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
This office acknowledges receipt of the following items from the applicant: Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 23 July 2024. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 form have been considered.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention defined by the claims of the instant application is a broader recitation of the invention defined by the claims of the patent.
Claims of Instant Application
Claims of U.S. Patent 12,132,000
16
18-20
The claims under examination are not patentably distinct from the reference patent claims because the claims under examination are anticipated by the reference patent claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The entire scope of the instant application claim falls within the scope of the reference patent claims. The narrowly defined invention claimed in the conflicting reference patent anticipates the claimed broader defined invention of the instant application being examined and, therefore, a later patent to the broader defined invention would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by the patent to the narrowly defined invention should the broader defined invention issue as a patent.
It is noted that this is NOT a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented. This rejection may not be held in abeyance and requires a proper reply to resolve the issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowable.
Claims 17-20 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:
Regarding Claim 1, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the interconnection structure, comprising: a first glue layer disposed on the dielectric layer; a first conductive feature disposed on the first glue layer; a second glue layer disposed on the dielectric layer; a second conductive feature disposed on the second glue layer; a first catalyst layer disposed between the first and second glue layers; a first dielectric material disposed on the first catalyst layer, wherein the first catalyst layer and the first dielectric material comprise different materials; and one or more graphene layers disposed between the first conductive feature and the first dielectric material in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 1. Claims 2-9 include the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the interconnection structure, comprising: a first catalyst layer disposed over the dielectric layer; a first dielectric material disposed on the first catalyst layer, wherein the first dielectric material is disposed between the first and second conductive features; a second catalyst layer disposed on the first dielectric material; a second dielectric material disposed on the second catalyst layer, wherein the first catalyst layer, the first dielectric material, the second catalyst layer, and the second dielectric material have a same width; and a third dielectric material disposed over the first conductive feature, the second dielectric material, and the second conductive feature in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 10. Claims 11-15 include the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the method, comprising: forming one or more graphene layers on exposed surfaces of the one or more conductive features; selectively forming a first catalyst layer on the exposed portions of the layer; and selectively forming a first dielectric material on the first catalyst layer in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 17. Claims 18-20 include the limitations of claim 17.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights