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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, lines 7-8 recite “each of the side portions of the first barrier layer is sandwiched and in direct contact between the air gap structure and the first barrier layer” which requires that the barrier layer be sandwiched between the air gap structure and the barrier layer. An object cannot be sandwiched between itself. This issue renders the claim indefinite.
Note that dependent claims necessarily inherit any indefiniteness from the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 11-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by BIELEFELD (US 20180226289).
Regarding claim 1, BIELEFELD discloses a semiconductor die structure, comprising:
a substrate (fig 1J, 101, para 34);
a first supporting backbone (the projecting portion of 102 to the left of the trench on which the left conductor 104 is disposed, see fig 1J, 102, para 36) disposed on the substrate;
a first conductor block (left conductor block 104 comprising the left parts of 105, 106 and 182, see fig 1B and 1J, para 39) disposed on the first supporting backbone, comprising:
a first barrier layer (the base layer 105, see fig 1B and 1J, para 39); and
a first conductive layer (the conductive layer 106 that is surrounded by 105, see fig 1A and 1J, para 39), disposed in the first barrier layer; and
an air gap structure (the air gap structure comprising 118 and 171, see fig 1J, para 46 and 57) disposed on the substrate and in contact with the first supporting backbone and the first conductive layer of the first conductor block (118 is in at least indirect contact with the left projecting portion of 102 and 105, see fig 1A and 1J),
wherein the first supporting backbone is positioned between the substrate and the first conductor block (the left protruding part of 102 is between the substrate 101 and the left conductor 104, see fig 1J);
wherein the first supporting backbone is enclosed by the substrate, the first conductor block, and the air gap structure (the left protrusion of 102 is surrounded by 118, 104 and 101, see fig 1J);
wherein a width of the first supporting backbone is equal to a width of the first conductor block (the width of the left protrusion of 102 is the same as the width of the left conductor 104, since their sidewalls line up, see fig 1J);
wherein the first conductor block has a bottom portion extended from the first supporting backbone and surrounded by the air gap structure (the bottom portion of 104/182 is surrounded by 118 and 171, see fig 1J), and a top portion protruded out of a top surface of the air gap structure (the top portion 182 of the first conductor extends through and above the top surface of 118 and 171, see fig 1J).
Regarding claim 2, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 1, wherein the first barrier layer has U-shaped cross sectional profile defining a bottom portion and two side portions (the left barrier layer 105 has a U-shape with a bottom and two vertical sides, see fig 1A and 1J),
wherein the bottom portion is in contact with the first supporting backbone (the bottom portion of 105 is in direct contact with 102, see fig 1A and 1J) and connects one of the side portions to another one of the side portions (the bottom part of 105 connects the two vertical side portions of 105, see fig 1A and 1J),
wherein a width of the bottom portion of the first barrier layer is equal to a width of the first supporting backbone (the width of the bottom portion of 105 is the same as the width of the left projecting portion of 102, see fig 1A and 1J);
wherein each of the side portions of the first barrier layer is sandwiched and in direct contact between the air gap structure and the first barrier layer (the vertical side portions of 105 are in direct contact with the bottom portions of 105 and with 118 of the air gap structure, and a line can be drawn between the bottom part of 105 and 118 that passes through the sides of 105, see fig 1J).
Regarding claim 3, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 2, wherein a first thickness of the bottom portion is greater than a second thickness of the side portions (the bottom portion of 105 has a larger thickness in the horizontal direction than the side portions of 105, see fig 1A and 1J).
Regarding claim 8, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 2, further comprising:
a second supporting backbone (the right projecting portion of 102 on which 105 and 106 of contact 103 are disposed, see fig 1B and 1J, para 39) disposed on the substrate; and
a second conductor block disposed on the second supporting backbone (the right conductor block 103 comprising 105, 106, and 193, see fig 1B and 1J, para 39 and 63),
wherein the air gap structure is disposed between the first conductor block and the second conductor block (171 is between 104 and 103, see fig 1J),
wherein the second supporting backbone is positioned between the substrate and the second conductor block (the right projection 102 is between 103 and 101, see fig 1J);
wherein the second supporting backbone is enclosed by the substrate, the second conductor block, and the air gap structure (the right protrusion of 102 is surrounded by 118, 103 and 101, see fig 1J);
wherein a width of the second supporting backbone is equal to a width of the second conductor block (the width of the right protrusion of 102 is the same as the width of 103, see fig 1J);
wherein the second conductor block has a second bottom portion extended from the second supporting backbone and surrounded by the air gap structure, and a second top portion protruded out of the top surface of the air gap structure (the right conductor extends from 102 to higher than 171, see fig 1J).
Regarding claim 11, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 8, wherein the second conductor block comprising:
a second barrier layer (the base layer 105, see fig 1B and 1J, para 39); and
a second conductive layer (the conductive layer 106 that is surrounded by 105, see fig 1A and 1J, para 39), disposed in the second barrier layer.
Regarding claim 12, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 11, wherein the second barrier layer has U-shaped cross sectional profile defining a bottom portion and two side portions (the right barrier layer 105 has a U-shape with a bottom and two vertical sides, see fig 1A and 1J),
wherein a width of the bottom portion of the second barrier layer is equal to the width of the second supporting backbone (the width of the bottom portion of 105 is the same as the width of the left projecting portion of 102, see fig 1A and 1J);
wherein the bottom portion of the second barrier layer is in contact with the second supporting backbone (the bottom portion of 105 is in direct contact with 102, see fig 1A and 1J) and connects one of the side portions of the second barrier layer to another one of the side portions of the second barrier layer (the bottom part of 105 connects the two vertical side portions of 105, see fig 1A and 1J).
Regarding claim 13, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 12, wherein a third thickness of the bottom portion of the second barrier layer is greater than a fourth thickness of the side portions of the second barrier layer (the bottom portion of 105 has a larger thickness in the horizontal direction than the side portions of 105, see fig 1A and 1J).
Regarding claim 17, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 1, wherein the air gap structure comprises: an air gap (air gap 171, see fig 1J, para 57); and a liner layer (118 which surrounds 171, see fig 1J, para 46) enclosing the air gap,
wherein the top portion of the first conductor block is protruded out of a top surface of the liner layer of the air gap structure (the top portion 182 of the left conductor extends through and above the top surface of 118 and 171, see fig 1J).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIELEFELD (US 20180226289) in view of FAN (US 20210335653) and BARK (US 20180261546).
Regarding claim 4, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 2.
BIELEFELD fails to explicitly disclose a device, further comprising:
a first metal silicide, disposed over the first conductor block,
wherein the first metal silicide is in direct contact with the first conductive layer and the side portions of the first barrier layer at a top surface thereof,
wherein a width of the first metal silicide is equal to the width of the first supporting backbone.
FAN teaches a device comprising a first metal silicide (the metal silicide 120D over 119, see fig 18, para 75), disposed over the first conductor block (fig 18, 119, para 72),
wherein a width of the first metal silicide (metal silicide 120D over 119, see fig 18, para 75) is equal to the width of the first supporting backbone (120D has the same width as the first supporting backbone 119, see fig 18, para 72).
BIELEFELD and FAN are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the silicide of FAN because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the silicide of FAN in order to improve device performance (see FAN para 90).
BIELEFELD and FAN fail to explicitly disclose a device wherein the first metal silicide is in direct contact with the first conductive layer and the side portions of the first barrier layer at a top surface thereof.
BARK teaches a device wherein the first metal silicide is in direct contact with the first conductive layer and the side portions of the first barrier layer at a top surface thereof (234A and 236A are directly on top surfaces of 136 and 134, see fig 10, para 88-89).
BIELEFELD, FAN and BARK are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD and FAN with the silicide and barrier contact of BARK because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD and FAN with the silicide and barrier contact of BARK in order to suppress an increase in the leakage current (see BARK para 46).
Regarding claim 5, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD, FAN and BARK discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 4.
BIELEFELD and FAN fail to explicitly disclose a device, wherein the first metal silicide comprises cobalt (Co), copper (Cu), ruthenium (Ru), cobalt monosilicide (CoSi), or nickel mono-silicide (NiSi).
