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 .
Status of the Application
1. Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 12/8/2025. Claims 1-13 & 21-27 are pending in this application. Claims 14-20 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
2. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai et al. (US 2021/0036097) in view of Tu et al. (US 2010/0065944).
Re claim 1, Tsai teaches, under BRI, Fig. 3, [0016-0023], a device, comprising:
-a trench capacitor structure (DTC 213) comprising:
a first set of electrode layers (consider left 203) corresponding to a first voltage polarity; and
a second set of electrode layers (consider right 203) corresponding to a second voltage polarity,
-a first set of contact structures (conductive vias 307A-C) on a first side (left) of the trench capacitor structure (213) and comprising a first subset of electrode contact structures (307A-C), wherein each electrode contact structure of the first subset of electrode contact structures (307A-C) has a first cross-sectional area,
wherein the first subset of electrode contact structures (307A-C) connects the first set of electrode layers (left 203) to a portion of a first conductive layer (309A) and
wherein at least two electrode contact structures (307B, C) of the first subset of electrode contact structures (307A-C) extend from a bottom surface of the portion of the first conductive layer (309A) to different depths from each other onto top surfaces of different electrode layers of the first set of electrode layers (left 203); and
-a second set of contact structures (307D-E) on a second side (right) of the trench capacitor structure (213) and comprising a second subset of electrode contact structures (307D-E),
wherein each electrode contact structure of the second subset of electrode structures (307D-E) has a second cross-sectional area,
wherein the second subset of electrode contact structures (307D-E) connects the second set of electrode layers (right 203) to a portion of a second conductive layer (309B-C),
wherein at least two electrode contact structures (307D-E) of the second subset of electrode contact structures extend from a bottom surface of the portion of the second conductive layer (309B-C) to different depths from each other onto top surfaces of different electrode layers of the second set of electrode layers (left 203).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsai does not explicitly teach a first set of electrode layers corresponding to a first voltage polarity; and a second set of electrode layers corresponding to a second voltage polarity, wherein the second voltage polarity is different from the first voltage polarity; wherein the second cross-sectional area is greater relative to the first cross- sectional area.
Tu teaches, Figs. 1-2, a first set of electrode layers corresponding to a first voltage polarity (V1); and a second set of electrode layers corresponding to a second voltage polarity (GND), wherein the second voltage polarity is different from the first voltage polarity (V1 vs GND); wherein the second cross-sectional area is greater relative to the first cross- sectional area (between top & bottom 180).
As taught by Tu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain a first set of electrode layers corresponding to a first voltage polarity; and a second set of electrode layers corresponding to a second voltage polarity, wherein the second voltage polarity is different from the first voltage polarity; wherein the second cross-sectional area is greater relative to the first cross- sectional area as claimed, because it aids in achieving a desired decoupling capacitor structure(s) with high capacitance and low leakage current. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Tu in combination with Tsai due to above reason.
Re claim 2, Tsai teaches the first conductive layer (309A) and the second conductive layer (309B-C) are a same conductive layer (Fig. 3).
Re claim 3, Tsai teaches, Fig. 4, [0022, 0026, 0031], the same conductive layer comprises a layer of metal material layer (309A-C) and further comprising: a layer of a silicon nitride material (305 or 403) on the layer of the metal material.
Re claim 4, Tsai teaches, Fig. 3, [0029], a seal ring structure (315) disposed around the first set of contact structures (307A-C), and a seal ring contact structure (consider 307A, 311A) connecting the first set of contact structures to the seal ring structure (315).
Re claim 6, in combination cited above, Tu teaches, under BRI, Fig. 1, the second set of contact structures further comprises: at least one substrate contact structure (STI & with 140) having a third cross-sectional area and that connects the portion of the first conductive layer (M1) to a substrate (130) that is below the first set of electrode layers and the second set of electrode layers (of Cap1, Cap2), wherein the third cross-sectional area (of STI & 140) is greater relative to the first cross- sectional area (of top 180).
Re claim 8, Tsai teaches, under BRI, Fig. 3, [0016-0023], a device, comprising:
-a capacitor structure (213);
-a first interlayer contact structure (309A) (or 313A-B) associated with a ground voltage for the capacitor structure;
-a second interlayer contact structure (309B-C) (or 313C) associated with a source voltage for the capacitor structure;
-at least two first electrode contact structures (307A-C) having a first cross-sectional area and disposed on a first side of the capacitor structure (213) between the first interlayer contact structure (309A) and a plurality of ground voltage electrode layers (left 203) of the capacitor structure (213),
wherein the at least two first electrode contact structures (307D-E) extend to different depths from each other onto top surfaces of different ground voltage electrode layers (left 203) of the plurality of ground voltage electrode layers, and
wherein the at least two first electrode contact structures (307A-C) connect the first interlayer contact structure (309A) to the plurality of ground voltage (*) electrode layers (left 203) of the capacitor structure (213); and
-at least two second electrode contact structures (307D-E) having a second cross-sectional area and disposed on a second side of the capacitor structure (213) between the second interlayer contact structure (309B-C) and a plurality of source voltage electrode layers (right 203) of the capacitor structure (213),
wherein the at least two second electrode contact structures (307D-E) extend to different depths from each other onto top surfaces of different source voltage (*) electrode layers (right 203) of the plurality of source voltage electrode layers,
wherein the at least two second electrode contact structures (37D-E) connect the second interlayer contact structure (309B-C) to the plurality of source voltage electrode layers (right 203) of the capacitor structure (213).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsai does not explicitly teach ground voltage and source voltage, and wherein the second cross-sectional area is greater relative to the first cross-sectional area.
Tu teaches, Figs. 1-2, ground voltage and source voltage (GND, V1), and the second cross-sectional area is greater relative to the first cross- sectional area (between top & bottom 180).
As taught by Tu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the second cross-sectional area is different from the first cross- sectional area as claimed, because it aids in achieving a desired decoupling capacitor structure(s) with high capacitance and low leakage current. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Tu in combination with Tsai due to above reason.
Re claim 10, Tsai teaches, Fig. 3, a conductive layer (consider 309A) disposed between the first interlayer contact structure (consider 313) and the first electrode contact structure (307A-C),
wherein the conductive layer (309A) comprising comprises a portion that connects the first interlayer contact structure (313) to the first electrode contact structure (307A-C).
Re claim 11, in combination cited above, Tu teaches, Fig. 1, a substrate contact structure (consider STI with 140) having a third cross-sectional area and connecting the portion of the conductive layer (142b or portion of 142b) to a substrate (130) that is below the plurality of ground voltage electrode layer and below the plurality of source voltage electrode layer (of capacitor), wherein the third cross-sectional area (of STI with 140) is greater relative to the second cross- sectional area (of right M1).
Re claims 9 & 12, in combination cited above, Tsai teaches the first-third cross-sectional areas (of 307 & 309) (Fig. 3); and Tu teaches, Fig. 1, a ratio of the second cross-sectional area (of right M1) to the first cross-sectional area (of left M1); and a ratio of the third cross-sectional area (of STI and 140) to the second cross-sectional area (of right M1).
Tsai/Tu does not explicitly teach a ratio that is included in a range of approximately 19:10 to approximately 21:10; and in a range of approximately 18:1 to approximately 22:1.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular ratio, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the ratio is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the ratio is for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another concentration(s). Indeed, it has been held that mere ratio limitation(s) is prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed ratio, because a change in ratio would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Re claim 13, in combination cited above, Tsai teaches, Fig. 3, [0026], an etch stop layer (305B) above the conductive layer (309), and wherein the at least two first electrode contact structures (307A-C), the at least two second electrode contact structures (307D-E) and the substrate contact structure (see Tu’s teaching) are included as part of an electrical circuit that reduces (as intended use) a likelihood of an electrical discharge from the capacitor structure (213) to the etch stop layer (305B).
Re claim 21, Tsai teaches, under BRI, Fig. 3, [0016-0023], a device, comprising:
-a trench capacitor structure (213) at least one of on or in a substrate (103),
wherein the trench capacitor structure (213) includes a plurality of first electrode layers and a plurality of second electrode layers (left & right 203);
-a dielectric layer (303A, B) over the trench capacitor structure (213);
-at least two first electrode contact structures (307A-C) disposed in the dielectric layer (303A, B),
wherein the at least two first electrode contact structures (307A-C) extend to different depths from each other onto top surfaces of different first electrode layers of the plurality of first electrode layers (left 203),
wherein the at least two first electrode contact structures (307A-C) have a first cross- sectional area;
-at least two second electrode contact structures (307D-E) disposed through in the dielectric layer (303A, B),
wherein the at least two second electrode contact structures (307D-E) extend to different depths from each other onto top surfaces of different second electrode layers of the plurality of second electrode layers (right 203),
wherein the at least two second electrode contact structures (307D-E) have a second cross-sectional area; and
-a substrate contact structure (309A-C) disposed in the dielectric layer (303A, B) and on the substrate (103),
wherein the substrate contact structure (309A-C) has a third cross-sectional area different from the first cross-sectional area and the second cross-sectional area (of 307A-E).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tsai does not explicitly teach the second cross-sectional area different from the first cross-sectional area.
Tu teaches, Fig. 1, the second cross-sectional area is different from the first cross- sectional area (between top & bottom 180).
As taught by Tu, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain the second cross-sectional area is different from the first cross- sectional area as claimed, because it aids in achieving a desired decoupling capacitor structure(s) with high capacitance and low leakage current. Further, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Tu in combination with Tsai due to above reason.
Re claim 22, Tsai teaches, Fig. 3, [0024], a conductive layer (313A-B) over the at least two first electrode contact structures (30A-C), the at least two second electrode contact structures (307D-E) and the substrate contact structure (309A-C),
wherein the conductive layer (313A-C) includes a first portion (313A-B) connected with the at least two first electrode contact structures (307A-C) and wherein the conductive layer includes a second portion (303C) connected with the at least two second electrode contact structures (307D-E) and the substrate contact structure (309A-C).
Re claim 23 & 24, in combination cited above, Tsai teaches the first-third cross-sectional areas (of 307 & 309) (Fig. 3); and Tu teaches, Fig. 1, a ratio of the second cross-sectional area (of right M1) to the first cross-sectional area (of left M1); and a ratio of the third cross-sectional area (of STI and 140) to the second cross-sectional area (of right M1).
Tsai/Tu does not explicitly teach a ratio that is included in a range of approximately 19:10 to approximately 21:10; and in a range of approximately 18:1 to approximately 22:1.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice bounded by well-known manufacturing constraints and ascertainable by routine experimentation and optimization to choose particular ratio, because applicant has not disclosed that, in view of the applied prior art, the ratio is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. For that matter, applicant has not disclosed that the ratio is for any purpose or produce any result. Moreover, it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another concentration(s). Indeed, it has been held that mere ratio limitation(s) is prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try the particular claimed ratio, because a change in ratio would have been a known option within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art and, "a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). See also, Pfizer Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Re claim 25, Tsai teaches, Fig. 3, the at least first electrode contact structure (307A-C) are disposed on the different first electrode layers (left 203) on a first side of the trench capacitor structure (213), and wherein the at least second electrode contact structure (307D-E) is disposed on the different second electrode layer (right 203) on a second side of the trench capacitor structure (213) opposite the first side.
Re claim 26, Tsai teaches, Fig. 3, the different first electrode layers (left 203) and the second electrode layer have different dimensions from each other along a direction parallel to a top surface of the substrate (103) and wherein the different second electrode layers (right 203) have different dimensions from each other along the direction parallel to the top surface of the substrate (103).
Re claim 27, Tsai teaches, Fig. 3, a second electrode layer (consider top 203) of the plurality of second electrode layers is stacked on a first electrode layer (consider lower 203) of the plurality of first electrode layer (within DTC 213).
3. Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai as modified by Tu as applied to claims 1 & 6 above, and further in view of Hosogai et al. (US 2022/0028782).
The teachings of Tsai/Tu have been discussed above.
Re claim 5, Tsai teaches, Fig. 3, the first subset of electrode contact structures (307A-C) or the second subset of electrode contact structures (307D-E)) comprises: at least one electrode contact structure.
Tsai/Tu does not explicitly teach at least one electrode contact structure comprising: an approximately square cross-section, or an approximately round cross-section.
Hosogai teaches, Fig. 3a, at least one electrode contact structure (terminal 21 or via 11) comprising: an approximately square cross-section (of 21), or an approximately round cross-section (of 11).
As taught by Hosogai, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize & modify the above teaching to obtain at least one electrode contact structure comprising: an approximately square cross-section, or an approximately round cross-section as claimed, because a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Hosogai in combination with Tsai/Tu due to above reason.
Re claim 7, in combination cited above, Tsai teaches the second set of contact structures (307D-E) further include at least one electrode contact structure; and Hosogai teaches, Fig. 3a, an approximately rectangular cross-section (of 21), or an approximately elliptical cross-section.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DUY T.V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7AM-4PM, alternative Friday off.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 2/9/26