure of claim 1, wherein the first and the second bottom portion of the first and the second vertical metal pillar (38) is embedded in a first dielectric layer (32: SiC, Si.sub.4NH.sub.3, SiO.sub.2, a carbon doped oxide, a nitrogen and hydrogen doped silicon carbide SiC(N,H) ) and the first and the second top portion of the first and the second vertical metal pillar is embedded in a second dielectric layer (36: silsesquioxanes, C doped oxides (i.e., organosilicates) that include atoms of Si, C, O and H, thermosetting polyarylene ethers), the second dielectric layer being materially different and having a different etch selectivity from the first dielectric layer (materials different from one another have different etch selectivity).
Regarding Claim 9, Cheng discloses in Fig 6: The anti-fuse structure of claim 1, wherein the widths of the first and the second bottom portion of the first and the second vertical metal pillar are respectively wider than the widths of the first and the second top portion of the first and the second vertical metal pillar (See mark-up above).
Claim(s) 1, 5-8 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurz et al (US 2013/0062728 A1 hereinafter Kurz).
Regarding Claim 1, Kurz discloses in Fig 1A/1B: An anti-fuse structure comprising:
a first vertical metal pillar (121) having a first bottom portion and a first top portion;
a second vertical metal pillar (119) having a second bottom portion and a second top portion (See mark-up below);
and a fuse dielectric (125) between the first bottom portion of the first vertical metal pillar and the second bottom portion of the second vertical metal pillar, wherein a width of the first bottom portion of the first vertical metal pillar is wider than a width of the first top portion of the first vertical metal pillar or a width of the second bottom portion of the second vertical metal pillar is wider than a width of the second top portion of the second vertical metal pillar [0027-0029]. See note above for interpretations of “between” and “portion”. See note above for interpretations of “between” and “portion”. The limitation “portion” is being interpreted to mean a part of the “whole” pillar and thus one of ordinary skilled in the art can choose “a first portion” and a “second portion” to satisfy the claim limitations.
PNG
media_image2.png
442
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Kurz discloses in Fig 1A/1B: The anti-fuse structure of claim 1, wherein the second vertical metal pillar (119) is in a hollow cylindrical shape, and the first vertical metal pillar (121) is within the hollow cylindrical shape of the second vertical metal pillar (See Fig 1B).
Regarding Claim 6, Kurz discloses in Fig 1A/1B: The anti-fuse structure of claim 5, wherein the first (121) and the second vertical metal pillar (119) form a concentric shape (See Fig 1B).
Regarding Claim 7, Kurz discloses in Fig 1A/1B: The anti-fuse structure of claim 1, further comprising a first electrode (131/129) contacting a top surface of the first vertical metal pillar (121) and a second electrode (123) contacting a top surface of the second vertical metal pillar (119). See note above for interpretation of “contact”.
Regarding Claim 8, Kurz discloses in Fig 1A/1B: The anti-fuse structure of claim 1, further comprising a first electrode (131/129) contacting a top surface of the first vertical metal pillar (121) and a second electrode (123) contacting a bottom surface of the second vertical metal pillar (119). See note above for interpretation of “contact”.
Regarding Claim 17, Kurz discloses in Fig 1A/1B: An anti-fuse structure comprising:
a first vertical metal pillar (121) having a first bottom portion and a first top portion;
a second vertical metal pillar (119) having a second bottom portion and a second top portion;
a fuse dielectric (125) between the first bottom portion of the first vertical metal pillar and the second bottom portion of the second vertical metal pillar;
a first electrode (129/131) contacting a top surface of the first vertical metal pillar; and
a second electrode (123) contact one of a top surface and a bottom surface of the second vertical metal pillar, (note interpretation of contact in the note above)
wherein a width of the first bottom portion of the first vertical metal pillar is wider than a width of the first top portion of the first vertical metal pillar and a width of the second bottom portion of the second vertical metal pillar is wider than a width of the second top portion of the second vertical metal pillar (See mark-up for claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 18, Kurz discloses in Fig 1A/1B: The anti-fuse structure of claim 17, wherein a first horizontal distance between the first bottom portion of the first vertical metal pillar (121) and the second bottom portion of the second vertical metal pillar is shorter than a second horizontal distance between the first top portion of the first vertical metal pillar and the second top portion of the second vertical metal pillar (119) See mark-up above.
Regarding Claim 19, Kurz discloses in Fig 1A/1B: The anti-fuse structure of claim 17, wherein the first and the second bottom portion of the first and the second vertical metal pillar (121) is embedded in a first dielectric layer (117) and the first and the second top portion of the first and the second vertical metal pillar is embedded in a second dielectric layer (127) that is materially different and has a different etch selectivity from the first dielectric layer [0026]. Different dielectric materials of 117 and 127 have different etch selectivity.
Regarding Claim 20, Kurz discloses in Fig 1A/1B: The anti-fuse structure of claim 17, wherein the second vertical metal pillar is in a hollow cylindrical shape, and the first vertical metal pillar (121) and the second vertical metal pillar (119) form a concentric shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NISHATH YASMEEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7564. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-6PM.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/NISHATH YASMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights