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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-18 is 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.S 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, the phrase “square wave” is normally a signal waveform term. Claim 1 does not structurally define what makes the pattern a square wave. It is unclear what specific geometric features distinguish the claimed pattern from other patterns. Applicant is required to clarify the structural characteristics of the pattern. The structural explanation appears in dependent claim 4, but claim 1 standing alone may lack structural clarity.
Further, the claim recites “each thin film resistor layer is located above one of the gate structures.” Does “above” mean directly vertically aligned? The term “located above” is unclear because it does not specify whether vertical alignment, partial overlap or full overlap is required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.S 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, the phrase “burning phenomenon” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what structural or measurable condition constitutes a “burning phenomenon.” The claim does not define whether this refers to electrical breakdown, thermal damage, physical destruction or any other condition. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably determined. Applicant is required to amend the claim to clarify the specific condition being detected.
Conditional Allowability
If Applicant amends claim 1 and 10 to clarify the deficiencies stated above, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) will be withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to claim 1, the prior art fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim: “a test key circuit layer located on the dielectric layer, wherein the test key circuit layer is a
square wave pattern when viewed from a top view; and
two contact pads, which are respectively connected with two ends of the test key circuit layer.”
With respect to claim 10, the prior art fails to teach in combination with the rest of the limitations in the claim: “forming a test key circuit layer on the dielectric layer, wherein the test key circuit layer is a square wave pattern when viewed from a top view;
forming two contact pads which are respectively connected with two ends of the test key
circuit layer; applying a voltage to the two contact pads and gradually increasing the voltage; and
observing whether the thin film resistance layer has a burning phenomenon.”
If claims 1 and 10 are amended to overcome the indefiniteness rejections set forth above, and are otherwise in condition for allowance, then:
Claims 2-9 which depend from claim 1 and claims 11-18 which depend from claim 10 would likewise be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHANA AKHTER HOQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Eman A Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/FARHANA A HOQUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858