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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 21-23 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, drawn to a semiconductor device containing single height and split cells, classified in G06F30/392.
II. Claims 21-23, drawn to a semiconductor device containing double height cells, classified in G06F30/398.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions Groups I and II are directed to related products. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different design. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
There are over 35000 patent publications in the different classifications to search and consider for the inventions. Accordingly, a targeted search is required for each invention. This would place a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner.
Since applicant has already elected Group I without traverse for the originally presented restriction requirement, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,803,682. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant invention are all found in the claims of the Patent.
With regards to claim 1, all of the limitations of “a semiconductor device comprising: a first row, a second row and a third row extending in a row direction and arranged in a column direction; a first power rail extending in the row direction between the first row and the second row, and configured to supply a first voltage; a second power rail extending in the row direction between the second row and the third row, and configured to supply a second voltage different from the first voltage; and a split cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged in the first row and the third row, respectively” can be found in “a semiconductor device comprising: a first power rail extending in a row direction and configured to supply a first voltage; a second power rail extending in the row direction and configured to supply a second voltage different from the first voltage; a first cell arranged in a first row between the first and second power rails, … and a third cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged in the second row and a fourth row, respectively, wherein the fourth row is arranged on a second side of the first row opposite to the second row, wherein the first portion is arranged between the first cell and the second cell” of the patent.
Furthermore all of the limitations of dependent claims 2-12 of the instant application can be found in claims 1-12 of the patent.
With regards to claim 13, all of the limitations of “a semiconductor device comprising:
a first cell arranged in a first row, wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region and a first second-type active region, and a first cell height of the first cell in a column direction is equal to a row height of the first row; and a split cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged on an upper side and a lower side, respectively, of the first cell.” can be found in “a semiconductor device comprising: … a first cell arranged in a first row …, wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region and a first second-type active region, and a first cell height of the first cell in a column direction perpendicular to the row direction is defined as a pitch between the first power rail and the second power rail; … and a third cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged in the second row and a fourth row, respectively, wherein the fourth row is arranged on a second side of the first row opposite to the second row, wherein the first portion is arranged between the first cell and the second cell.” of the patent.
Furthermore all of the limitations of dependent claims 13-17 of the instant application can be found in claims 1-12 of the patent.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,245. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant invention are all found in the claims of the Patent.
With regards to claim 1, all of the limitations of “a semiconductor device comprising: a first row, a second row and a third row extending in a row direction and arranged in a column direction; a first power rail extending in the row direction between the first row and the second row, and configured to supply a first voltage; a second power rail extending in the row direction between the second row and the third row, and configured to supply a second voltage different from the first voltage; and a split cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged in the first row and the third row, respectively” can be found in “a semiconductor device comprising: a first power rail extending in a row direction and configured to supply a first voltage; a second power rail extending in the row direction and configured to supply a second voltage different from the first voltage; a first cell arranged in a first row between the first and second power rails, … and a third cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged in the second row and a fourth row, respectively, wherein the fourth row is arranged on a second side of the first row opposite to the second row, wherein the first portion is arranged between the first cell and the second cell” of the patent.
Furthermore all of the limitations of dependent claims 2-12 of the instant application can be found in claims 1-12 of the patent.
With regards to claim 13, all of the limitations of “a semiconductor device comprising:
a first cell arranged in a first row, wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region and a first second-type active region, and a first cell height of the first cell in a column direction is equal to a row height of the first row; and a split cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged on an upper side and a lower side, respectively, of the first cell.” can be found in “a semiconductor device comprising: … a first cell arranged in a first row …, wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region and a first second-type active region, and a first cell height of the first cell in a column direction perpendicular to the row direction is defined as a pitch between the first power rail and the second power rail; … and a third cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged in the second row and a fourth row, respectively, wherein the fourth row is arranged on a second side of the first row opposite to the second row, wherein the first portion is arranged between the first cell and the second cell.” of the patent.
Furthermore all of the limitations of dependent claims 13-17 of the instant application can be found in claims 1-12 of the patent.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,430,487. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant invention are all found in the claims of the Patent.
With regards to claim 1, all of the limitations of “a semiconductor device comprising: a first row, a second row and a third row extending in a row direction and arranged in a column direction; a first power rail extending in the row direction between the first row and the second row, and configured to supply a first voltage; a second power rail extending in the row direction between the second row and the third row, and configured to supply a second voltage different from the first voltage; and a split cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged in the first row and the third row, respectively” can be found in “A semiconductor device comprising: a first power rail extending in a row direction and configured to supply a first voltage; a second power rail extending in the row direction and configured to supply a second voltage different from the first voltage; a first cell arranged in a first row between the first and second power rails, wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region and a first second-type active region, and a first cell height of the first cell measured in a column direction perpendicular to the row direction is defined as a pitch between the first power rail and the second power rail; a second cell comprising a second first-type active region and a second second-type active region, wherein the second first-type active region extends in a second row and a third row on a first side of the first row and comprises a first width measured in the column direction greater than a second width of the first first-type active region measured in the column direction; and a third cell comprising a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion and the second portion are arranged on two sides of the first cell” of the patent.
Furthermore all of the limitations of dependent claims 2-12 of the instant application can be found in claims 1-12 of the patent.
With regards to claim 13, all of the limitations of “a semiconductor device comprising:
a first cell arranged in a first row, wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region and a first second-type active region, and a first cell height of the first cell in a column direction is equal to a row height of the first row; and a split cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged on an upper side and a lower side, respectively, of the first cell.” can be found in “A semiconductor device comprising: a first power rail extending in a row direction and configured to supply a first voltage; a second power rail extending in the row direction and configured to supply a second voltage different from the first voltage; a first cell arranged in a first row between the first and second power rails, wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region and a first second-type active region, and a first cell height of the first cell measured in a column direction perpendicular to the row direction is defined as a pitch between the first power rail and the second power rail; a second cell comprising a second first-type active region and a second second-type active region, wherein the second first-type active region extends in a second row and a third row on a first side of the first row and comprises a first width measured in the column direction greater than a second width of the first first-type active region measured in the column direction; and a third cell comprising a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion and the second portion are arranged on two sides of the first cell” of the patent.
Furthermore all of the limitations of dependent claims 13-17 of the instant application can be found in claims 1-12 of the patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tzeng et al., US PGPUB No. 2013/0313615.
In reference to claim 1, Tzeng teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a first row, a second row and a third row extending in a row direction and arranged in a column direction (Figure 3, 1st row between the top VDD and directly VSS below, 2nd row between that VSS and the VDD directly below it, 3rd row between that VDD and the bottom VSS);
a first power rail extending in the row direction between the first row and the second row, and configured to supply a first voltage (VSS between the 1st and 2nd rows);
a second power rail extending in the row direction between the second row and the third row, and configured to supply a second voltage different from the first voltage (VDD between the 2nd and 3rd rows); and
a split cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged in the first row and the third row, respectively (Cell 210 in the 1st and 3rd rows).
In reference to claim 2, Tzeng teaches first cell arranged in the second row, wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region and a first second-type active region, and a first cell height of the first cell in the column direction is defined as a pitch between the first power rail and the second power rail (Figure 3, cell in 2nd row in between the upper and lower 210 cell portions).
In reference to claim 3, Tzeng teaches wherein the first cell comprises a first length in the row direction different from a second length, in the row direction, of the split cell (Figure 3, cell portions 210 are wider than the center cell).
In reference to claim 4, Tzeng teaches wherein a vertical axis of the first cell in the column direction is offset from a vertical axis, in the column direction, of the split cell (Figure 3, left boundary of 210 top portion is offset from left boundary of center cell).
In reference to claim 5, Tzeng teaches wherein a height summation of the first portion and the second portion in the column direction is equal to the first cell height (Figure 3 in view of paragraph [0029] wherein the cells can be of single or double height. As such, if the center cell was double height and the split cell is single height on both sides, then the height summation of the first and second portions is equal to the first cell height).
In reference to claim 6, Tzeng teaches comprising a second cell comprising a second first-type active region and a second second-type active region, wherein the second first-type active region extends in the third row and a fourth row on a first side of the third row, and comprises a first width in the column direction greater than a second width of the first first-type active region in the column direction (Figure 3, 250, in 202a in 2nd and 3rd row and 202b in the 3rd row and what would be a fourth row below the 3rd row).
In reference to claim 10, Tzeng teaches wherein the first portion comprises a third first-type active region and the second portion comprises a third second-type active region (Figure 3, top 202a and bottom 202b active regions).
In reference to claim 11, Tzeng teaches wherein the first row and the third row are immediately adjacent to two sides of the second row (1st row is immediately adjacent to top of 2nd row and 3rd row is immediately adjacent to bottom of 2nd row).
In reference to claim 13, Tzeng teaches a semiconductor device comprising: a first cell arranged in a first row (Figure 3, 1st row being between the bottom VDD and the VSS immediately above it, 1st cell being the unlabeled cell between the top and bottom cell labeled 210), wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region (Figure 3, bottom 202a) and a first second-type active region (Figure 3, 202b directly above the bottom 202a), and a first cell height of the first cell in a column direction is equal to a row height of the first row (Figure 3, 1ST cell is the height of the row); and a split cell comprising a first portion (Figure 3, top 210) and a second portion (Figure 3, bottom 210) arranged on an upper side and a lower side, respectively, of the first cell (Figure 3, top and bottom cell labeled 210 are above and below the 1st cell).
In reference to claim 14, Tzeng teaches a first power rail (Figure 3, the middle VSS) extending in a row direction and arranged between the first portion and the first cell (Figure 3, the middle VSS is between the first cell and the top 210), the first power rail configured to provide a first voltage (Figure 3, VSS); and a second power rail (Figure 3, the bottom VDD) extending in the row direction and arranged between the second portion and the first cell (Figure 3, the bottom VDD is between the first cell and the bottom 210), the second power rail configured to provide a second voltage (Figure 3, VDD).
In reference to claim 15, Tzeng teaches a second row and a third row, wherein the first power rail is in the middle of the first row and the second row, and the second power rail is in the middle of the first row and the third row (Figure 3, rows immediately above and below the 1st row and the middle VSS is in the middle of the 1st and 2nd row, with the bottom VDD is in the middle of the 1st and 3rd rows).
In reference to claim 16, Tzeng teaches wherein the first first-type active region is closer to the first power rail while the first second-type active region is closer to the second power rail, wherein the first portion is a first-type active region while the second portion is a second-type active region (Figure 3, 202b is closer to the middle VSS and 202a is closer to VDD).
In reference to claim 17, Tzeng teaches wherein the first cell overlaps the split cell when viewed in the column direction (Figure 3, 1st cell overlaps the top and bottom 210 cell portions in the vertical direction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzeng et al., US PGPUB No. 2013/0313615.
In reference to claim 12, Tzeng teaches claim 1 as described above. Furthermore they teach wherein the cells are standard cells. They do not teach wherein the split cell is configured as a tap cell or a filler cell. However tap cells and filler cells are notoriously well known standard cells. Official notice is taken. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to for the split cell of as taught by Tzeng in claim 1 to be configured as a tap or filler cell because it would fill empty space in the circuit with is desirable to prevent problems such as dishing or ESD.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regards to claim 7, in a semiconductor device comprising: a first row, a second row and a third row extending in a row direction and arranged in a column direction; a first power rail extending in the row direction between the first row and the second row, and configured to supply a first voltage; a second power rail extending in the row direction between the second row and the third row, a first cell arranged in the second row, wherein the first cell comprises a first first-type active region and a first second-type active region, and a first cell height of the first cell in the column direction is defined as a pitch between the first power rail and the second power rail; and configured to supply a second voltage different from the first voltage; and a split cell comprising a first portion and a second portion arranged in the first row and the third row, respectively; prior art of record does not teach or clearly suggest wherein the first cell further comprises a plurality of gate electrodes extending in the column direction, further comprising a plurality of first metal lines extending in the column direction and electrically coupled to the first cell and the split cell, and wherein a pitch of the plurality of first metal lines is about one half of a pitch of the gate electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1888. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 7am-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, Jack Chiang can be reached at (571) 272-7483. 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.
/B.B/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851