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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species I in the reply filed on 3/11/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaneko et al US 2010/0147574.
Pertaining to claim 1, Kaneko teaches a semiconductor interconnect structure, comprising:
a first row of metal lines 17 located in a bottom portion 15 of a metal layer 15+18; and
a second row of metal lines 14 located in a top portion 18 of the metal layer 15+18, wherein the first row of metal lines 17 are horizontally staggered with respect to the second row of metal lines 14 see Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pertaining to claim 2, Kaneko teaches the semiconductor interconnect structure of claim 1, wherein the first row of metal lines located in the bottom portion of the metal layer and the second row of metal lines located in the top portion of the metal layer are further located between a pair of outer metal lines 20 see Figure 1 marked up above.
Pertaining to claim 7, Kaneko semiconductor interconnect structure of claim 2, wherein:
the first row of metal lines located in the bottom portion of the metal layer and the second row of metal lines located in the top portion of the metal layer are formed from the same material(s). Keneko isn’t specific as to the material but illustrates that they are the same in Figure 1, and they are all metal materials.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Chu et al US 2016/0204190.
Pertaining to claim 3, Kaneko teaches the semiconductor interconnect structure of claim 2, but is silent on the metal lines having different widths (narrower) and heights (shorter) compared to the outer metal lines. Chu teaches that metal lines can have varying heights and widths [0022] based on their function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the teachings of Chu into the device of Kaneko by having varying dimensions of the metal lines. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Kaneko in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of withstanding stresses during manufacture and/or different functions require different dimensions for efficient and desired operation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko as applied to claim 2 above.
Pertaining to claim 6, Kaneko teaches the semiconductor interconnect structure of claim 2, but is silent with regard to signal and power lines. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the metal lines of Kaneko for their common intended purpose, such as being used as power or signal lines. The addition of “power” and “signal” provide no differentiating structural features over the prior art. See MPEP 2111.02, specifically with regards to statements of intended use.
MPEP 2111.02 is directed to weight given to the preamble of claims and notes that the claim preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. MEPEP 2111.02 contains more discussion and case law cites regarding this issue, and is accessible via MPEP8 (August 2001) – 2111.02 Weight of Preamble – 2100 Patentability.
The determination of whether preamble recitations are structural limitations or mere statements of purpose or use “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the [record] to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.” Corning Glass Works, 868 F.2d at 1257, 9 USPQ2d at 1966. If the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Yang US 2005/0239273
Pertaining to claim 8, Kaneko teaches the semiconductor interconnect structure of claim 2, wherein the metal lines are formed of the same material, but is silent wherein: the first row of metal lines located in the bottom portion of the metal layer and the second row of metal lines located in the top portion of the metal layer are formed from different material(s). Yang teaches in an analogous art that metallization layers can consist of different metals or different conductive materials [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select known materials for their intended purpose. Selecting different metals for different metallization layers is a matter of design choice as indicated by Yang, with each metal offering different properties based on the desired electrical characteristics. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 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.
Pertaining to claim 4, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein a bottom surface of the first row of metal lines is coplanar with a bottom surface of the outer pair of metal lines and a top surface of the second row of metal lines is coplanar with a top surface of the pair of outer metal lines.
Pertaining to claim 5, the prior art does not teach nor suggest wherein a top surface of the second row of metal lines and a top surface of the pair of outer metal lines is coplanar with a top surface of the metal layer and a bottom surface of the first row of metal lines and a bottom surface of the pair of outer metal lines is coplanar with a bottom surface of the metal layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/NICHOLAS J TOBERGTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817