DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This application, 18/677,190, attorney docket T92588US02DIV, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to Texas Instruments Inc, and is a Divisional of 17490950, filed 09/30/2021. Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-9 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Aoki et al. (U.S. 4,001,762).
As for claim 1,
Aoki teaches in figure 1, an integrated circuit comprising:
a resistor 13 located on an insulating feature 9 above a substrate (1) wherein the resistor is formed of polysilicon ([co3 ln14]) comprising a dopant oxygen ([co3 ln16]), and wherein the dopant is one of oxygen and carbon.(oxygen)
As for claim 2,
Aoki teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1 wherein the dopant is oxygen at a concentration of 1.5-2.5 mole percent (mol%). (2-45%, [co3 ln16])
As for claim 3,
Aoki teaches integrated circuit of claim 1 wherein the dopant is oxygen at a concentration of 4.5-5.5 mole percent (mol%). (2-45%, [co3 ln16]).
As for claim 9,
Aoki teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1 and teaches that the dopant has a three-dimensionally uniform distribution throughout the polysilicon. [co3 ln16].
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Baldwin et al. (U.S. 2012/0108020).
As for claim 1,
Baldwin teaches in figure 4d, an integrated circuit comprising:
a resistor 82 located on an insulating feature 102 above a substrate wherein the resistor is formed of polysilicon (75, [0035]) comprising a dopant wherein the dopant is one of oxygen and carbon.(carbon, [0036])
As for claim 4,
Baldwin teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1 and that the dopant is carbon at a concentration of 1.5-2.5 mole percent (mol%) (5e14 to 2e15) [0036]).
As for claim 6,
Baldwin teaches the integrated circuit of claim 1 further comprising a transistor (84) having a gate (138) located above the substrate, wherein the resistor and the gate are coplanar, and wherein the resistor and the gate both comprise the dopant (they are simultaneously doped [0048]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Baldwin.
As for claim 5,
Aoki teaches integrated circuit of claim 1 wherein the dopant is oxygen, but does not teach that the polysilicon further comprises a carbon dopant.,
However, Baldwin teach that carbon can additionally be doped into the resistor [0036]
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to add the carbon dopant as taught by Baldwin “ to adjust the resistance and TCR without changing the n-type doping density.” One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki in view of Ku et al. (U.S. 2020/0105861)
As for claim 7,
Aoki teaches the device of claim 1 but does not teach a transistor having a gate (6) located above the substrate, wherein the resistor and the gate are not coplanar, and wherein the gate does not comprise the dopant.
However, Ku teaches in figure 1, a transistor (102) having a gate (114) located above the substrate, wherein the resistor and the gate are not coplanar (resistor is above the transistors in the ILD) and wherein the gate does not comprise the dopant (the gate is a metal gate, so will have a different composition).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to arrange the resistor above the gates as taught by Ku to reduce footprint of the device and use a gate with a without the resistor dopant (oxygen) to increase conductivity of the gate relative to the resistor. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
As for claim 8,
The prior art does not teach a transistor having a gate located above the substrate, wherein the resistor and the gate are coplanar; and an additional resistor formed of polysilicon doped with oxygen or carbon, and wherein the first and second resistors are not coplanar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time.
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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights