Attorney Docket Number: P202201065US01
Filing Date: 06/30/2023
Claimed Priority Date: none
Inventors: Polomoff et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 06/15/2026.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for a 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.
Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Invention I, reading on a semiconductor device, and with traverse of the species reading on the crack stop reading on figures 3 and 24, the guard ring reading on figure 14, the crack sensor reading on figure 16, the moisture sensor reading on figure 19, and the wiring structure reading on figure 26, in the reply filed on 06/15/2026, is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the grounds that (i) the restriction requirement fails to establish a search burden between Inventions I and II as claims 13 and 30 both recite an “active device layer”, thereby demonstrating that a search for either invention would necessarily require a search for the other invention and (ii) the restriction requirement has not indicated which claims are directed to different embodiments or species. This is not found persuasive.
Regarding the first grounds for traversal, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Pages 3-5 of the previous restriction requirement mailed on 04/27/2026 demonstrate that Inventions I and II are distinct from one another as unpatentability of the group-I invention would not necessarily imply unpatentability of the group-II invention since the device of the group-I invention could be made by processes materially different than those of the group-II invention and unpatentability of the group-I invention would not necessarily imply unpatentability of the group-II invention since the method of the group-II invention could be used to make products materially different than that of the group-I invention. For example, as given in the previous restriction requirement, instead of the step of claims 30 and 35 reciting forming “a continuous crackstop around the active device layer”, the devices of claim 1, 12, and 13 could be made without forming any crackstop at all, by forming a segmented or non-continuous crackstop, or by forming a continuous crackstop around a metal body instead of an active device layer. Furthermore, instead of the step of claim 30 reciting “building a plurality of second metal features on the first metal features, the second metal features being smaller than the first metal features” and the steps of claim 35 reciting “building smaller metal features” and “building larger metal features onto the smaller metal features”, the devices of claims 1, 12, and 13 could be made by forming metal features of substantially identical sizes, by building second metal features larger than first metal features, or by building smaller metal features onto larger metal features. Additionally, instead of the structure of claims 1, 12, and 13 reciting “a semiconductor substrate”, the method of claims 30 and 35 could be used to make a device comprising a glass or insulator substrate. Moreover, instead of the structure of claims 1, 12, and 13 reciting “a plurality of first dielectric layers”, the method of claims 30 and 35 could be used to make a device comprising non-dielectric insulating layers or no dielectric layers at all.
The distinctness between Inventions I and II is compounded by their differing search classifications. The Applicant cite that claims 13 and 30 both recite the limitation “through active device layer”. However, such an argument is devoid of mention of the specific search classifications noted in the previous restriction requirement. For example, the insulating features specific to Invention I and search classification H10W20/45 are not present in the independent claims of Invention II and are therefore not necessitated in a base search for Invention I. Similarly, the backside interconnection structure specific to Invention II and search classification H10W 20/481 are not present in the independent claims of Invention I and therefore not necessitated in a base search for Invention I. Furthermore, the argument about Inventions I and II sharing same similar features is not evidence that there is no burden in examining both inventions. The examiner can require a restriction in applications where claims recite features that are common to a multiplicity of claims. In the previous restriction on pages 3-5, the examiner set forth that the application contained two inventions, wherein the unpatentability of one invention does not necessarily imply the unpatentability of the other invention, and further demonstrated that the inventions are drawn to separate search classifications. Accordingly, as noted in the prior restriction requirement, this shows that each invention has attained recognition in the semiconductor art as a separate subject of inventive effort. Since each of the inventions belongs to a different subject of inventive effort, they will require different fields of search (e.g., employing different search queries) that would allow separately searching for each of their mutually exclusive characteristics, thus creating a serious burden on the examiner. As such, the examiner has identified different search queries that would be required for each invention, and Applicant’s argument that a search for Invention I would necessarily require a search of the classifications noted for Invention II and vice versa is not found persuasive.
Regarding the second grounds for traversal, species always refer to different embodiments of the invention and claims themselves are never species (see MPEP § 806.04(e)). Furthermore, it is the practice of the Office to identify such differing embodiments (i.e., species) by figures, and it is only in the specific case where species cannot be conveniently identified that claims may be grouped in accordance with the species to which they are restricted (see MPEP § 809.02(a)(B)). As the applicant provided figures illustrating the mutually exclusive characteristics of the species, the previous restriction requirement was properly composed in accordance with MPEP § 809.02(a)(B). Additionally, the examiner can further require a restriction in applications even in a case where generic claims recite features that are common to a multiplicity of species. On pages 7-9 of the previous restriction requirement, the examiner set forth that the application contained multiple species, each including mutually exclusive characteristics. These exclusive characteristics make the species patentably distinct from each other. That is, the unpatentability of one of the species would not necessarily imply the unpatentability of the other species. On the other hand, such an election of species should not be required if the species are considered clearly unpatentable (obvious) over each other or if there is an express admission by the applicants to that effect. In re Lee, 199 USPQ 108 (Comm' r Pat. 1978). The applicants have failed to advance reasons leading to the conclusion that the species claimed are considered clearly unpatentable over each other. Accordingly, the prior art applicable to one of the species would not likely be applicable to the other species as the species are likely to raise different prior art issues. Since each of the species belongs to a different subject of inventive effort, they will require different fields of search (e.g., employing different search queries) that would allow separately searching for each of their mutually exclusive characteristics, thus creating a serious burden on the examiner.
The applicant indicated that claims 1-13 and 19-29 read on the elected species. Claim 12, however, reads on a non-elected species of the claimed invention. For instance, the limitation “a third portion within the active device layer, wherein the third portion comprises a first layer of third metal, a first plurality of vias that interconnect the first portion to the third portion, and a second plurality of vias that interconnect the third portion to the second portion” recited in claim 12 is a feature specific to, for example and non-exhaustively, the wiring structure reading on figure 27 rather than the wiring structure reading on figure 26. Accordingly, claims 12, 14-18, and 30-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“A ground pad at a top side of the structure, wherein the metal body is electrically grounded to the ground pad”, as recited in claim 9
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vias is a first plurality of vias, further comprising: a second layer of the first portion; and second layer of the second portion…”. The language of the claims does not clearly render what feature is intended to be “further comprising” the subsequently recited features, such as a second layer of the first portion, a second layer of the second portion, etc. That is, it is unclear whether the “structure” is intended to be “further comprising” the recited features, whether “the plurality of vias” is intended to be “further comprising” the recited features, or whether the “first plurality of vias” is intended to be “further comprising” the recited features. Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite as it is unclear to which specific antecedent term the term “further comprising” is intended to reference. For the express purposes of examination, the examiner interprets the “structure” to be “further comprising” the followingly recited features.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei (US 2023/0069107).
Regarding claim 1, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a structure comprising:
a semiconductor substrate 125;
a plurality of first dielectric layers 118 at a top side of the semiconductor substrate (see, e.g., par.0023/ll.1-4);
an active device layer 102 at a top side of the plurality of first dielectric layers;
a plurality of second dielectric layers 132 at a top side of the active device layer (see, e.g., par.0027/ll.3-5); and
a metal body 123/122/120/134/136/138/124, which comprises:
a first portion 123/122/120 that is embedded in the plurality of first dielectric layers 118, wherein the first portion comprises a first layer (layer of metal body corresponding to two sets of 122/120 closest to 102) of first metal (see, e.g., par.0024/ll.1-3);
a second portion 134/136/138 that is embedded in the plurality of second dielectric layers 132, wherein the second portion comprises a first layer (layer of metal body corresponding to two sets of 134/136 closest to 102) of second metal (see, e.g., par.0027/ll.7-9); and
a plurality of vias 140 that interconnect the first portion to the second portion through the active device layer 102, wherein the first layer of first metal mechanically connects the plurality of vias and the first layer of second metal mechanically connects the plurality of vias
Regarding claim 5, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1 and par.0025/ll.12-13) shows that the first portion 123/122/120 comprises a plurality of layers 120/124 of first metal and a plurality of first portion vias 122/123 that interconnect the layers of first metal, wherein the first portion extends from the active device layer 102 through the plurality of first dielectric layers 118 to the semiconductor substrate 125.
Regarding claim 6, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1 and par.0024/ll.1-2) shows that the second portion 134/136/138 comprises a plurality of layers 134/138 (see, e.g., par.0027/ll.7-9) of second metal and a plurality of second portion vias 136 that interconnect the layers of second metal, wherein the second portion extends from the active device layer 102 through the plurality of second dielectric layers 132 to a top side of the structure.
Regarding claim 7, Wei (see, e.g., pars.0024 and 0027/ll.7-9) shows that the first metal and the second metal are the same metal.
Regarding claim 8, Wei (see, e.g., pars.0012/ll.16-17 and 0026/ll.3-7) shows that the metal body 123/122/120/134/136/138/124 is electrically grounded to the semiconductor substrate 125.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majhi (US 2023/0197614).
Regarding claim 1, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A-1B) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a structure comprising:
a semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., par.0001/ll.1-3);
a plurality of first dielectric layers 112 at a top side of the semiconductor substrate (see, e.g., par.0031/ll.1-6);
an active device layer 106 at a top side of the plurality of first dielectric layers;
a plurality of second dielectric layers 122 at a top side of the active device layer (see, e.g., par.0032/ll.1-6); and
a metal body 114x/114y/114/124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 110/120, which comprises:
a first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110 that is embedded in the plurality of first dielectric layers 112, wherein the first portion comprises a first layer (all 114y closest to 106) of first metal 139 (see, e.g., par.0042/ll.4);
a second portion 124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 120 that is embedded in the plurality of second dielectric layers 122, wherein the second portion comprises a first layer (all 124a closest to 106) of second metal 139 (see, e.g., par.0042/ll.4); and
a plurality of vias 130 that interconnect the first portion to the second portion through the active device layer 106, wherein the first layer of first metal mechanically connects the plurality of vias and the first layer of second metal mechanically connects the plurality of vias
Regarding claim 2, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that the first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110 comprises one or more first metal lines 114x and one or more first portion vias 114y, the second portion comprises one or more second metal lines 124y and one or more second portion vias 124x, and diffusion barrier liners 137 are disposed on: surfaces of the one or more first metal lines and the one or more first portion vias that face toward the active device layer 106; and surfaces of the one or more second metal lines and the one or more second portion vias that face toward the active device layer.
Regarding claim 3, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that structure of claim 1, wherein the plurality of vias 130 is a first plurality of vias, wherein the structure further comprises:
a second layer (all 114x closest to 106) of the first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110;
a second layer [choice of either (i) or (ii) for all following limitations] (i) (all 124b closest to 106) or (ii) (rectangular 124 closest to 106) of the second portion 124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 120; and
a second plurality of vias (i) 114y or (ii) 112b that interconnect the second layer of the first portion to the second layer of the second portion, wherein the second layer of the first portion mechanically connects the second plurality of vias and the second layer of the second portion mechanically connects the second plurality of vias
With regards to other language recited in claim 3, see the comments stated above in paragraph 13.
Regarding claim 5, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that the first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110 comprises a plurality of layers 114x/114 of first metal 139 and a plurality of first portion vias 114y that interconnect the layers of first metal, wherein the first portion extends from the active device layer 106 through the plurality of first dielectric layers 112 to the semiconductor substrate (not shown – described in par.0033/ll.12-15).
Regarding claim 6, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that the second portion 124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 120 comprises a plurality of layers 124y/124 of second metal 139 and a plurality of second portion vias 124x that interconnect the layers of second metal, wherein the second portion extends from the active device layer 106 through the plurality of second dielectric layers 122 to a top side of the structure.
Regarding claim 7, Majhi (see, e.g., pars.0038/ll.5-6, 0040/ll.1-2, and 0042/ll.4) shows that the first metal 139 and the second metal 139 are the same metal.
Regarding claim 11, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A and par.0048/ll.1-2) shows a wiring level 129 in the active device layer 106.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chugh (US 2024/0421101) in view of Yeo (US 2012/0074519) and Sharma (US 2024/0215222).
Regarding claim 1, Chugh (see, e.g., fig. 4E) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a structure 450 comprising:
a substrate (not pictured – described to be closest to 448 in par.0055/ll.29);
a plurality of first dielectric layers 442 at a top side of the semiconductor substrate (see, e.g., par.0055/ll.27);
an active device layer 406 at a top side of the plurality of first dielectric layers;
a plurality of second dielectric layers 408E at a top side of the active device layer (see, e.g., par.0057/ll.6-7); and
a metal body 448/434/444/410/452/422, which comprises:
a first portion 444/434 that is embedded in the plurality of first dielectric layers 442, wherein the first portion comprises a first layer (two metal layer portions of 434 closest to 406 – see, e.g., par.0057/ll.24-27) of first metal (see, e.g., par.0057/ll.25-26);
a second portion 410/425 that is embedded in the plurality of second dielectric layers 408E, wherein the second portion comprises a first layer (two metal layer portions of 425 closest to 406 – see, e.g., par.0057/ll.18-20) of second metal (see, e.g., par.0057/ll.18-19); and
a plurality of vias 424 that interconnect the first portion to the second portion through the active device layer 406, wherein the first layer of first metal mechanically connects the plurality of vias and the first layer of second metal mechanically connects the plurality of vias
Chugh shows most aspects of the instant invention and further teaches that Chugh’s structure may comprise a substrate bottommost to other features in the structure (see, e.g., par.0055/ll.29). Chugh (see, e.g., par.0133/ll.6-7), however, teaches that Chugh’s substrate may be, for example, a ceramic substrate and fails to specify that substrate is a semiconductor substrate.
Yeo, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chugh, teaches ceramic substrates and semiconductor substrates to be equivalent for use in structures pertaining to interconnected metal features, dielectric features, and device layers (see, e.g., par.0026/1-3). Furthermore, Sharma, also the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chugh, teaches silicon semiconductor substrates to be preferrable due to low cost (see, e.g., Sharma: par.0003/ll.6-7).
Yeo is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a ceramic substrate would be equivalent to a semiconductor substrate, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the structure of Chugh. That is, the substrates of both Mannebach and Ganguly would yield the predictable result of providing a supportive structure capable of mechanically interfacing with a structure comprising, for example, interspersed dielectric layers, metal layers, and a device layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a semiconductor substrate, as taught by Yeo, or a ceramic substrate, as taught by Chugh, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a supportive structure capable of mechanically interfacing with a structure comprising, for example, interspersed dielectric layers, metal layers, and a device layer. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Sharma is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would find particular incentive to have a semiconductor substrate (e.g., silicon), as taught by Sharma, so as to employ in Chugh’s structure an effective substrate that simultaneously reduces costs.
Regarding claim 7, Chugh (see, e.g., par.0076/ll.1-6) shows that the first metal and the second metal are the same metal.
Regarding claim 10, Chugh (see, e.g., fig. 4E and pars.0057/ll.18-20 and 24-27 and 0092/ll.1-6) shows that the first layer (two metal layer portions of 434 closest to 406 – see, e.g., par.0057/ll.24-27) of first metal is a first metal plate and the first layer (two metal layer portions of 425 closest to 406 – see, e.g., par.0057/ll.18-20) of second metal is a second metal plate.
Claims 4, 13, 25-26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Hung (US 9,640,489) and Yuan (US 8,860,185).
Regarding claim 13, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a structure comprising:
a semiconductor substrate 125;
a plurality of first dielectric layers 118 at a top side of the semiconductor substrate (see, e.g., par.0023/ll.1-4);
an active device layer 102 at a top side of the plurality of first dielectric layers;
a plurality of second dielectric layers 132 at a top side of the active device layer (see, e.g., par.0027/ll.3-5); and
a metal body 123/122/120/134/136/138/124, which comprises:
a first portion 123/122/120/124 that is embedded in the plurality of first dielectric layers 118, wherein the first portion comprises a plurality of layers of first lines 120/124 that are interconnected by a plurality of second first vias 122/123;
a second portion 134/136/138 that is embedded in the plurality of second dielectric layers 132, wherein the second portion comprises a plurality of layers of second lines 134/138 (see, e.g., par.0027/ll.22-23) that are interconnected by a plurality of second vias 136; and
a plurality of third vias 140 (see, e.g., par.0035/ll.21) that interconnect the first portion to the second portion through the active device layer 102, wherein the metal body 123/122/120/134/136/138/124 extends vertically from the semiconductor substrate 125 to a top side of the structure
Wei shows most aspects of the instant invention. Wei, however, teaches that Wei’s structure comprises first, second, and third vias and fails to specify that Wei’s structure comprises first, second, and third via bars. Hung, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Wei, teaches via bars to be functional as conductive interconnection features in semiconductor structures, wherein Hung’s via bar structure vertically interconnects a plurality of metal layers akin to Wei’s structure (see, e.g., Hung: figs. 2-3 and col.3/ll.11-16). Furthermore, Yuan, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Wei, teaches both vias and via bars to be functional for use in structures including pluralities of dielectric layers, conductive layers, and an active device layer (see, e.g., Yuan: col.10/ll.54-65).
Hung and Yuan are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that first, second, and third vias would be equivalent to a first, second, and third via bars, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the structure of Wei. That is, the via features of both Wei and Hung would yield the predictable result of providing vertical conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically interconnecting with other conductive layers and features in a semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either first, second, and third via bars, as taught by Hung and discussed by Yuan, or first, second, and third vias, as taught by Wei, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing vertical conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically interconnecting with other conductive layers and features in a semiconductor device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that Wei’s third via bars 140 (see the comments stated above in paragraphs 41-44 regarding the via bars, which are considered to be repeated here), first lines 120/124, and second lines 134/138 may be disposed away from the center of Wei’s structure. Wei, however, fails to specify that the first lines, the second lines, the first via bars, the second via bars, and the third via bars collectively surround a perimeter of the structure.
Yuan, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Wei, teaches a structure having groups of first lines, second lines, first via bars, second via bars, and third via bars (e.g., grouped from 331L, 332L, 331V, 332V) collectively surrounding a perimeter of a structure, wherein Yuan teaches that such a disposition of lines and via bars facilitates and improves crack arrestation and stress mitigation in such a structure (see, e.g., Yuan: col.13/ll.56-63 and col.14/ll.4-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Wei’s first lines, second lines, first via bars, second via bars, and third via bars collectively surround a perimeter of Wei’s structure, as taught by Yuan, so as to facilitate and improve crack arrestation and stress mitigation in Wei’s structure.
Regarding claim 4, Wei shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 16 above). Wei, however, teaches that Wei’s vias of Wei’s plurality of vias are vias and fails to specify that Wei’s vias of the plurality of vias are via bars. Hung, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Wei, teaches via bars to be functional as conductive interconnection features in semiconductor structures, wherein Hung’s via bar structure vertically interconnects a plurality of metal layers akin to Wei’s structure (see, e.g., Hung: figs. 2-3 and col.3/ll.11-16). Furthermore, Yuan, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Wei, teaches both vias and via bars to be functional for use in structures including pluralities of dielectric layers, conductive layers, and an active device layer (see, e.g., Yuan: col.10/ll.54-65).
Hung and Yuan are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that having vias of a plurality of vias being via bars would be equivalent to having vias of a plurality of vias being vias, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the structure of Wei. That is, the via features of both Wei and Hung would yield the predictable result of providing vertical conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically interconnecting with other conductive layers and features in a semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either vias of a plurality of vias being via bars, as taught by Hung and discussed by Yuan, or vias of a plurality of vias being vias, as taught by Wei, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing vertical conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically interconnecting with other conductive layers and features in a semiconductor device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 25, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows a layer of structural dielectric 126 that is adjacent to the semiconductor substrate 125, wherein a bottom end of the first portion 123/122/120/124 is embedded into the layer of structural dielectric.
Regarding claim 26, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows active devices 110 that are embedded into the active device layer 102 among the plurality of third via bars 140. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 41-47 regarding the third “via bars”, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 29, Wei shows most aspects of the instant invention. Wei further shows that the first lines 120/124 of the plurality of layers of first lines and the plurality of first via bars 122/123 are interconnected in a first pattern, and the second lines 134/138 (see, e.g., par.0027/ll.22-23) of the plurality of layers of second lines 134/138 and the plurality of second via bars 136 are interconnected in a second pattern (see the comments stated above in paragraphs 41-47 regarding the first and second “via bars”, which are considered to be repeated here). Wei, however, fails to specify that the first and second patterns are, respectively, a first fishnet pattern and a second fishnet pattern. Yuan, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Wei, teaches that fishnet interconnection patterns for lines and via bars have improved strength and flexibility, allowing such patterns to effectively reduce thermal stresses incurred by features of a structure while simultaneously arresting the propagation of thermally-induced cracks or delaminations (see, e.g., figs. 2b-2c and col.11/ll.33-41 and 62-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Wei’s first and second patterns be first and second fishnet patterns, as taught by Yuan, so as to improve the strength and flexibility of Wei’s patterns, thereby allowing them to effectively reduce thermal stresses incurred by features of Wei’s structure while simultaneously arresting the propagation of thermally-induced cracks or delaminations.
Nevertheless, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having fishnet patterns, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the line/via bar interconnection shape disclosed by Wei/Hung/Yuan as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular line/via bar interconnection shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous line/via bar interconnection shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 29, Yuan (see, e.g., figs. 2b-2c, 3a, and 4a-4c and cols.10/ll.41-44, 11/44-47, 12/ll.36-40, 13/ll.11-15 and 54-63, and 14/ll.10-14) shows that the first lines (e.g., 331L) of the plurality of layers of first lines (e.g., 331L) and the plurality of first via bars (e.g., 331V) are interconnected in a first fishnet pattern, and the second lines (e.g., 332L) of the plurality of layers of second lines (e.g., 332L) and the plurality of second via bars (e.g., 332V) are interconnected in a second fishnet pattern.
Nevertheless, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having fishnet patterns, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the line/via bar interconnection shape disclosed by Wei/Hung/Yuan as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular line/via bar interconnection shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous line/via bar interconnection shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 4, 13, 19-24, 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi in view of Hung and Yuan.
Regarding claim 13, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A-1B) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including a structure comprising:
a semiconductor substrate 102 (see, e.g., par.0001/ll.1-3);
a plurality of first dielectric layers 112 at a top side of the semiconductor substrate (see, e.g., par.0031/ll.1-6);
an active device layer 106 at a top side of the plurality of first dielectric layers;
a plurality of second dielectric layers 122 at a top side of the active device layer (see, e.g., par.0032/ll.1-6); and
a metal body 114x/114y/114/124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 110/120, which comprises:
a first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110 that is embedded in the plurality of first dielectric layers 112, wherein the first portion comprises a plurality of layers of first lines 114x/(rectangular 114) that are interconnected by a plurality of first vias 114y;
a second portion 124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 120 that is embedded in the plurality of second dielectric layers 122, wherein the second portion comprises a plurality of layers of second lines 124a/(rectangular 124) that are interconnected by a plurality of second vias 124b/124x; and
a plurality of third vias 130 that interconnect the first portion to the second portion through the active device layer 106, wherein the metal body 114x/114y/114/124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 110/120 extends vertically from the semiconductor substrate 102 to a top side of the structure (not shown – described in par.0033/ll.12-15)
Majhi shows most aspects of the instant invention. Majhi, however, teaches that Majhi’s structure comprises first, second, and third vias and fails to specify that Majhi’s structure comprises first, second, and third via bars. Hung, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device Majhi, teaches via bars to be functional as conductive interconnection features in semiconductor structures, wherein Hung’s via bar structure vertically interconnects a plurality of metal layers akin to Majhi’s structure (see, e.g., Hung: figs. 2-3 and col.3/ll.11-16). Furthermore, Yuan, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Majhi, teaches both vias and via bars to be functional for use in structures including pluralities of dielectric layers, metal layers, and an active device layer (see, e.g., Yuan: col.10/ll.54-65).
Hung and Yuan are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that first, second, and third vias would be equivalent to a first, second, and third via bars, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the structure of Majhi. That is, the via features of both Majhi and Hung would yield the predictable result of providing vertical conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically interconnecting with other conductive layers and features in a semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either first, second, and third via bars, as taught by Hung and discussed by Yuan, or first, second, and third vias, as taught by Majhi, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing vertical conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically interconnecting with other conductive layers and features in a semiconductor device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that Majhi’s third via bars 130 (see the comments stated above in paragraphs 62-64 regarding the via bars, which are considered to be repeated here) and second lines 124a may be disposed at an outermost lateral side of Majhi’s active device layer/structure. Majhi, however, fails to specify that the first lines, the second lines, the first via bars, the second via bars, and the third via bars collectively surround a perimeter of the structure.
Yuan, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Majhi, teaches a structure having groups of first lines, second lines, first via bars, second via bars, and third via bars (e.g., grouped from 331L, 332L, 331V, 332V) collectively surrounding a perimeter of a structure, wherein Yuan teaches that such a disposition of lines and via bars facilitates and improves crack arrestation and stress mitigation in such a structure (see, e.g., Yuan: col.13/ll.56-63 and col.14/ll.4-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Majhi’s first lines, second lines, first via bars, second via bars, and third via bars collectively surround a perimeter of Majhi’s structure, as taught by Yuan, so as to facilitate and improve crack arrestation and stress mitigation in Majhi’s structure.
Regarding claim 4, Majhi shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 22 above). Majhi, however, teaches that Majhi’s vias of Majhi’s plurality of vias are vias and fails to specify that Majhi’s vias of the plurality of vias are via bars. Hung, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Majhi, teaches via bars to be functional as conductive interconnection features in semiconductor structures, wherein Hung’s via bar structure vertically interconnects a plurality of metal layers akin to Majhi’s structure (see, e.g., Hung: figs. 2-3 and col.3/ll.11-16). Furthermore, Yuan, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Majhi, teaches both vias and via bars to be functional for use in structures including pluralities of dielectric layers, conductive layers, and an active device layer (see, e.g., Yuan: col.10/ll.54-65).
Hung and Yuan are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that having vias of a plurality of vias being via bars would be equivalent to having vias of a plurality of vias being vias, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the structure of Majhi. That is, the via features of both Majhi and Hung would yield the predictable result of providing vertical conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically interconnecting with other conductive layers and features in a semiconductor device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either vias of a plurality of vias being via bars, as taught by Hung and discussed by Yuan, or vias of a plurality of vias being vias, as taught by Majhi, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing vertical conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically interconnecting with other conductive layers and features in a semiconductor device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 19, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that the metal body 114x/114y/114/124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 110/120 incorporates a bumper feature by which a layer (114x closest to 106) of the plurality of layers of first lines 114x/(rectangular 114) of the first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110 that is nearest to the active device layer 106 is laterally offset from other layers 114x/(rectangular 114) of the plurality of layers of first lines of the first portion.
It is noted that the specific claim limitation that the lateral offset recitation is a “bumper feature” is a property of Majhi/Hung/Yuan’s device.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, Majhi teaches the same first line lateral offset respective to the active device layer as recited in the claim, therefore, the layers will have the “bumper feature” property also recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A-1B) shows that the metal body 114x/114y/114/124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 110/120 incorporates a bumper feature by which a layer 124a of the plurality of layers of second lines 124a/(rectangular 124) of the second portion 124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 120 that is nearest to the active device layer 106 is laterally offset from other layers 124y/124 of the plurality of layers of second lines of the second portion.
It is noted that the specific claim limitation that the lateral offset recitation is a “bumper feature” is a property of Majhi/Hung/Yuan’s device.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, Majhi teaches the same second line lateral offset respective to the active device layer as recited in the claim, therefore, the layers will have the “bumper feature” property also recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that the metal body 114x/114y/114/124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 110/120 incorporates a bumper feature by which a layer (114x farthest from 106) of the plurality of layers of first lines 114x/(rectangular 114) that is nearest to the semiconductor substrate 102 is laterally offset from other layers of the plurality of layers of first lines of the first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110.
It is noted that the specific claim limitation that the lateral offset recitation is a “bumper feature” is a property of Majhi/Hung/Yuan’s device.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, Majhi teaches the same first line lateral offset respective to the semiconductor substrate as recited in the claim, therefore, the layers will have the “bumper feature” property also recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 22, Majhi (see, e.g., figs. 1A-1B) shows that the metal body 114x/114y/114/124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 110/120 incorporates bumper features by which respective layers (layers corresponding to 114x closest to 102 and 114x closest to 106) of the plurality of layers of first lines 114x/(rectangular 114) of the first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110 that are nearest to the active device layer 106 and nearest to the semiconductor substrate 102 are laterally offset from other layers (e.g., layers corresponding to rectangular 114 and middlemost 114x) of the plurality of layers of first lines of the first portion, and by which a layer (layer corresponding to 124a as is closest to 106) of the plurality of layers of second lines 124a/(rectangular 124) of the second portion 124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 120 that is nearest to the active device layer 106 is laterally offset from other layers (e.g., layers corresponding to 124y closest to 106 and small rectangular 124 closest to 106) of the plurality of layers of second lines of the second portion.
It is noted that the specific claim limitation that the lateral offset recitation is a “bumper feature” is a property of Majhi/Hung/Yuan’s device.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, Majhi teaches the same first and second line lateral offset respective to the active device layer and/or semiconductor substrate as recited in the claim, therefore, the layers will have the “bumper feature” property also recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 23, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that the bumper features are laterally offset towards an outer edge of the structure (see, e.g., fig. 1A, wherein the “other layers” of both the first and second portion exhibit the greatest lateral offset towards the X-direction facing sides of Majhi’s structure).
It is again noted that the specific claim limitation that the lateral offset recitation is a “bumper feature” is a property of Majhi/Hung/Yuan’s device.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the instant case, Majhi teaches the same first and second line lateral offset respective to the active device layer and/or semiconductor substrate as recited in the claim and parental claim, therefore, the layers will have the “bumper feature” property also recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 24, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A and par.0033/ll.12-15) teaches that a bottom end of the first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110 is embedded into the semiconductor substrate 102 (not shown – described in par.0033/ll.12-15).
Regarding claim 26, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows active devices 104 that are embedded into the active device layer 106 among the plurality of third via bars 130. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 62-67 regarding the third “via bars”, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 27, Majhi (see, e.g., fig. 1A) shows that the first portion 114x/114y/114 or 110 comprises a first group of features 114y that have smaller critical dimensions adjacent to the active device layer 106 and comprises additional groups of features (e.g., 114x/(rectangular 114)) that have increasingly larger critical dimensions towards the semiconductor substrate 102.
Nevertheless, differences in critical dimension (i.e., physical dimension) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are 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 applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed increasing critical dimension infrastructure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Majhi/Hung/Yuan.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed physical dimensions 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).
Regarding claim 28, Majhi (see, e.g., figs. 1A-1B) shows that the second portion 124x/124y/124a/124b/124 or 120 comprises a first group of features 124x or 124b that have smaller critical dimensions adjacent to the active device layer 106 and comprises additional groups of features (e.g., 124y and trapezoidal and/or rectangular features away from 124y and 106 in the -Z-direction)) that have increasingly larger critical dimensions away from the active device layer.
Nevertheless, differences in critical dimension (i.e., physical dimension) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such differences are 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 applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed increasing critical dimension infrastructure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Majhi/Hung/Yuan. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 93-96 regarding critical dimension criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 29, Majhi shows most aspects of the instant invention. Majhi further shows that the first lines 114x/(rectangular 114) of the plurality of layers of first lines 114x/(rectangular 114) and the plurality of first via bars 114y are interconnected in a first pattern, and the second lines 124a/(rectangular 124) of the plurality of layers of second lines 124a/(rectangular 124) and the plurality of second via bars 124b/124x are interconnected in a second pattern (see the comments stated above in paragraphs 61-67 regarding the first and second “via bars”, which are considered to be repeated here). Majhi, however, fails to specify that the first and second patterns are, respectively, a first fishnet pattern and a second fishnet pattern. Yuan, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Majhi, teaches that fishnet interconnection patterns for lines and via bars have improved strength and flexibility, allowing such patterns to effectively reduce thermal stresses incurred by features of a structure while simultaneously arresting the propagation of thermally-induced cracks or delaminations (see, e.g., figs. 2b-2c and col.11/ll.33-41 and 62-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Majhi’s first and second patterns be first and second fishnet patterns, as taught by Yuan, so as to improve the strength and flexibility of Majhi’s patterns, thereby allowing them to effectively reduce thermal stresses incurred by features of Majhi’s structure while simultaneously arresting the propagation of thermally-induced cracks or delaminations.
Nevertheless, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having fishnet patterns, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the line/via bar interconnection shape disclosed by Majhi/Hung/Yuan as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular line/via bar interconnection shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous line/via bar interconnection shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 29, Yuan (see, e.g., figs. 2b-2c, 3a, and 4a-4c and cols.10/ll.41-44, 11/44-47, 12/ll.36-40, 13/ll.11-15 and 54-63, and 14/ll.10-14) shows that the first lines (e.g., 331L) of the plurality of layers of first lines (e.g., 331L) and the plurality of first via bars (e.g., 331V) are interconnected in a first fishnet pattern, and the second lines (e.g., 332L) of the plurality of layers of second lines (e.g., 332L) and the plurality of second via bars (e.g., 332V) are interconnected in a second fishnet pattern.
Nevertheless, it is noted that the specification fails to provide teachings about the criticality of having fishnet patterns, as claimed in the instant application.
Therefore, absent any criticality, this limitation is only considered to be an obvious modification of the line/via bar interconnection shape disclosed by Majhi/Hung/Yuan as the courts have held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is within the level of skill in the art, and the particular line/via bar interconnection shape claimed by applicant is nothing more than one of numerous line/via bar interconnection shapes that a person having ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide using routine experimentation as a matter of choice or based on its suitability for the intended use of the invention. See In re Daily, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Shen (US 2022/0037268) and Kim (US 2017/0040253).
Regarding claim 9, Wei (see, e.g., paragraph 16 above) shows most aspects of the instant invention. Furthermore, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1 and pars.0012/ll.16-17 and 0026/ll.3-7) shows that the substrate 125 is at a top side of the structure, and that the metal body 123/122/120/134/136/138/124 is electrically grounded to the semiconductor substrate 125. Additionally, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1 and pars.0036/ll.25-28 and 0039/ll.8-10) teaches that ground pads (not shown – discussed in pars.0012/ll.9-14 and 20018/ll.17-19) may be included at this top side of the structure, wherein the metal body is electrically grounded through the ground pad. Wei, however, fails to specify that the metal body is electrically grounded to the ground pad.
Shen, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Wei, teaches ground pads positioned at a top side of structures to be effective at electrically grounding metal bodies included in such structures (see, e.g., Shen: fig. 29 and par.0073). Furthermore, Kim, also in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Wei, additionally teaches ground pads 102 positioned at a top side of substrates 100 to be effective at grounding conductive bodies in a semiconductor structure (see, e.g., Kim: fig. 8 and par.0123/ll.12-15).
Shen and Kim are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that having a metal body electrically grounded to a ground pad at a top side of structure would be equivalent to a metal body electrically grounded through a ground pad at a top or other side of a structure or another grounding mechanism, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the structure of Wei. That is, the grounding infrastructures of both Wei and Shen or Kim would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable grounding mechanism for conductive bodies in a semiconductor structure while positioned at a top side of the structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either a metal body electrically grounded to a ground pad at a top side of a structure, as taught by Shen and Kim, or a metal body electrically grounded through a ground pad at a top side or other side of a structure or another grounding mechanism, as taught by Wei, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable grounding mechanism for conductive bodies in a semiconductor structure while positioned at a top side of the structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Pawashe (US 2022/0415807).
Regarding claim 10, Wei (see, e.g., paragraph 16 above) shows most aspects of the instant invention. Furthermore, Wei (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that Wei’s structure includes a first layer (layer of metal body corresponding to two sets of 122/120 closest to 102) of first metal (see, e.g., par.0024/ll.1-3) and a first layer (layer of metal body corresponding to two sets of 134/136 closest to 102) of second metal (see, e.g., par.0027/ll.7-9). Wei, however, despite teaching that Wei’s structure includes such layers, fails to specify that the first layer of first metal is a first metal plate and that the first layer of second metal is a second metal plate. Pawashe, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Wei teaches a via 148 extending through an active device layer 106 to mechanically connect and interconnect with a first plate 114A of first metal in a first portion 102 of a structure 110A and a second plate 110A of second metal in a second portion 104 of the structure (see, e.g., Pawashe: fig. 1A).
Pawashe is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that first layers of first and second metal being, respectively, first and second metal plates would be equivalent to first layers of first and second metal being another conductive metal structure, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the integrated circuit structure of Wei. That is, the first layer structures of both Wei and Pawashe would yield the predictable result of providing a conductive pathway capable of electrically and mechanically interfacing with an active device layer and other portions of a semiconductor structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have either first layers of first and second metal be, respectively, first and second metal plates, as taught by Pawashe, or first layers of first and second metal being another conductive metal structure, as taught by Wei, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a conductive pathway capable of electrically and mechanically interfacing with an active device layer and other portions of a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shamita Hanumasagar at (703) 756-1521 and between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Shamita.Hanumasagar@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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 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.
/Shamita S. Hanumasagar/Examiner, Art Unit 2814
/WAEL M FAHMY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights