DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun et al. (US 2017/0025412) in view of Han et al. (APL Materials – NPL – copy provided by applicant).
Considering claim 1, Jun teaches a vertical transistor architecture with interconnects (abstract; Paragraph 1) and an integrated circuit (Paragraph 37). An embodiment is taught in Figure 3B (reproduced below) of lower interconnect (104) and upper interconnect (126a) connected by conductive plugs (124) (Paragraphs 39, 64, and 66). Further, Figure 3B of Jun above depicts where the interconnect does not have a liner. The interconnect may be formed from Cu, etc. (Paragraph 40). However, Jun does not teach the claimed nanowire material.
PNG
media_image1.png
290
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In a related field of endeavor, Han teaches nanoscale interconnect materials of MoP nanowires (abstract) for use in the semiconductor industry as a replacement for Cu interconnects as this is known to suppress surface and grain boundary electron scattering (p.3, 1st full paragraph).
As both Jun and Han teach semiconductors with interconnect materials they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Jun with the MoP nanowire material taught by Han as this is known to suppress surface and grain boundary electron scattering and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 2, Han teaches MoP (abstract).
Considering claim 3, Han teaches where the nanowire is polycrystalline and non-porous (p.4, last full paragraph).
Considering claim 5, Han teaches where the nanowires may be single crystal when the diameter is below 10 nm (e.g. zero grain boundaries per micrometer length) (p.4, last paragraph) which overlaps that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 6, Han teaches where the average grain size of the nanowires is about 20 nm (p.4, last full paragraph). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 7-9, Han teaches where the nanowire diameter may be between 10-100 nm (p.4, last full paragraph). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 10-12, modified Jun does not specifically teach the claimed resistivity or lack of increase upon exposure. However, modified Jun teaches an interconnect of MoP nanowires substantially identical to that which is claimed and therefore these properties are expected to be present as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 13, Jun teaches where the circuit is part of a microchip (Paragraph 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are addressed as follows:
Applicant argues that Jun does not explicitly exclude a liner material and therefore is silent as to the presence of a liner and one would appreciate that Jun would require a liner due to the exemplary metals as this is standard practice in the art, the nanowire interconnect alone provides intrinsic stability, and that the exclusion of the liner is counter intuitive as it constitutes an unexpected result (remarks p.7, 2nd paragraph).
This is not persuasive as lack of teaching of a limitation being insufficient to exclude a material is not logical conclusion as this imputes requirements beyond the teachings of Jun. Further, prior art is relevant for all that it discloses and is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. See MPEP 2123.
Regarding stability, the instant claims do not require any degree of stability or amount of diffusion or lack thereof and therefore this is not commensurate with that which is claimed. See MPEP 2145 (VI). Further, applicant has not provided any objective evidence as to how the teachings of Jun differ from that which is claimed and argument alone is insufficient to rebut the prima facie case. See MPEP 2145 (I). Regarding unexpected results, applicant has not provided any data demonstrating a nexus between the argued stability/diffusion and claimed materials per MPEP 716.01(b). Absent such a showing, the prior rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights