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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 16-20 belonging to Invention II have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 4. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 11-15 were 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 claims contain subject matter which were 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 11 recites an integrated circuit (IC) device (Fig. 1), comprising: a transistor comprising a source region (140A), a drain region (140B), and a channel region; a first layer
PNG
media_image1.png
458
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(160) comprising a first structure (165A/165B) and a second structure (165C), wherein the first structure (165A/165B) is coupled to the source region (140A) or the drain region (140B), the second structure (165C) is coupled to the channel region, a width of the first structure (165A/165B) in a first direction is smaller than a width of the second structure (165C) in the first direction; and a second layer (170) comprising a third metal, wherein a distance between the first structure (165A/165B) and the second layer (170) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is longer than a distance between the second structure (165C) and the second layer (170) in the second direction (reference numeral and emphasis added). However, the examiner could not find support for the claimed invention in the specification/drawing. As can be clearly seen from Fig. 1, the width of the first structure (165A/165B) in a first direction is not smaller, as claimed, than a width of the second structure (165C) in the first direction .As a matter of fact, the width of the first structure (165A/165B) in a first direction is larger than a width of the second structure (165C) in the first direction. Furthermore, the distance between the first structure (165A/165B) and the second layer (170) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is not longer, as claimed, than a distance between the second structure (165C) and the second layer (170) in the second direction. Again, as a matter of fact, the distance between the first structure (165A/165B) and the second layer (170) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is shorter than a distance between the second structure (165C) and the second layer (170) in the second direction. Because the Examiner is very unclear about what the Applicant is trying to patent, the claim 11 could not be examined against prior arts.
Claims 12-15 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejections based on their dependencies on claims 1 and 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "… the width of the first structure …" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether by “the width of the first structure”, the Applicant is referring to the “height of the first structure in the second direction” recited in claim 1 or not. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is requested.
Claims 11-15 are 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 11 recites an integrated circuit (IC) device (Fig. 1), comprising: a transistor comprising a source region (140A), a drain region (140B), and a channel region; a first layer (160) comprising a first structure (165A/165B) and a second structure (165C), wherein the first structure (165A/165B) is coupled to the source region (140A) or the drain region (140B), the second structure (165C) is coupled to the channel region, a width of the first structure (165A/165B) in a first direction is smaller than a width of the second structure (165C) in the first direction; and a second layer (170) comprising a third metal, wherein a distance between the first structure (165A/165B) and the second layer (170) in a second direction orthogonal to the
PNG
media_image1.png
458
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
first direction is longer than a distance between the second structure (165C) and the second layer (170) in the second direction (reference numeral and emphasis added). However, as can be clearly seen from Fig. 1, the width of the first structure (165A/165B) in a first direction is not smaller, as claimed, than a width of the second structure (165C) in the first direction .As a matter of fact, the width of the first structure (165A/165B) in a first direction is larger than a width of the second structure (165C) in the first direction. Furthermore, the distance between the first structure (165A/165B) and the second layer (170) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is not longer, as claimed, than a distance between the second structure (165C) and the second layer (170) in the second direction. Again, as a matter of fact, the distance between the first structure (165A/165B) and the second layer (170) in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is shorter than a distance between the second structure (165C) and the second layer (170) in the second direction. Because the Examiner is very unclear about what the Applicant is trying to patent, the claim 11 could not be examined against prior arts.
Claims 12-15 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph (pre-AIA ) rejection based on their dependencies on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Motoyama et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0134664 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Motoyama et al. discloses an integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising: a first structure comprising a first metal (Par. 0027-0034; Figs. 5-6 (together with Figs. 1-4) – first structure 502 (top via) comprising cobalt or ruthenium); a second structure comprising a second metal, wherein the second metal is different from the first metal (Par. 0027-0034; Figs. 5-6 (together with Figs. 1-4) – second structure 102 (conductive line) comprising copper);
PNG
media_image2.png
494
556
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a third structure wrapping around at least part of the second structure (Par. 0027-0034; Figs. 5-6 (together with Figs. 1-4) – third structure 106 (liner) or 108 (liner) comprising cobalt or ruthenium); and a fourth structure over the second structure in a first direction, wherein the third structure and the fourth structure comprise an electrically conductive material, a height of the second structure in the first direction is greater than a height of the first structure in the first direction, and a width of the second structure in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is greater than a height of the first structure in the second direction (Par. 0027-0034; Figs. 5-6 (together with Figs. 1-4) – fourth structure is part of the top via layer 302 that is between first structure 502 and second structure 102; the third structure 106/108 and the fourth structure comprise an electrically conductive material such as cobalt or ruthenium, a height of the second structure 102 in the first direction is greater than a height of the first structure 502 in the first direction, and a width of the second structure in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is greater than a height of the first structure in the second direction).
Regarding Claim 3, Motoyama et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the IC device, wherein a height of the fourth structure in the first direction is at least 3 nanometers (Par. 0032).
Regarding Claim 9, Motoyama et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the IC device, wherein the first metal is ruthenium, or the second metal is copper (Par. 0027-0034).
Regarding Claim 10, Motoyama et al., as applied to claim 1, discloses
the IC device, wherein the electrically conductive material comprises cobalt (Par. 0027-0034).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang et al. (Pub. No.: 2012/0104471 A1) – This prior art teaches a integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising: a first structure (80) comprising a first metal; a second structure comprising a second metal (40), wherein the second metal is different from the first metal; and a fourth structure (120) over the second structure (40) in a first direction, wherein the fourth structure (120) comprise an electrically conductive material, a height of the second structure (40) in the first direction is greater than a height of the first structure (80) in the first direction, and a width of the second structure in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction is greater than a height of the first structure in the second direction (Fig. 1F).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED I GHEYAS whose telephone number is (571)272-0592. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Britt Hanley, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3042. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
01/21/2026
/SYED I GHEYAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893