DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/238,646, attorney docket AD9667-US, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to Shanghai Huali Integrated Circuit Corp, and claims foreign priority to 202310146658.2, filed 02/21/2023 Claims 1-8 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
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 via connection and the transistor and gate recited in claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 3 recites “each of the leads and each of the metal lines are placed perpendicular to each other in the same plane” There is no support for leads that are perpendicular to each other. Examiner notes that the first lead maybe perpendicular to the first line in the key, or may be colinear.)
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 4 recites “at each winding point.” It is not clear what defines a winding point.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and include the same defect.
Claim 1 recites “a test key” it is not clear what defines a test key or if it is an intended use of a structure. The disclosure describes the function of the structure as a heat dissipation structure.([0016 and 0034]).
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and include the same defect.
Claim 4 recites, “downward suspending via structure” It is not clear if “suspending” is a limitation or the meets and bounds of “suspending.” “Downward” direction is a relative term not defined by the structure.
Claims 5-8 depend from claim 4 and include the same defect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 2 and 4-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Johnson (U.S. 2020/0388570).
As for claim 1,
Johnson teaches in figure 1 a bottom layer metal interconnection line structure (metal layers shown in figure 6), at least comprising:
a test key (60) and leads (10212/11/122) connected to the test key;
the test key being composed of a plurality of metal lines (sides of the octagon) connected end-to-end;
the plurality of metal lines being arranged in a same plane in a winding manner, wherein at least one suspending via structure is provided (Vias 422 are shown in figure 6 at winding points);
and two leads (61/62) are provided and respectively connected to ends of the metal lines located at a head end and a tail end in the test key.
As for claim 2,
Johnson teachers the bottom layer metal interconnection line structure according to claim 1,
wherein the plurality of metal lines have a same length (each ring is a regular octagon having substantially the same length sides); and the plurality of metal lines have a same width. (shown with a continuous regular width)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Cheng-Hsien et al. (U.S. 2024/0387362, parent filed 8/31/2021).
As for claim 3,
Johnson teachers the bottom layer metal interconnection line structure according to claim 1, but does not teach that each of the leads and each of the metal lines are placed perpendicular to each other in the same plane.
However, Cheng-Hsien teaches in figure 2, a winding structure with all segments perpendicular to the adjoining segments in a plane.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application form the winding structure in the shape of Cheng-Hsien since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Here the arrangement of segments would perform the same for the intended purpose. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 4,
Johnson teaches the bottom layer metal interconnection line structure according to claim 1, and teaches that at least one downward suspending via structure is provided at each winding point.(Vias 422 extend downward toward the substrate from the winding structure).
As for claim 5,
Johnson teaches the bottom layer metal interconnection line structure according to claim 4, and Johnson teaches that interlayer dielectric (425) fully fills between the downward suspending via structures.
As for claim 6.
Johnson teaches the bottom layer metal interconnection line structure according to claim 5, and teaches that the test key and the leads are covered with an intermetallic dielectric. (425).
Claims 7 and 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson.
As for claim 7,
Johnson teaches the bottom layer metal interconnection line structure according to claim 4,
And Johnson teaches that another end of the downward suspending via structure is connected to a gate of a device (extends to the transistor 470), but is silent on the longitudinal depth of the downward suspending via structure does not exceed a half of a depth of the gate of the device.
However, the thickness of the ILD and the resulting longitudinal depth of the downward suspending via structure is a result dependent variable that is adjusted to optimize dielectric insulation, parasitic capacitance with via length and the associated resistance and etching limitations. The optimization of the longitudinal depth of the downward suspending via structure would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. because the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art is it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
As for claim 8,
Johnson teaches the bottom layer metal interconnection line structure according to claim 5, and teaches that the intermetallic dielectric is covered with an upper layer metal (410) , but does not teach that a depth of the downward suspending via structure does not exceed a half of a depth of the upper layer metal.
However, the thickness of the ILD and the resulting longitudinal depth of the downward suspending via structure is a result dependent variable that is adjusted to optimize dielectric insulation, parasitic capacitance with via length and the associated resistance and etching limitations. The optimization of the longitudinal depth of the downward suspending via structure would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. because the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art is it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time.
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, Yara Green can be reached at 571-270-3035. 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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893