BARK teaches a device, wherein the first metal silicide comprises cobalt (Co), copper (Cu) (236A can be CoSi, see fig 10, para 89), ruthenium (Ru), cobalt monosilicide (CoSi), or nickel mono-silicide (NiSi).
BIELEFELD, FAN and BARK are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD and FAN with the silicide and barrier contact of BARK because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD and FAN with the silicide and barrier contact of BARK in order to suppress an increase in the leakage current (see BARK para 46).
Regarding claim 6, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD, FAN and BARK discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 4.
BIELEFELD and BARK fail to explicitly disclose a device, further comprising:
a first hard mask, disposed over the first metal silicide, wherein a width of the first hard mask is equal to the width of the first metal silicide.
FAN teaches a device, further comprising:
a first hard mask (hard mask 121 over 120D over 119, see fig 18, para 76), disposed over the first metal silicide, wherein a width of the first hard mask is equal to the width of the first metal silicide (the width of 121 is the same as 120D, see fig 18).
BIELEFELD and FAN are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the hard mask of FAN because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the hard mask of FAN in order to improve device performance (see FAN para 90).
Regarding claim 7, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD, FAN and BARK discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 6.
BIELEFELD and PARK fail to explicitly disclose a device , further comprising:
a capping dielectric layer, disposed over the air gap structure, wherein the capping dielectric layer surrounds the top portion of the first conductor block and the first hard mask.
FAN teaches a device, further comprising:
a capping dielectric layer (fig 18-19, 125, para 78), disposed over the air gap structure (125 is over the air gap 130, see fig 19, see fig 18-19, para 82), wherein the capping dielectric layer surrounds the top portion of the first conductor block and the first hard mask (125 surrounds 121 and 120, see fig 18-19).
BIELEFELD and FAN are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the capping dielectric of FAN because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the capping dielectric of FAN in order to improve device performance (see FAN para 90).
Regarding claim 14, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 12.
BIELEFELD fails to explicitly disclose a device, further comprising:
a second metal silicide, disposed over the second conductor block,
wherein the second metal silicide is in contact with the second conductive layer and the side portions of the second barrier layer;
wherein a width of the second metal silicide is equal to the width of the second supporting backbone.
FAN teaches a device comprising a second metal silicide (the metal silicide 113D over 111, see fig 18, para 67), disposed over the second conductor block (111, see fig 8, para 63),
wherein a width of the second metal silicide is equal to the width of the second supporting backbone (113D is the same width as 111, see fig 18).
BIELEFELD and FAN are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the silicide of FAN because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the silicide of FAN in order to improve device performance (see FAN para 90).
BIELEFELD and FAN fail to explicitly disclose a device wherein the second metal silicide is in contact with the second conductive layer and the side portions of the second barrier layer.
BAKR teaches a device wherein the second metal silicide is in contact with the second conductive layer and the side portions of the second barrier layer (234A and 236A are directly on top surfaces of 136 and 134, see fig 10, para 88-89);
BIELEFELD, FAN and BARK are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD and FAN with the silicide and barrier contact of BARK because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD and FAN with the silicide and barrier contact of BARK in order to suppress an increase in the leakage current (see BARK para 46).
Regarding claim 15, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD, FAN and BARK discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 14.
BIELEFELD and BARK fail to explicitly disclose a device, further comprising: a second hard mask, disposed over the second metal silicide,
wherein a width of the first hard mask is equal to the width of the first metal silicide.
FAN teaches a device, further comprising: a second hard mask (hard mask 115 over 111, see fig 18, para 68), disposed over the second metal silicide,
wherein a width of the first hard mask is equal to the width of the first metal silicide (115 is the same width as 113D, see fig 18).
BIELEFELD, FAN and BARK are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD and FAN with the silicide and barrier contact of BARK because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD and FAN with the silicide and barrier contact of BARK in order to suppress an increase in the leakage current (see BARK para 46).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIELEFELD (US 20180226289) in view of FAN (US 20210225653).
Regarding claim 9, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 8.
BIELEFELD fails to explicitly disclose a device, further comprising:
a third conductor block disposed on the substrate; and
a fourth conductor block disposed on the substrate,
wherein the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are disposed between the first conductor block and the second conductor block,
wherein the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are not in contact with the first supporting backbone and the second supporting backbone;
wherein bottom portions of the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are surrounded by the air gap structure;
wherein bottom surfaces of the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are in direct contact with the air gap structure.
FAN teaches a device, further comprising:
a third conductor block disposed on the substrate (the conductor block 113C to the right of 119, see fig 18, para 67); and
a fourth conductor block (conductor 120 to the left of 111, see fig 18, para 73) disposed on the substrate,
wherein the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are disposed between the first conductor block and the second conductor block (the middle 113C and 120 are between the first conductor block 120 over 119 and the second conductor block 113C over 111, see fig 18, para 73 and 67),
wherein the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are not in contact with the first supporting backbone and the second supporting backbone (the middle conductors 113C and 120 are not in direct contact with the first supporting backbone 119 or the second conductor backbone 111, see fig 18, para 63 and 72);
wherein bottom portions of the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are surrounded by the air gap structure (bottom portions of 113C and 120 are surrounded by 123 which is turned into air gap 130, see fig 18-19, para 82);
wherein bottom surfaces of the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are in direct contact with the air gap structure (bottom portions of 113C and 120 are in direct contact with 123 which is turned into air gap 130, see fig 18-19, para 82).
BIELEFELD and FAN are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the additional conductor blocks of FAN because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the additional conductor blocks of FAN in order to improve device performance (see FAN para 90).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIELEFELD (US 20180226289) in view of FAN (US 20210335653) and CHENG (US 11658062).
Regarding claim 10, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 9.
BIELEFELD fails to explicitly disclose a device, wherein the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are spaced apart from the substrate by the air gap structure,
wherein top portions of the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are protruded out of the top surface of the air gap structure,
wherein the first conductor block, the second conductor block, the third conductor block, and the fourth conductor block are equal in width.
FAN teaches a device, wherein the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are spaced apart from the substrate by the air gap structure (113C and 120 are separated from substrate 101 by 123 which is turned into air gap 130, see fig 18-19, para 82 and 57),
wherein top portions of the third conductor block and the fourth conductor block are protruded out of the top surface of the air gap structure (113C and 120 protrude from the top of 123 which is turned into air gap 130, see fig 18-19, para 82).
BIELEFELD and FAN are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the additional conductor blocks of FAN because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the additional conductor blocks of FAN in order to improve device performance (see FAN para 90).
BIELEFELD and FAN fail to explicitly disclose a device wherein the first conductor block, the second conductor block, the third conductor block, and the fourth conductor block are equal in width.
CHENG teaches a device wherein the first conductor block, the second conductor block, the third conductor block, and the fourth conductor block are equal in width (the lines 151-1 to 4 have a width W, see fig 1A, para 37).
BIELEFELD, FAN and CHENG are analogous art because they both are directed towards interconnects for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the uniform widths of CHENG because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the uniform widths of CHENG in order to improve reliability (see CHENG para 31).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BIELEFELD (US 20180226289) in view of BIELEFELD ‘748 (US 20080073748).
Regarding claim 16, BIELEFELD discloses the semiconductor die structure of claim 1.
BIELEFELD fails to explicitly disclose a device, wherein the first supporting backbone comprises tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, silicon mononitride (SiN), silicon carbide (SiC), or silicon carbonitride (SiCN).
BIELEFELD ‘748 teaches a device , wherein the first supporting backbone comprises tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, silicon mononitride (SiN), silicon carbide (SiC) (108 can be SiC, see fig 1, para 20), or silicon carbonitride (SiCN).
BIELEFELD and BIELEFELD '748 are analogous art because they both are directed towards electrode structures for semiconductor devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the material of BIELEFELD '748 because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of BIELEFELD with the material of BIELEFELD '748 in order to diminish RC delay (see BIELEFELD para 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that BIELEFELD fails to disclose a device comprising “ an air gap structure disposed on the substrate and in contact with the first supporting backbone and the first conductive layer of the first conductor block” because BIELEFELD does not disclose an air gap structure in contact with the first conductive layer. This argument is unpersuasive because the claim does not require direct contact. BIELEFELD discloses, in fig 1J, a device wherein the air gap structure comprising 118 and 171 is in at least indirect contact with the first conductive layer (the conductive fill layer 106, see fig 1A and 1J, para 39).
The applicant also argues that BIELEFELD does not disclose a device “wherein the first supporting backbone is enclosed by the substrate, the first conductor block, and the air gap structure”. The applicant then argues that this is the case because “the dielectric layer 102 as taught by Bielefeld is enclose b the substrate 101, the conductive feature 104, and the air gap 171”, which seems to be arguing that the supporting backbone 102 is, in fact enclosed by the substrate 101, the first conductor block 104 and the air gap structure 118 and 171 which is what the claim requires. The argument is unpersuasive because BIELEFELD discloses, in fig 1J, a device wherein the left protrusion of 102 (the supporting backbone) is surrounded by 118, 104 and 101.
The applicant also argues that BIELEFELD does not disclose a device wherein “a width of the first supporting backbone is equal to a width of the first conductor block”. This argument is unpersuasive because BIELEFELD discloses a device wherein the width of the left protrusion of 102 is the same as the width of the left conductor 104, since their sidewalls line up (see fig 1J).
The applicant also argues that BIELEFELD does not disclose a device comprising “the first conductor block has a bottom portion … surrounded by the air gap structure”. This argument is unpersuasive because the bottom portion of 104/182 is surrounded by 118 and 171 (see fig 1J).
Regarding claim 2, the applicant argues that BIELEFELD does not disclose a device “wherein each of the side portions of the first barrier layer is sandwiched and in direct contact between the air gap structure and the first barrier layer” because the barrier layer 105 is not in direct contact with 171. This argument is unpersuasive because the claim does not require that the barrier be in direct contact with the air gap, but the air gap structure, which can include the air gap 171 and the liner layer 118. 105 is, in fact, in direct contact with 118 (see fig 1C and 1J).
Regarding claim 8, the applicant also argues that BIELEFELD does not disclose a device “wherein the second supporting backbone is enclosed by the substrate, the second conductor block, and the air gap structure”. The applicant then argues that this is the case because “the dielectric layer 102 as taught by Bielefeld is enclose b the substrate 101, the conductive feature 103, and the air gap 171”, which seems to be arguing that the supporting backbone 102 is, in fact enclosed by the substrate 101, the second conductor block 103 and the air gap structure 118 and 171 which is what the claim requires. The argument is unpersuasive because BIELEFELD discloses, in fig 1J, a device wherein the right protrusion of 102 (the second supporting backbone) is surrounded by 118, 103 and 101.
The applicant also argues that BIELEFELD does not disclose a device wherein “a width of the second supporting backbone is equal to a width of the second conductor block”. This argument is unpersuasive because BIELEFELD discloses a device wherein the width of the right protrusion of 102 is the same as the width of the right conductor 103, since their sidewalls line up (see fig 1J).
The applicant also argues that BIELEFELD does not disclose a device comprising “the second conductor block has a bottom portion … surrounded by the air gap structure”. This argument is unpersuasive because the bottom portion of 103/183 is surrounded by 118 and 171 (see fig 1J).
Regarding claim 13, the applicant argues that BIELEFELD does not disclose “a third thickness of the bottom portion of the second barrier layer is greater than a fourth thickness of the side portions of the second barrier layer”. This argument is unpersuasive because the claim does not specify which direction the thickness is taken in. BIELEFELD discloses, in fig 1J, a device wherein the bottom portion of 105 has a larger thickness in the horizontal direction than the thicknesses of the side portions of 105 in the horizontal direction (see fig 1J).
Regarding claim 17, the applicant argues that BIELEFELD does not disclose “wherein the air gap structure comprises: an air gap; and a liner layer enclosing the air gap” because 118 is not the only layer that encloses 171. This argument is not persuasive because the claim does not require that 118 be the only layer enclosing 171.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6-7, 9-10 and 14-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONAS TYLER BEARDSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3227. The examiner can normally be reached 930-600 M-F.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/JONAS T BEARDSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2811
/SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights