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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 17, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on November 17, 2025. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 2 and 4 have been canceled. Claims 6, 9-10 and 13-19 have been withdrawn. Currently, claims 1,3, 5, 7-8 and 11-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot as applied to the newly added claim limitations 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2004/0036835 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of Nardi et al. (US 2015/0170923 A1; hereafter Nardi), Hsu et al. (US 20070155180 A1; hereafter Hsu), Iitsuka et al. (US 2004/0240106 A1; hereafter Iitsuka), Chang (US 2011/0272808 A1) and LNF Wiki, [retrieved on March 12, 2025]. Retrieved from the internet:< URL https://lnf-wiki.eecs.umich.edu/wiki/Wet_etching#:~:text=Transport%20at%20sample%20surface:%20If,etching%20very%20small%2C%20deep%20features
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method for manufacturing a metal wire (see e.g., Figures 3A-3E), comprising:
forming a metal bar (see e.g., patterned aluminum (Al) layer 22a and a molybdenum (Mo) layer 23a, Para [0045], Figure 3C) on a substrate (see e.g., substrate 21, Para [0043], Figure 3C);
forming a mask above the metal bar (see e.g., photoresist pattern 24 formed on the patterned metal layers 22a and 23a, Para [0045], Figure 3C),
a width of a surface of the metal bar in contact with the substrate being smaller the width of the surface of the metal bar in contact with the mask (see e.g., as shown in Figure 3C the width of the surface of Al layer 22a in contact with the substrate 21 is smaller than the width of the surface of the Mo layer 23a in contact with the photoresist pattern 24)
wet etching the metal bar (see e.g., the patterned Mo layer 23a and Al layer 22a are selectively removed by performing a wet etch process, Paras [0046] – [0047], Figures 3C-3D) under a protection of the mask to form a metal wire (see e.g., the patterned Mo layer 23a and Al layer 22a are selectively removed under the protection of the photoresist pattern 24 to form etched Mo layer 23b and Al layer 22a), a width of the metal wire being smaller than the width of the mask (see e.g., as shown in Figure 3D the width of the Mo layer 23b and Al layer 22a is smaller than the width of the photoresist pattern 24).
Lee does not explicitly teach
wet etching … to a saturation state
In a similar field of endeavor LNF Wiki teaches that etching can be performed by either saturation or agitation.
It would be obvious to try one of the limited number of possible ways that is, either saturation or agitation to perform wet etching. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. MPEP 2143 (E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement LNF Wiki’s teachings of performing a wet etch to a saturation state in the method of Lee in order to slow down the etching and prevent the metal bar from being completely etched.
Lee does not explicitly teach
“a width of a surface of the mask in contact with the metal bar being smaller than a width of a surface of the metal bar in contact with the mask, and an orthographic projection of the mask on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the metal bar on the substrate;”
In a similar field of endeavor Hsu teaches
a width of a surface of the mask in contact with the metal bar being smaller than a width of a surface of the metal bar in contact with the mask (see e.g., width of the photoresist 30 in contact with the metal films 21, 22 is smaller than the width of the surface of the metal films 21, 222 in contact with the photoresist, Figure 5A), and an orthographic projection of the mask on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the bar on the substrate (see e.g., since the width of photoresist 30 in contact with the metal films 21, 22 is smaller than the width of the surface of the metal films 21, 22 in contact with the photoresist 30 therefore, the orthographic projection of the photoresist 30 will be within the orthographic projection of the metal films 21, 22 on the substrate 10);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Hsu’s teachings of a width of a surface of the mask in contact with the bar being smaller than a width of a surface of the bar in contact with the mask, and an orthographic projection of the mask on the substrate is within an orthographic projection of the bar on the substrate in the method of Lee in order to achieve predictable results.
Lee does not explicitly teach
“wherein forming the metal bar on the substrate comprises:
forming a sacrificial layer on the substrate, a groove being formed in the sacrificial layer;
filling a metal material in the groove to form the metal bar; and
removing the sacrificial layer”.
In a similar field of endeavor Chang teaches
wherein forming the metal bar (see e.g., metal pattern 130, Para [0026], Figure 2C) on the substrate (see e.g., substrate 110, Figures 2A to 2C) comprises:
forming a sacrificial layer on the substrate (see e.g., photosensitive layer 132 formed on the substrate 110, Para [0026], Figure 2B), a groove being formed in the sacrificial layer (see e.g., openings formed in the photosensitive layer 132 as shown in Figure 2B);
filling a metal material in the groove to form the metal bar (see e.g., metal pattern 130 is filled in the openings, Para [0026], Figure 2C); and
removing the sacrificial layer (see e.g., the photosensitive layer 132 are removed to form metal patterns 130 as shown in Figure 1B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Chang’s teachings of wherein forming the metal bar on the substrate comprises: forming a sacrificial layer on the substrate, a groove being formed in the sacrificial layer;
filling a metal material in the groove to form the metal bar; and removing the sacrificial layer in the method of Lee in order to reduce cost associated with photolithography and etching.
Lee does not explicitly teach
“the groove has a first section perpendicular to the substrate in a width direction of the groove, and the first section is wide at a top and narrow at a bottom as a whole;”
In a similar field of endeavor Iitsuka teaches
the groove has a first section perpendicular to the substrate in a width direction of the groove, and the first section is wide at a top and narrow at a bottom as a whole (see e.g., the openings 42 are shaped as inverted trapezoid in cross section as viewed in the direction of thickness thereof, Paras [0073], [0074], Figures 6B, 7B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Iitsuka’s teachings of the groove has a first section perpendicular to the substrate in a width direction of the groove, and the first section is wide at a top and narrow at a bottom as a whole in the method of Lee as this is an established shape as a standard engineering solution for improving process predictability and metal fill quality.
Lee does not explicitly teach
“widths of the metal wire at different heights are the same, and a highest height of the metal wire is greater than each of the widths of the metal wire;”
However, the specific dimensions and proportions (such as high aspect ratio) are merely a matter of routine optimization based on known prior art.
"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929).
In a similar field of endeavor Nardi teaches
widths of the metal wire at different heights are the same, and a highest height of the metal wire is greater than each of the widths of the metal wire (see e.g., layer 102 (any material) is wet etched to have a thickness t1 and a uniform width w2. The stem width w2 may be less than 20 nm or even less than 10 nm. Depending on the device, the thicknesses t1 may be anywhere from a few tenths of a nanometer to several micrometers. This teaches a structure where the height t1 is significantly greater than the width w2 creating a high aspect ratio with the same widths at different heights, Paras [0026], [0028], [0030], Figure 1D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Nardi’s teachings of widths of the metal wire at different heights are the same, and a highest height of the metal wire is greater than each of the widths of the metal wire in the method of Lee to meet specific device requirements.
Regarding claim 5, Lee, as modified by Nardi, Hsu, Iitsuka, Chang and LNF Wiki, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Lee does not explicitly teach
“wherein the first section of the groove is in a shape of isosceles trapezoid”.
In a similar field of endeavor Iitsuka teaches
wherein the first section of the groove is in a shape of isosceles trapezoid (see e.g., the openings 42 are shaped as inverted trapezoid in cross section as viewed in the direction of thickness thereof, Paras [0073], [0074], Figures 6B, 7B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Iitsuka’s teachings of wherein the first section of the groove is in a shape of isosceles trapezoid in the method of Lee as this is an established shape as a standard engineering solution for improving process predictability and metal fill quality.
Regarding claim 7, Lee, as modified by Nardi, Hsu, Iitsuka, Chang and LNF Wiki, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Lee further teaches
wherein the mask has a second section perpendicular to the substrate in a width direction of the mask, and the second section is narrow at a top and wide at a bottom as a whole (see e.g., the photoresist pattern 24 section perpendicular to the substrate in a width direction of the photoresist pattern 24 is narrow at the top and wide at the bottom as shown in Figure 3C).
Regarding claim 11, Lee, as modified by Nardi, Hsu, Iitsuka, Chang and LNF Wiki, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Lee does not explicitly teach
“wherein a metal seed layer is formed on the substrate before forming the sacrificial layer on the substrate, the sacrificial layer is formed on the metal seed layer, and the groove formed in the sacrificial layer exposes the metal seed layer; and
the metal material is filled in the groove by electroplating, and the metal material is not formed outside the groove”.
In a similar field of endeavor Chang teaches
wherein a metal seed layer (see e.g., electroplating seed layer 131, Para [0026], Figures 2A-2C; Examiner’s interpretation: it is understood that the electroplating seed layer is a thin metal layer) is formed on the substrate (see e.g., substrate 110, Para [0025], Figures 2A-2C) before forming the sacrificial layer on the substrate (see e.g., the electroplating seed layer 131 is formed before forming the photosensitive layer 132 on the substrate 110, Para [0026], Figures 2A-2C), the sacrificial layer is formed on the metal seed layer (see e.g., the photosensitive layer 132 is formed on the electroplating seed layer 131 as shown in Figure 2B), and the groove formed in the sacrificial layer exposes the metal seed layer (see e.g., as shown in Figure 2B grooves formed in the photosensitive layer 132 expose the electroplating seed layer 131); and
the metal material is filled in the groove by electroplating (see e.g., the metal patterns 130 are formed in the grooves by an electroplating process, Para [0026], Figure 2C), and the metal material is not formed outside the groove (see e.g., the metal patterns 130 as shown in Figure 2C are not formed outside the groove).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Chang’s teachings of wherein a metal seed layer is formed on the substrate before forming the sacrificial layer on the substrate, the sacrificial layer is formed on the metal seed layer, and the groove formed in the sacrificial layer exposes the metal seed layer; and
the metal material is filled in the groove by electroplating, and the metal material is not formed outside the groove in the method of Lee in order to reduce cost associated with photolithography and etching.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2004/0036835 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of Nardi et al. (US 2015/0170923 A1; hereafter Nardi), Hsu et al. (US 20070155180 A1; hereafter Hsu), Iitsuka et al. (US 2004/0240106 A1; hereafter Iitsuka), Chang (US 2011/0272808 A1) and LNF Wiki, [retrieved on March 12, 2025]. Retrieved from the internet:< URL https://lnf-wiki.eecs.umich.edu/wiki/Wet_etching#:~:text=Transport%20at%20sample%20surface:%20If,etching%20very%20small%2C%20deep%20features and further in view of Hayashi et al. (5,717,251).
Regarding claim 3, Lee, as modified by Nardi, Hsu, Iitsuka, Chang and LNF Wiki, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Lee does not explicitly teach
“wherein the sacrificial layer is made of a light-sensitive organic material, the groove is formed by photo-etching the sacrificial layer, and the sacrificial layer is removed by ashing”.
In a similar field of endeavor Hayashi teaches
wherein the sacrificial layer is made of a light-sensitive organic material, (see e.g., lower photo-sensitive resin layer 33 and upper photo-sensitive resin layer 34, Col. 8, Lines 45-55, Figures 5A-5F) the groove is formed by photo-etching the sacrificial layer (see e.g., a first pattern image is optically transferred to the lower photo-sensitive resin layer 33 and a first latent image 33a is formed in the lower photo-sensitive resin layer 33 as shown in Figure 5A. A second pattern image is optically transferred to the upper photo-sensitive resin layer 34, and a second latent image 34a is formed in the upper photo-sensitive layer 34. The first and second latent images are concurrently developed as shown in FIG. 5D. Then, the lower photo-sensitive resin layer 33 and the upper photo-sensitive resin layer 34 are differently patterned into patterned resin layers 33b and 34b, Col. 8, Lines 45-67), and the sacrificial layer is removed by ashing (see e.g., the photo-sensitive resin layers maybe removed oxygen plasma which ashes the photo-sensitive layers, Col. 2, Lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Hayashi’s teachings of wherein the sacrificial layer is made of a light-sensitive organic material, the groove is formed by photo-etching the sacrificial layer, and the sacrificial layer is removed by ashing in the method of Lee in order to reduce wiring pitch and accelerate signal propagation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2004/0036835 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of Nardi et al. (US 2015/0170923 A1; hereafter Nardi), Hsu et al. (US 20070155180 A1; hereafter Hsu), Iitsuka et al. (US 2004/0240106 A1; hereafter Iitsuka), Chang (US 2011/0272808 A1) and LNF Wiki, [retrieved on March 12, 2025]. Retrieved from the internet:< URL https://lnf-wiki.eecs.umich.edu/wiki/Wet_etching#:~:text=Transport%20at%20sample%20surface:%20If,etching%20very%20small%2C%20deep%20features and further in view of Ishida (US 6,534,789 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Lee, as modified by Nardi, Hsu, Iitsuka, Chang and LNF Wiki, teaches the limitations of claim 7 as mentioned above. Lee does not explicitly teach
“wherein the second section of the mask is in a shape of isosceles trapezoid”.
In a similar field of endeavor Ishida teaches
wherein the second section of the mask is in a shape of isosceles trapezoid (see e.g., resist pattern 17 in a shape of isosceles trapezoid, as shown in Figure 4A, formed over an unetched gate layer which when etched/over-etched under the resist pattern 17, in a similar etching process shown in Figure 1D, forms the etched gate layer 15, Col. 7, Lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Ishida’s teachings of wherein the second section of the mask is in a shape of isosceles trapezoid in the method of Lee to achieve predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2004/0036835 A1; hereafter Lee) in view of Nardi et al. (US 2015/0170923 A1; hereafter Nardi), Hsu et al. (US 20070155180 A1; hereafter Hsu), Iitsuka et al. (US 2004/0240106 A1; hereafter Iitsuka), Chang (US 2011/0272808 A1) and LNF Wiki, [retrieved on March 12, 2025]. Retrieved from the internet:< URL https://lnf-wiki.eecs.umich.edu/wiki/Wet_etching#:~:text=Transport%20at%20sample%20surface:%20If,etching%20very%20small%2C%20deep%20features and further in view of Woo (KR0174945B1).
Regarding claim 12, Lee, as modified by Nardi, Hsu, Iitsuka, Chang and LNF Wiki, teaches the limitations of claim 11 as mentioned above. Lee does not explicitly teach
“wherein in a process of wet etching the metal bar to form the metal wire, an exposed part of the metal seed layer is synchronously removed or not synchronously removed”.
In a similar field of endeavor Woo teaches
wherein in a process of wet etching the metal bar to form the metal wire (see e.g., as shown in Figure 2b metal layer 25 is formed over the seed layer 23. Next, as shown in Figure 2c a photosensitive layer 26 is formed over the metal layer 25 and the structure is wet etched), an exposed part of the metal seed layer is synchronously removed or not synchronously removed (see e.g., during the wet etching the exposed portion of the seed layer not covered by the photosensitive layer 26 are removed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement Woo’s teachings of wherein in a process of wet etching the metal bar to form the metal wire, an exposed part of the metal seed layer is synchronously removed or not synchronously removed in the method of Lee in order to prevent damage to the metal wire.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 J. Green can be reached on (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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893