CTFR 18/179,417 CTFR 81546 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonilla et al, US Patent Application Publication 2018/0076133 (as cited in previous Office Action) . Regarding claim 1, Bonilla teaches a semiconductor structure comprising: a homogeneous interconnect structure 315/321 embedded in a dielectric layer 306/318 , wherein the homogeneous interconnect structure comprises a first region 315 above a second region 321 , wherein the first region comprises a width which increases relative to height, wherein the second region comprises a width which decreases relative to height; a first barrier layer 320 on 306 (figure 7D) separating the first region 208/321 from the dielectric layer 306 ; and a second barrier layer 320 formed in figure 7E separating the second region from the dielectric layer 318 ( figure 3 and 7D-7Fand [0054, 0059]. ) Regarding claim 4, Bonilla teaches the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer have different compositions [0059]. Regarding claim 5, Bonilla teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric 306 layer and second dielectric layer 318 (figure 3) Regarding claim 6, Bonilla teaches the first region is substantially aligned with the second region ( figure 3 ). Regarding claim 21, Bonilla teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric layer and a second dielectric layer, wherein the first barrier layer separates the first region from the first dielectric layer, and wherein the second barrier layer separates the second region from the second dielectric layer ( figure 3 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 5-9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stecher et al, US Patent 9,214,424 (as cited by Applicant) . PNG media_image1.png 742 992 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Stecher teaches a semiconductor structure comprising: a homogeneous interconnect structure 411 embedded in a dielectric layer 2 , wherein the homogeneous interconnect structure comprises a first region (labeled as “B” in above figure) above a second region (labeled as “C” in above figure), wherein the first region comprises a width which increases relative to height, and wherein the second region comprises a width which decreases relative to height; a first barrier layer 35 separating the first region from the dielectric layer 21/22 ; and a second barrier layer 35 separating both the second region from the dielectric layer 24/25/31 (as labeled above) . Regarding claim 5, Stecher teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric 21/22 layer and second dielectric layer 24/25/31 (figure 3) Regarding claim 6, Stecher teaches the first region is substantially aligned with the second region ( at lines “D” and “E” in figure above ). Regarding claim 7, Stecher teaches a semiconductor structure comprising a homogeneous interconnect structure 411 embedded in a dielectric layer 1 , wherein the homogeneous interconnect structure comprises a first region (labeled as “C” in above figure) , a second region (labeled as “B” in above figure) , and a third region one above another (labeled as “A” in above figure) , wherein the first region comprises a width which increases relative to height, wherein the second region comprises a width which decreases relative to height, and wherein the third region comprises a substantially uniform width relative to height, an average width of both the first region and the second region is greater than a width of the third region ( figure 3H ), a first barrier layer 35 separating the first region from the dielectric layer 21/22 ; and a second barrier layer 35 separating both the second region and the third region from the dielectric layer 24/25/31 (as labeled above) . Regarding claim 8, Stecher teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric layer 24/25 , a second dielectric layer 21/22 , and a third dielectric layer 31 , wherein the first barrier layer separates the first region from the first dielectric layer; and wherein the second barrier layer separates both the second region and the third region from both the second dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer ( figure 3H ). Regarding claim 9, Stecher teaches to teach a barrier layer 35 separating the homogeneous interconnect structure from the dielectric layer, wherein the barrier layer comprises at least two different materials (figure 3H and [0035]) . Regarding claim 11, Stecher teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric layer, a second dielectric layer, and a third dielectric layer ( figure 3H ). Regarding claim 12, Stecher teaches the first region is substantially aligned with the second region ( at lines “D” and “E” in figure above ), and wherein the second region is substantially aligned with the third region ( at line “F” in figure above ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 and 14-16, 18, 19, and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stecher et al, US Patent 9,214,424 (as cited by Applicant) . Regarding claim 9, while Stecher teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric layer 24/25 , a second dielectric layer 21/22 , and a third dielectric layer 31 , wherein the second region comprises a second height substantially equal to a height of the second dielectric layer, and wherein the third region comprises a second height substantially equal to a height of the third dielectric layer ( figure 3H ), Stecher fails to teach the first region comprises a first height substantially equal to a height of the first dielectric layer, However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness of the layers involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Regarding claim 14, Stecher teaches teaches a semiconductor structure comprising: homogeneous interconnect structures 411 embedded in a dielectric layer 20 with a pitch, wherein the homogeneous interconnect structures each comprise a first region (labeled as “C” in above figure) , a second region (labeled as “B” in above figure) , and a third region (labeled as “A” in above figure) , one above another, wherein the first region comprises a width which increases relative to height, wherein the second region comprises a width which decreases relative to height, and wherein the third region comprises a substantially uniform width relative to height, wherein an average width of both the first region and the second region is greater than a width of the third region a first barrier layer 35 separating the first region from the dielectric layer 21/22 ; and a second barrier layer 35 separating both the second region and the third region from the dielectric layer 24/25/31 (as labeled above) . Stecher fails to teach the pitch less than 30 nm However, it has been held that the interconnect pitch size will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such feature is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the applicants have not established the criticality of interconnect pitch size claimed and the Prior Art shows an interconnect, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a suitable pitch size in the device of Stecher. The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed interconnect pitch size or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co ., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka , 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel , 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Regarding claim 15, Stecher teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric layer 24/25 , a second dielectric layer 21/22 , and a third dielectric layer 31 , wherein the first barrier layer separates the first region from the first dielectric layer; and wherein the second barrier layer separates both the second region and the third region from both the second dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer ( figure 3H ). Regarding claim 16, while Stecher teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric layer 24/25 , a second dielectric layer 21/22 , and a third dielectric layer 31 , wherein the second region comprises a second height substantially equal to a height of the second dielectric layer, and wherein the third region comprises a second height substantially equal to a height of the third dielectric layer ( figure 3H ), Stecher fails to teach the first region comprises a first height substantially equal to a height of the first dielectric layer, However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness of the layers involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Regarding claim 18, Stecher teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric layer, a second dielectric layer, and a third dielectric layer ( figure 3H ). Regarding claim 19, Stecher teaches the first region is substantially aligned with the second region ( at lines “D” and “E” in figure above ), and wherein the second region is substantially aligned with the third region ( at line “F” in figure above ). Regarding claim 22, while Stecher teaches the dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric and a second dielectric, the second region comprises a second height substantially equal to a height of the second dielectric, Stecher fails to teach the first region comprises a first height substantially equal to a height of the first dielectric. However, given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness of the layers involved because applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. See In re Aller, Lacey, and Hall (10 USPQ 23 3-237) "It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Note that the specification contains no disclosure of ether the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that tile chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). Regarding claims 23 and 24, Stecher teaches an average width of both the first region and the second region is greater than a width of the third region (figure 3H) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 10 and 17 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. Regarding claims 10 and 17, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention including “...the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer have different compositions...” in combination with the remaining limitations. With regards to claims 10 and 17, the reference of Stecher fails to teach the limitation above. While this is taught by the reference of Bonilla teaches this limitation, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in which to combine these teachings to meet the limitation of these claims without impermissible hindsight. Further, no other prior art was found that would meet the limitations of this claims, either in anticipatory or in combination with other references. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 that the cited prior art of Bonilla fails to teach the limitations of claim 1, after reviewing Bonilla, it is noted that Bonilla teaches that the first barrier layer, layer 320 in figure 7D, separated a first region 208/321 from the dielectric layer 306 (figure 7D-7E) . Further, Figure 7E-7F teaches that the second barrier layer, which is 320 formed in figure 7D, separated the second region (top portion of 310 ), from the dielectric layer 318. It is further noted that [0059] teaches that the top layer of 320 may be formed using selective deposition, and may be the same material of a different material than that deposited on dielectric layer ( 306 ). Therefore, the reference of Bonilla meets the limitation of this claim. In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claims 1, 7, and 14 that the cited prior art of Stecher fails to teach the limitations of claim 1, Stecher teaches a first barrier layer 35 separating the first region from the dielectric layer; and a second barrier layer 35 separating both the second region and the third region from the dielectric layer. While Applicant has argued that Stecher teaches barrier layer 35 as a single layer, it is notes that the claim does not recite a limitation that excludes a single barrier layer from being considered as both the first barrier layer and the second barrier, only that the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer separated the interconnect structure from the dielectric layer. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 14 using the cited prior art of Bonilla and Stecher is maintained. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 QUOVAUNDA JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-4PM. 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, Dale E Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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. QVJ /DALE E PAGE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 2 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 3 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 4 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 5 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 6 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 7 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 8 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 9 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 10 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 11 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 12 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 13 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 14 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 15 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 16 Art Unit: 2899 Application/Control Number: 18/179,417 Page 17 Art Unit: 2899
Prosecution Insights