DETAILED ACTION
This office action addresses Applicant’s response filed on 29 June 2026. Claims 1, 4-12, and 14-23 are pending.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 have been amended to recite the second pitch having a nominal value of 40 nanometers, which is not supported by the originally-filed disclosure. The Specification appears to be entirely silent on this limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 10-12, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz (US 2018/0314785) in view of Lu (US 2015/0364359), Licausi (US 2018/0174895), Shah (US 9,070,552), and Semicon (“EUV patterning materials evolving”).
Regarding claim 1, Schultz discloses an integrated circuit (IC) structure comprising: an IC cell comprising a semiconductor structure having a cell width in a first direction and a cell height in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶3, 4, 28);
a first plurality of metal segments extending in a first metal layer in the first direction, comprising a first metal segment electrically connected to the semiconductor structure, and having a first pitch in the second direction, perpendicular to the first direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 0 or 1).
a second plurality of metal segments extending in a second metal layer in the second direction, comprising a second metal segment electrically connected to the first metal segment, and having a second pitch in the first direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 1 or 2); and
a third plurality of metal segments extending in a third metal layer in the first direction, comprising a third metal segment electrically connected to the second metal segment, and having a third pitch in the second direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 2 or 3), wherein
the second metal layer is a next consecutive layer overlying the first metal layer, the third metal layer is a next consecutive layer overlying the second metal
layer (Figs. 1-3).
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the second pitch in the second direction to the third pitch in the first direction has a value ranging from 1.1 to 1.5. Lu discloses these limitations (¶¶20, 27, 32), and also further discloses the claimed routed first, second, third, and fourth metal segments in corresponding metal layers overlying and adjacent to each other (Fig. 13, segments in each metal layer). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz and Lu, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of decreased resistance/improved performance by using larger pitches for a given metal layer. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu teaches that performance and yield can be improved by relaxing pitches in a metal layer. The teachings of Lu are directly applicable to Schultz, so that Schultz’s routing of metal layers would similarly relax the pitch of a metal layer to improve performance and yield.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five. However, the ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is a conventional measure of cell height, such that cells are referred to as a ‘5 track cell’, ‘9 track cell’, etc., and the height of the cell can be chosen by circuit designers to satisfy desired specifications. Furthermore, Licausi teaches that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five (¶4). If Licausi is found to be unclear regarding the first pitch, Shah discloses the same (col. 3, lines 44-50). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, and Shah, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of using known 5-track cells in a cell layout based on design requirements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placing cells in a layout and routing metal segments on associated tracks. Licausi teaches that cells have heights of five tracks, and Shah teaches tracks having the first pitch. The teachings of Licausi and Shah are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly use known 5-track cells based on the first pitch to meet design requirements.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose the second pitch having a nominal value of 40 nanometers. Lu discloses the second metal layer having the second pitch being patterned using a single exposure process (¶31), and Semicon teaches single-exposure metal pitch of 40nm (p. 1, ¶1). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, and Semicon, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of improving patterning density. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu teaches relaxed pitches in a metal layer formed using a single exposure process. Semicon teaches the single exposure process producing 40nm metal pitches. The teachings of Semicon are directly applicable to Schultz and Lu so that Schultz in view of Lu would similarly use a 40nm pitch for Lu’s relaxed pitch metal layer, to improve patterning density using an advanced manufacturing node.
Regarding claim 5, Schultz discloses that the first metal segment of the first plurality of metal segments overlies a polysilicon or active region of the semiconductor structure (Figs. 1-3; ¶26).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Schultz discloses that at least one of the first metal segment and one or more additional metal segments of the first plurality of metal segments are coextensive in the second direction, the second metal segment and one or more additional metal segments of the second plurality of metal segments are coextensive in the first direction, or the third metal segment and one or more additional metal segments of the third plurality of metal segments are coextensive in the second direction (Figs. 1-3, coextensive Metal 0-3 segments).
Regarding claim 7, Schultz discloses that a plurality of metal layers comprises the first through third metal layers (Figs. 1-3), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the plurality of metal layers comprises a number of metal layers ranging from ten to fifteen. Lu discloses these limitations (¶2). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, and Lu, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of permitting additional routing. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses an IC structure having at least four metal layers (M0-M3). Lu teaches that the number of layers may specifically be up to ten. The teachings of Lu are directly applicable to Schultz, so that Schultz would similarly have up to ten layers to provide sufficient layers for routing complex designs.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Schultz discloses at least one of a first via overlying and electrically connected to a metal segment of the first plurality of metal segments; a second via overlying and electrically connected to a metal segment of the second plurality of metal segments; or a third via overlying and electrically connected to a metal segment of the third plurality of metal segments (Figs. 1-3 vias between Metals 0-3).
Regarding claim 11, Schultz discloses that the semiconductor structure comprises a component of a processing device (¶¶3, 4, 26, 28).
Regarding claim 12, Schultz discloses an integrated circuit (IC) structure comprising: an IC cell comprising a semiconductor structure having a cell width in a first direction and a cell height in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶3, 4, 28);
a first metal layer comprising a first plurality of metal segments extending in the first direction, comprising a first metal segment electrically connected to the semiconductor structure, and having a first pitch in the second direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 0 or 1).
a second metal layer comprising a second plurality of metal segments extending in the second direction, comprising a second metal segment electrically connected to the first metal segment, and having a second pitch in the first direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 1 or 2); and
a third metal layer comprising a third plurality of metal segments extending in the first direction, comprising a third metal segment electrically connected to the second metal segment, and having a third pitch in the second direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 2 or 3), wherein
the second metal layer is a next consecutive layer overlying the first metal layer, the third metal layer is a next consecutive layer overlying the second metal
layer (Figs. 1-3), and the semiconductor structure is a component of a processing device (¶¶3, 4, 26, 28).
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the second pitch in the second direction to the third pitch in the first direction has a value ranging from 1.1 to 1.5. Lu discloses these limitations (¶¶20, 27, 32), and also further discloses the claimed routed first, second, third, and fourth metal segments in corresponding metal layers overlying and adjacent to each other (Fig. 13, segments in each metal layer). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz and Lu, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of decreased resistance/improved performance by using larger pitches for a given metal layer. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu teaches that performance and yield can be improved by relaxing pitches in a metal layer. The teachings of Lu are directly applicable to Schultz, so that Schultz’s routing of metal layers would similarly relax the pitch of a metal layer to improve performance and yield.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five. However, the ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is a conventional measure of cell height, such that cells are referred to as a ‘5 track cell’, ‘9 track cell’, etc., and the height of the cell can be chosen by circuit designers to satisfy desired specifications. Furthermore, Licausi teaches that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five (¶4). If Licausi is found to be unclear regarding the first pitch, Shah discloses the same (col. 3, lines 44-50). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, and Shah, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of using known 5-track cells in a cell layout based on design requirements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placing cells in a layout and routing metal segments on associated tracks. Licausi teaches that cells have heights of five tracks, and Shah teaches tracks having the first pitch. The teachings of Licausi and Shah are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly use known 5-track cells based on the first pitch to meet design requirements.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose the second pitch having a nominal value of 40 nanometers. Lu discloses the second metal layer having the second pitch being patterned using a single exposure process (¶31), and Semicon teaches single-exposure metal pitch of 40nm (p. 1, ¶1). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, and Semicon, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of improving patterning density. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu teaches relaxed pitches in a metal layer formed using a single exposure process. Semicon teaches the single exposure process producing 40nm metal pitches. The teachings of Semicon are directly applicable to Schultz and Lu so that Schultz in view of Lu would similarly use a 40nm pitch for Lu’s relaxed pitch metal layer, to improve patterning density using an advanced manufacturing node.
Claim(s) 4, 14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, and Li (US 2016/0336324).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Schultz discloses that the first metal layer is a metal zero layer (Figs. 1-3, Metal 0). Furthermore, persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cell height in a direction is based on the track pitch in that direction, either metal zero (M0) or metal one (M1), which are the first interconnect layers in their respective directions, since M0 and M1 are orthogonal. Thus, where layer having a pitch in the second direction is the M0 layer, the cell track height in the second direction would use the M0 pitch as the reference, whereas if the layer having a pitch in the second direction is the M1 layer, the cell track height in the second direction would use the M1 pitch as the reference. Nevertheless, Li additionally discloses interchangeable M0/M1 pitch (¶65, Table 1). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, and Li, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of designating cell heights based on cell interconnect layer pitch in the correct direction. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placing cells in a layout and routing metal segments on associated tracks. Licausi teaches that cells have heights of five tracks, Shah teaches tracks having the first pitch, and Li teaches that the first pitch is an M0 pitch. The teachings of Licausi, Shah, and Li are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly designate cell dimensions based on track pitch in the correct direction.
Regarding claim 17, Schultz discloses an integrated circuit (IC) structure comprising: an IC cell comprising a semiconductor structure having a cell width in a first direction and a cell height in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶3, 4, 28);
a metal zero layer comprising a first plurality of metal segments extending in the first direction, comprising a first metal segment electrically connected to the semiconductor structure, and having a first pitch in the second direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 0).
a metal one layer comprising a second plurality of metal segments extending in the second direction, comprising a second metal segment electrically connected to the first metal segment, and having a second pitch in the first direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 1); and
a metal two layer comprising a third plurality of metal segments extending in the first direction, comprising a third metal segment electrically connected to the second metal segment, and having a third pitch in the second direction (Figs. 1-3, Metal 2).
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the second pitch in the second direction to the third pitch in the first direction has a value ranging from 1.1 to 1.5. Lu discloses these limitations (¶¶20, 27, 32), and also further discloses the claimed routed first, second, third, and fourth metal segments in corresponding metal layers overlying and adjacent to each other (Fig. 13, segments in each metal layer). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz and Lu, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of decreased resistance/improved performance by using larger pitches for a given metal layer. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu teaches that performance and yield can be improved by relaxing pitches in a metal layer. The teachings of Lu are directly applicable to Schultz, so that Schultz’s routing of metal layers would similarly relax the pitch of a metal layer to improve performance and yield.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five. However, the ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is a conventional measure of cell height, such that cells are referred to as a ‘5 track cell’, ‘9 track cell’, etc., and the height of the cell can be chosen by circuit designers to satisfy desired specifications. Furthermore, Licausi teaches that a ratio of the cell height to the first pitch is equal to or less than five (¶4). If Licausi is found to be unclear regarding the first pitch, Shah discloses the same (col. 3, lines 44-50). Furthermore, persons having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the cell height in a direction is based on the track pitch in that direction, either metal zero (M0) or metal one (M1), which are the first interconnect layers in their respective directions, since M0 and M1 are orthogonal. Thus, where layer having a pitch in the second direction is the M0 layer, the cell track height in the second direction would use the M0 pitch as the reference, whereas if the layer having a pitch in the second direction is the M1 layer, the cell track height in the second direction would use the M1 pitch as the reference. Nevertheless, Li additionally discloses interchangeable M0/M1 pitch (¶65, Table 1).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, and Li, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of using known 5-track cells, with the track pitch reference being in the correct direction, in a cell layout based on design requirements. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placing cells in a layout and routing metal segments on associated tracks. Licausi teaches that cells have heights of five tracks, Shah teaches tracks having the first pitch, and Li teaches that the first pitch is an M0 pitch. The teachings of Licausi, Shah, and Li are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly use known 5-track cells, based on track pitch in the correct direction, to meet design requirements.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose the second pitch having a nominal value of 40 nanometers. Lu discloses the second metal layer having the second pitch being patterned using a single exposure process (¶31), and Semicon teaches single-exposure metal pitch of 40nm (p. 1, ¶1). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Li, and Semicon, because doing so would have involved merely the routine combination of known elements according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of improving patterning density. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu teaches relaxed pitches in a metal layer formed using a single exposure process. Semicon teaches the single exposure process producing 40nm metal pitches. The teachings of Semicon are directly applicable to Schultz and Lu so that Schultz in view of Lu would similarly use a 40nm pitch for Lu’s relaxed pitch metal layer, to improve patterning density using an advanced manufacturing node.
Regarding claim 18, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that the ratio of the first pitch to the second pitch is greater than 1.25; Lu discloses these limitations (¶¶20, 27, 32). Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Schultz discloses at least one of a metal zero via electrically connected to a metal segment of the first plurality of metal segments; a metal one via electrically connected to a metal segment of the second plurality of metal segments; or a metal two via electrically connected to a metal segment of the third plurality of metal segments (Figs. 1-3, vias between Metal 0-3).
Regarding claim 20, Schultz discloses that the semiconductor structure comprises a component of a processing device (¶¶3, 4, 26, 28).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, and Tehranipoor (US 2014/0365148).
Regarding claim 8, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that with the exception of the ratio of the second pitch being greater than one, each metal layer of the plurality of metal layers has a pitch greater than or equal to a pitch of each underlying metal layer of the plurality of metal layers. However, these limitations are a typical arrangement for IC metal layers, as taught by Lu (¶3); in the event that Lu is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Tehranipoor also discloses the same (¶68).
It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, and Tehranipoor, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of hierarchical wiring to reduce resistance of upper level metal lines. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses an IC structure having stacked metal layers. Lu and Tehranipoor teach typical hierarchical wiring in which metal layers have equal or greater pitch than layers below them, which improves resistance. The teachings of Lu and Tehranipoor are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz’s metal layers would similarly follow typical hierarchical wiring with upper layers having greater pitch and thus lower resistance.
Regarding claim 9, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the second pitch to the first pitch is greater than one; Lu (¶3) and Tehranipoor (¶68) also discloses the same. Motivation to combine remains consistent with claim 8.
Claim(s) 21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, Ray (US 2018/0004886), and Noguchi (US 2003/0032292).
Regarding claim 21, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose a fifth plurality of metal segments extending in a fourth metal layer in the second direction, comprising a fourth metal segment electrically connected to the third metal segment, and having a fourth pitch in the first direction. However, these limitations are conventional, as taught by Lu (¶3; Fig. 13, M4). If Lu is found to be unclear regarding the fourth pitch in the first direction, Ray discloses the same (Fig. 1C). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu Licausi, Shah, Semicon, and Ray, because doing so would have involved merely the combination of known elements according to known techniques, and/or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to achieve the predictable results of improving performance by using wider pitches on orthogonal upper metal layers. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu and Ray teach upper metal layers in alternating orthogonal directions that can have wider pitch than lower metal layers to improve performance. The teachings of Lu and Ray are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route orthogonal upper metal layers with wider pitches than lower metal layers to improve performance.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the fourth pitch to the third pitch is greater than or equal to 1.3. Lu discloses these limitations (Fig. 13, P5 to P4). If Lu is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Noguchi discloses the same (¶174). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, Ray, and Noguchi, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving performance by using wider pitches on upper metal layers. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu and Noguchi teach upper metal layers that can have wider pitch than lower metal layers to improve performance, with Noguchi providing a specific example where the ratio of upper pitches to lower pitches is greater than or equal to 1.3. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that specific pitch ratios would be chosen by designers according to design requirements. The teachings of Lu and Noguchi are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route upper metal layers with pitches greater than or equal to 1.3 times the pitches of lower metal layers to improve performance.
Regarding claim 23, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose a fourth metal layer comprising a fourth plurality of metal segments extending in the second direction, comprising a fourth metal segment electrically connected to the third metal segment, and having a fourth pitch in the first direction. However, these limitations are conventional, as taught by Lu (¶3; Fig. 13, M4). If Lu is found to be unclear regarding the fourth pitch in the first direction, Ray discloses the same (Fig. 1C). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, and Ray, because doing so would have involved merely the combination of known elements according to known techniques, and/or the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, to achieve the predictable results of improving performance by using wider pitches on orthogonal upper metal layers. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu and Ray teach upper metal layers in alternating orthogonal directions that can have wider pitch than lower metal layers to improve performance. The teachings of Lu and Ray are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route orthogonal upper metal layers with wider pitches than lower metal layers to improve performance.
Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose that a ratio of the fourth pitch to the third pitch is greater than or equal to 1.3. Lu discloses these limitations (Fig. 13, P5 to P4). If Lu is found to be unclear regarding these limitations, Noguchi discloses the same (¶174). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, Ray, and Noguchi, because doing so would have involved merely the routine use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way to achieve the predictable results of improving performance by using wider pitches on upper metal layers. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1396. Schultz discloses placement and routing of standard cells and associated metal layers. Lu and Noguchi teach upper metal layers that can have wider pitch than lower metal layers to improve performance, with Noguchi providing a specific example where the ratio of upper pitches to lower pitches is greater than or equal to 1.3. Persons having ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize that specific pitch ratios would be chosen by designers according to design requirements. The teachings of Lu and Noguchi are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly route upper metal layers with pitches greater than or equal to 1.3 times the pitches of lower metal layers to improve performance.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schultz in view of Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, and Tseng (US 2014/0195997).
Regarding claim 22, Schultz does not appear to explicitly disclose the at least one of the first via, the second via, or the third via comprises a slot via. Tseng discloses these limitations (¶27). It would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Schultz, Lu, Licausi, Shah, Semicon, and Tseng, because doing so would have involved merely the routine substitution of an element with a known equivalent according to known techniques to produce merely the predictable results of connecting metal lines using known via types. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385, 1395. Schultz discloses routing metal segments which are connected by vias. Tseng teaches that slot vias are a known type of via for connecting metal segments. The teachings of Tseng are directly applicable to Schultz in the same way, so that Schultz would similarly connecting metal segments using known slot vias.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “[b]ecause Lu's minimum M2 pitch P3 is described as at least 80 nm and necessarily substantially larger than the minimum M3 pitch P2 because of the simplified manufacturing process, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider Lu's pitch P3 to correspond to a recited "second pitch" consistent with "a ratio of the second pitch in the first direction to the third pitch in the second direction has a value ranging from 1. 1 to 1.5 based on the second pitch having a nominal value of 40 nanometers" (emphasis in original). Remarks 9. The examiner disagrees. The exact values of various IC feature dimensions depend on the manufacturing technology, which had already improved before Applicant’s effective filing date, as disclosed by Semicon. Thus, the feature dimensions which were available when Lu was filed would not be considered limiting by persons having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIC LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3090. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 07:30-17:00 ET.
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.
21 August 2026
/ARIC LIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights