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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 29 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 29 May 2026 of Applicants’ amendments in which claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 13, 15, 21, 24, and 25 are amended, claim 12 is cancelled, and claim 26 is newly added. The Office withdraws the drawing objections, section 35 USC 112(a) rejections, and 35 USC section 112(b) rejections, and 35 USC section 112(d) rejections identified in the Office Communication dated 20 February 2026 in view of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, see pages 8-9 and 10-11, filed, with respect to independent claims 1 and 21 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The obviousness rejections of claims 1 and 21 have been withdrawn.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following subject matter must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 26, lines 1-4, recites “after the removing of the portions of the second metal interconnects and the removing of the portions of the first metal interconnects, the enlarged second metal cut is sandwiched between two adjacent ones of the first metal interconnects that are continuous and free of metal cuts,” which is not illustrated by the drawings for the reason identified below in the section 112(a) rejection of claim 26.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 26 is 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.
Claim 26, lines 1-4, recites “after the removing of the portions of the second metal interconnects and the removing of the portions of the first metal interconnects, the enlarged second metal cut is sandwiched between two adjacent ones of the first metal interconnects that are continuous and free of metal cuts,” which is new matter lacking written description support in the original application because: (1) base claim 11 recites modifying a layout with representation to indicate forming an enlarged second metal cut, (2) claim 26 recites the enlarged second metal cut is sandwiched between two adjacent ones of the first metal interconnects that are continuous and free of metal cuts, and (3) the instant specification does not describe how a representation of an enlarged second metal cut can be sandwiched between two adjacent ones of real/actual first metal interconnects that are continuous and free of metal cuts.
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.
Claim 26 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 26, lines 1-4, recites “after the removing of the portions of the second metal interconnects and the removing of the portions of the first metal interconnects, the enlarged second metal cut is sandwiched between two adjacent ones of the first metal interconnects that are continuous and free of metal cuts,” which is indefinite for the reason identified with respect to the 35 USC §112(a) rejection of this claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted to recite “after the removing of the portions of the second metal interconnects and the removing of the portions of the first metal interconnects, the representation indicates the enlarged second metal cut is sandwiched between two adjacent ones of the first metal interconnects that are continuous and free of metal cuts.”
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) 11, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US20200098631A1) in view of Peng et al. (US20200135637A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lin teaches in Figs. 6-8 a method, comprising:
scanning (810) a layout (700) to determine first metal interconnects (A1-A3) corresponding to a first patterning process and second metal interconnects (B2-B3) corresponding to a second patterning process following the first patterning process {Fig 8; ¶0055; see also ¶0044, 0051; ¶0022, Metal interconnects 100A1-100A3 can be patterned by a first patterning process, and metal interconnects 100B1-100B3 can be patterned by a second patterning process following the first patterning process};
locating in the layout (700) metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) and vias on the first and second metal interconnects (A1-A3, B2-B3) {¶0055, a circuit layout is scanned to determine redundant metal portions that need to be removed and/or electrically disconnected, it can be determined (e.g., by the EDA tool) that the metal portions not connected with vias are redundant metal portions},
wherein each of the metal cuts (e.g., cuts on opposing ends of 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606 within Fig. 6 cited for providing context to removed floating-metal-portions in Fig. 7) has a length not greater than one contact poly pitch (CPP) {Fig. 6; ¶0052};
modifying the layout (700) with representation to indicate:
merging at least two metal cuts on one (B3) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) to form an enlarged first metal cut (L7) on the one (B3) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) {Figs. 6, 7; the cuts on opposite sides of floating metal portion 602 illustrated by Fig. 6 are merged into a single metal cut upon the removal of the floating metal portion 602 as illustrated by Fig. 7, thereby enlarging the metal cut; ¶0056, redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects, the removal of redundant portions can include replacement of the redundant metal portions with dielectric materials};
adding an extra metal cut between a via and a metal cut on another one (B2) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) {Figs. 6, 7; the cuts – one of which is between a via and another metal cut – on opposite sides of the only floating metal portion within B2 of Fig. 6 not having a via thereon are merged into a single metal cut upon the removal of this floating metal portion as illustrated by Fig. 7, thereby enlarging the metal cut; ¶0056, redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects, the removal of redundant portions can include replacement of the redundant metal portions with dielectric materials};
merging the extra metal cut and the metal cut on the another one (B2) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) to form an enlarged second metal cut (L5) on the another one (B2) of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) {Figs. 6, 7; the cuts on opposite sides of floating metal portion 601 illustrated by Fig. 6 are merged into a single metal cut upon the removal of the floating metal portion 601 as illustrated by Fig. 7, thereby enlarging the metal cut; ¶0056, redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects, the removal of redundant portions can include replacement of the redundant metal portions with dielectric materials}; and
removing portions of the second metal interconnects (B2-B3) corresponding to the metal cuts, the enlarged first metal cut, and the enlarged second metal cut from the layout {Fig. 7; which removal achieves the merging identified in the previous paragraphs}; and
providing the layout (100-700) with removal of the portions of the first and second metal interconnects (B2-B3) for fabricating a photomask (1002) {Fig. 10; ¶0066, 0077; ¶0077, a photomask with a layout pattern similar to layout 100}.
Lin does not teach in the embodiment of layout (700) illustrated by Fig. 7, removing portions of the first metal interconnects corresponding to the metal cuts from the layout.
However, Lin teaches in paragraph [0016] that an embodiment … may include a particular feature, structure, or characteristic, but every embodiment may not necessarily include the particular feature, structure, or characteristic. … Further, when a particular feature, structure or characteristic is described in connection with an embodiment, it would be within the knowledge of one skilled in the art to effect such feature, structure or characteristic in connection with other embodiments whether or not explicitly described. Thus, Lin teaches the layout (700) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 may include some, but not other, aspects of another layout (600) embodiment illustrated by Fig. 6.
Lin teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 6 a layout (600) in which each one of metal portions (e.g., 601, 603, 604, 605, 606) that are floating in a first set of metal interconnects (A1-A3), due to metal cuts on opposing sides of the floating portions, remains in the layout (600). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the further teachings of Lin – to include removing portions of the first metal interconnects corresponding to the metal cuts from the layout – because: (1) the first set of metal interconnects are used for a process of forming the second set of metal interconnects by self-alignment {Lin ¶0051}, (2) the first set of metal interconnects must have sufficient length, which is increased by not removing the floating metal portions therein, to fulfill the self-alignment process of the second set of metal interconnects {Lin ¶0021}, and (3) the electrical disconnection [of the first and second sets of metal interconnects] and/or reduction of redundant metal portions [within the second set of metal interconnects] would thus have little or no adverse impact on the subsequent IC fabrication process … [t]he resultant IC can thus have uniform [(critical dimensions)] CD and reduced parasitic capacitance, and consequently, the speed of the IC can be improved {Lin ¶0053}.
Lin does not teach forming an extra metal cut pattern to sharpen edges of both the first and second metal interconnects.
In an analogous art, Peng teaches in paragraphs [0019, 0020] forming an extra (i.e., additional) metal cut pattern for the purpose of reducing parasitic capacitance, which the instant application discloses in paragraph [0027] is a consequence of sharpening metal interconnects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method based on the teachings of Peng – to include forming an extra metal cut pattern to sharpen edges of both Lin’s first and second metal interconnects – for reducing parasitic capacitances associated with redundant or unused portions of the … level metal interconnect pattern. Peng [0020].
Regarding claim 15, Lin as modified by Peng teaches the method of claim 11, but Lin does not teach in the embodiment illustrated by Fig. 7 further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first metal interconnects.
However, Lin teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] reducing a length of metal cuts on first metal interconnects (A1-A3) {See Examiner’s Note below; and see ¶0049, distance D6 between adjacent metal portions 501 and 502 has a variable range of 0.5 CPP to 2 CPP}. Lin further teaches in paragraph [0056] that redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method as modified by Peng based on the further teachings of Lin for discovering an optimum or workable range of metal cut length – achieved by modifying the layout with representation to indicate reducing a length of the metal cuts on the first metal interconnects – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Moreover, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP ¶2143(I)(E).
Examiner’s Note: The instant application interprets both: (1) the slicing (e.g., 102 in Fig. 5) of an interconnect to separate such interconnect into multiple portions/segments and (2) the portion/segment (e.g., 114 in Fig. 7) between two such slicings of an interconnect that is removed from the interconnect as a metal cut. Accordingly, the Office may use the same interpretation in evaluating the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Lin as modified by Peng teaches the method of claim 15, but Lin does not expressly teach wherein the reduced length of the metal cuts is from about 0.4 to about 1 CPP.
However, Lin teaches in Fig. 5 and paragraph [0049] the reduced length of the metal cuts is from about 0.4 to about 1 CPP {See Examiner’s Note below; and see ¶0049, distance D6 between adjacent metal portions 501 and 502 has a variable range of 0.5 CPP to 2 CPP}. Lin further teaches in paragraph [0056] that redundant metal portions are electrically disconnected and/or removed to optimize the lengths of the metal interconnects. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method as modified by Peng based on the further teachings of Lin for discovering an optimum or workable range of metal cut length – such that the reduced length of the metal cuts is from about 0.4 to about 1 CPP – because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). Moreover, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP ¶2143(I)(E).
Examiner’s Note: The instant application interprets both: (1) the slicing (e.g., 102 in Fig. 5) of an interconnect to separate such interconnect into multiple portions/segments and (2) the portion/segment (e.g., 114 in Fig. 7) between two such slicings of an interconnect that is removed from the interconnect as a metal cut. Accordingly, the Office may use the same interpretation in evaluating the prior art.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Peng as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sriram et al. (US20200202064A1).
Regarding claim 13, Lin as modified by Peng teaches the method of claim 11, but Lin does not teach further comprising modifying the layout with representation to indicate adjusting locations of the vias on the second metal interconnects according to locations of the metal cuts on the second metal interconnects.
However, Lin teaches in paragraph [0033] that a design rule for vias and interconnects is that vias on active metal portions adjacent to these small floating metal portions can be formed at a distance D (e.g., ranging from about 3 nm to about 5 nm) from the active metal portion ends.
Sriram teaches adjusting (1058) a location of a via {Fig. 10B; ¶0089}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method as modified by Peng based on the teachings of Sriram – such that the locations of Lin’s layout further includes representation to indicate vias on the second set of metal interconnects are relocated as taught by Sriram, according to Lin’s design rule (identified in the preceding paragraph) regarding locations of the metal cuts on the second metal interconnects – for the purpose of satisfying a design rule. Sriram ¶0089.
Regarding claim 14, Lin as modified by Peng and Sriram teaches the method of claim 13, but Lin does not teach wherein the adjusting of the location of the vias includes reducing a minimum distance between a via and an edge of an adjacent metal cut.
Sriram teaches adjusting (1058) the location a via {Fig. 10B; ¶0089}. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lin’s method as modified by Peng and Sriram based on the further teachings of Sriram – such that the locations of Lin’s vias on the second set of metal interconnects are relocated as taught by Sriram, thereby reducing a minimum distance between the via and an edge of an adjacent metal cut – for the purpose of satisfying a design rule. Sriram ¶0089. For example, regardless of whether the via identified in the annotated copy of Lin’s Fig. 6 below is moved leftward or rightward, such movement reduces its distance to an edge of either the first or second cut identified in the drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
678
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 21-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the recited subject matter of “each of the metal cuts added to the first set of metal interconnects having a uniform first length not greater smaller than one gate pitch, each of the metal cuts added to the second set of metal interconnects having a uniform second length greater than one gate pitch” in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are allowable due to their dependence from base claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 21, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the recited subject matter of “a gap in one of the second metal lines has a length greater than one gate pitch and is sandwiched between two adjacent ones of the first metal lines that are continuous and free of metal cuts” in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Claims 22-25 are allowable due to their dependence from base claim 21.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 dependent claim 26, the prior art does not teach, suggest or motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to have the subject matter whereby “the representation indicates the enlarged second metal cut is sandwiched between two adjacent ones of the first metal interconnects that are continuous and free of metal cuts” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng (US20200373199A1) teaches a method of forming conductive lines thereon include forming parallel lines from alternating first and second dummy materials. Portions of the parallel lines are etched, using respective selective etches for the first and second dummy materials, to form gaps. The gaps are filled with a dielectric material. The first and second dummy materials are etched away to form trenches. The trenches are filled with conductive material. But Cheng does not teach the above-identified subject matter of the allowed and allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights