DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Election
Applicant’s election of claims 1-25 without traverse in the replied filed on November, 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-25 are withdrawn by the Examiner for reading on non-elected species FIG. 7.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0104595 A1), hereafter “Liu”.
As to claim 1, Liu teaches:
A substrate 2+5, wherein the substrate comprises glass. See Liu, FIG. 1.
A pillar 3 over the substrate.
A capacitor 4 over the pillar, wherein the capacitor comprises: a first conductive layer 41 on the pillar, a dielectric layer 42 over the first conductive layer; and a second conductive layer 43 over the dielectric layer.
As to claim 2, Liu teaches the pillar is separated from the substrate by at least a barrier layer 26.
As to claim 5, Liu teaches the substrate comprises a via 61, and wherein a conductive trace 64 is provided over the via. Id. at FIG. 1, FIG. 26.
As to claim 6, Liu teaches the first conductive layer 41 is electrically coupled to the conductive trace 64. Id. at FIG. 1.
As to claim 7, Liu teaches the pillar is elongated to form a fin. Id.
As to claim 8, Liu teaches the dielectric layer has a dielectric constant that is higher than a dielectric constant of a material comprising silicon and oxygen, i.e. silicon dioxide having a dielectric constant of 3.9. Id. at ¶ [0050].
As to claim 9, Liu teaches the dielectric layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 20 nm. Id.
As to claim 10, Liu teaches a height of the pillar 3 is equal to a depth of the cavity 20, and a depth of the cavity is 100 mm. Id. at ¶ [0060].
As to claim 11, Liu teaches a 20:1 aspect ratio. Id. at ¶ [0040].
As to claim 13, Liu teaches:
A substrate 2+5, wherein the substrate comprises glass.
A pillar 3 over the substrate, wherein the pillar comprises carbon. Liu teaches the pillar comprises polyimide. Id. at ¶ [0047]. The Examiner takes Official Notice that polyimide is formed from carbon rings.
A dielectric layer 42 over the pillar; and a conductive layer 43 over the dielectric layer.
As to claim 18, Liu teaches a 20:1 aspect ratio. Id. at ¶ [0040].
As to claim 19, Liu teaches the dielectric layer has a dielectric constant that is higher than a dielectric constant of a material comprising silicon and oxygen, i.e. silicon dioxide having a dielectric constant of 3.9. Id. at ¶ [0050].
As to claim 20, Liu teaches:
A substrate 2+5.
A pillar 3 over the substrate, where the pillar comprises sidewall surfaces (opposing 33) and a top surface 32.
A first conductive layer 41 over the pillar, wherein the first conductive layer comprises an upside down U-shaped cross-section (portion of 41 formed over the pillar 3) and is in direct contact with the sidewall surfaces and the top surface of the pillar.
A dielectric layer 42 over the first conductive layer, wherein the dielectric layer comprises an upside down U-shaped cross-section (portion of 42 formed over the pillar 3).
A second conductive layer 43 over the dielectric layer, wherein the second conductive layer comprise an upside down U-shaped cross-section (portion of 43 formed over the pillar 3).
As to claim 21, Liu teaches the sidewall surfaces 33 of the pillar are non-planar because they are formed laterally opposite one another. Id. at FIG. 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 12, 14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1, 13, and 20.
As to claim 3, Liu teaches the barrier layer comprising silicon oxide but does not teach silicon and nitrogen. See Liu, ¶ [0044].
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use silicon and nitrogen instead of silicon and oxygen for the corresponding barrier layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claims 12 and 22, Liu teaches the pillar formed from insulating material but does not teach silicon and oxygen. Id. at ¶ [0047].
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use silicon and oxygen for the insulating pillar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 14, Liu teaches the pillar formed from insulating material but does not teach a carbon nanotube. Id. at ¶ [0047].
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a carbon nanotube for the insulating pillar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 4, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0005705 A1), hereafter “Lu”.
As to claim 4, Liu does not teach inter alia a base.
On the other hand, Lu teaches a base (horizontal lower portion of 137) wherein the combination of Lu and Liu forms the base between the pillar and the barrier layer. See Lu, FIG. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the additional base structure as taught by Lu into the overall capacitor structure as taught by Liu, in order to yield the predictable benefit of enabling a larger surface area and proportionally larger capacitance.
However, neither Liu nor Lu teaches the base comprising a same material as the pillar.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a same material for the base and the pillar, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Additionally, utilizing a same material for the base and the pillar would yield the predictable benefit of simplifying fabrication processes.
As to claim 15, Liu does not teach inter alia a via in the substrate nor a conductive trace over the via.
On the other hand, Lu teaches a via (horizontal portion of 150) in the substrate 161+164 and a conductive trace (vertical portion of 150) over the via, wherein the conductive trace is between the pillar (vertical portion of 137) and the via. See Lu, FIG. 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the via and conductive trace as taught by Lu into the overall capacitor structure as taught by Liu, in order to yield the predictable benefit of enabling connection to external input/output devices.
As to claim 16, Lu teaches a base (horizontal portion of 137) between the pilar and the conductive trace. Id.
However, neither Liu nor Lu teaches the base comprises carbon.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a carbon material for the base, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 17, Lu teaches the conductive trace (vertical portion of 150) directly contacts the base (horizontal portion of 137). See Lu, FIG. 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893