Attorney Docket Number: P20221575US00
Filing Date: 04/19/2023
Claimed Priority Date: 11/09/2022 (claims benefit of PRO 63/382,937)
Inventors: Chuang et al.
Examiner: Shamita S. Hanumasagar
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the election filed on 01/26/2026.
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 without traverse of Invention I, reading on a semiconductor device, and the species of the semiconductor die package reading on figure 2 and the first through eighth process implementations, in the reply filed on 01/26/2026, is acknowledged. The applicant has cancelled claims 8-16 and indicated that previously-presented claims 1-7 and 17-20 and newly-added claims 21-29 read on the elected species. The examiner agrees. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 1-7 and 17-29.
Claims Rejections
Initially, and with respect to claim 23, note that a “product by process” claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made. See In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) and the related case law cited therein which makes it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a “product by process” claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in “product by process” claims or not. As stated in Thorpe,
even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969); Buono v. Yankee Maid Dress Corp., 77 F.2d 274, 279, 26 USPQ 57, 61 (2d. Cir. 1935).
Note that the applicants have the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
As to the grounds of rejection under section 103, see MPEP § 2113, which discusses the handling of “product by process” claims and recommends the alternative (§ 102/ § 103) grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 20-29 are 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 20 recites the limitation that “a top surface of a copper pad, of the one or more copper pads, is exposed through a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers” before reciting the limitation “wherein a first width of the recess through the polymer layer is greater relative to a second width of the recess through the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers”. The language of the claim does not clearly identify whether the limitation “a top surface of a copper pad, of the one or more copper pads, is exposed through a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers” is intended to mean that a top surface of a copper pad, of the one or more copper pads, is only in a polymer layer or whether a recess is intended to be included in a newly-recited polymer layer as well as in the previously-recited second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers. That is, it is unclear whether the phrase “and in” in the limitation “and in a polymer layer” is intended to refer to (a) a top surface of a copper pad of the one or more copper pads (i.e., wherein a top surface of a copper pad, of the one or more copper pads, is (1) exposed through a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and (2) in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers) or (b) a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers (i.e., wherein a top surface of a copper pad, of the one or more copper pads is exposed through a recess (1) in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and (2) in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers). Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite. For the express purposes of examination, this limitation is read as “a top surface of a copper pad, of the one or more copper pads” is in a polymer layer (i.e., wherein a top surface of a copper pad, of the one or more copper pads is (1) exposed through a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and (2) in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers). Claim 20 previously sufficiently recites a recess only for the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers, and thereby fails to sufficiently recite that a recess exists through the polymer layer. Subsequently, no “the recess through the polymer layer” has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim or in any parental claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “such that the one or more conductive terminals are exposed through the second subset of the one or more plurality of dielectric layers”. The claim only previously recites a single “plurality of dielectric layers”. Subsequently, no “one or more plurality of dielectric layers” has been previously sufficiently recited in the claim. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 29 recites the limitation that “a top surface of a conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals, is exposed through a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers”. The language of the claim does not clearly identify whether the limitation “a top surface of a conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals, is exposed through a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers” is intended to mean that a top surface of a conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals, is only in a polymer layer or whether a recess is intended to be included in a newly-recited polymer layer as well as in the previously-recited second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers. That is, it is unclear whether the phrase “and in” in the limitation “and in a polymer layer” is intended to refer to (a) a top surface of a conductive terminal of the one or more conductive terminals (i.e., wherein a top surface of a conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals, is (1) exposed through a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and (2) in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers) or (b) a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers (i.e., wherein a top surface of a conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals is exposed through a recess (1) in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and (2) in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers). Accordingly, this limitation in the claim is indefinite. For the express purposes of examination, this limitation is read as “a top surface of a conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals” is in a polymer layer (i.e., wherein a top surface of a conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals is (1) exposed through a recess in the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers and (2) in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers).
Claims 22-29 depend from claim 21 and thus inherit the deficiencies identified supra.
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.
Claims 1-2, 17, 21-22, 24-25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2022/0271014).
Regarding claim 1, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor structure 10 comprising:
a first semiconductor die 110;
a second semiconductor die 120 bonded with the first semiconductor die such that the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die are vertically arranged in the semiconductor structure (see, e.g., pars.0051/ll.1-3 and 0052/ll.1-3);
a top metal region 152a/154 over the second semiconductor die;
one or more dielectric layers 1622 or 1621/1622 over the top metal region; and
one or more copper (Cu) pads 1641b formed in the one or more dielectric layers (see, e.g., par.0047/ll.6)
Regarding claim 17, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor structure 10 comprising:
a semiconductor die 110 comprising a first set of contacts 1182;
a second semiconductor die 120 comprising a second set of contacts 1282, wherein the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die are bonded at the first set of contacts and the second set of contacts such that the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die are vertically arranged in the semiconductor structure (see, e.g., par.0052/ll.1-3);
a top metal region 152a/154 over the second semiconductor die and on an opposing side of the semiconductor die as the second set of contacts;
a plurality of dielectric layers 1621/1622 over the top metal region; and
one or more copper (Cu) pads 1641b (see, e.g., par.0047/ll.6) included in a first subset 1621 of the plurality of dielectric layers, wherein a second subset 1622 of the plurality of dielectric layers are above top surfaces of the one or more copper pads such that the one or more copper pads are exposed through the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers
Regarding claim 21, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor structure 10 comprising:
a first semiconductor die 110;
a second semiconductor die 120, wherein the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die are vertically arranged in the semiconductor structure;
a top metal region 152a/154 over the second semiconductor die;
a plurality of dielectric layers 1621/1622 over the top metal region; and
one or more conductive terminals 1641b included in a first subset 1621 of the plurality of dielectric layers, wherein a second subset 1622 of the plurality of dielectric layers are above top surfaces of the one or more conductive terminals such that the one or more conductive terminals are exposed through the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers
With regards to other language recited in claim 21, see the comments stated above in paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 2, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) shows wherein that:
the one or more dielectric layers 1622 or 1621/1622 extend above top surfaces of the one or more copper pads 1641b such that the one or more copper pads are included in one or more recesses in the one or more dielectric layers; and
the semiconductor structure 10 comprises a barrier layer 1641a between the one or more copper pads and the one or more dielectric layers
Regarding claim 22, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and par.0047/ll.6) shows that the one or more conductive terminals 1641b include one or more copper (Cu) pads.
Regarding claim 24, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and par.0052/ll.1-3) shows that the first semiconductor die 110 is bonded to the second semiconductor die 120.
Regarding claim 25, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) shows a respective barrier layer 1641a between each of the one or more conductive terminals 1641b and the first subset 1621 of the plurality of dielectric layers 1621/1622.
Regarding claim 28, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) shows that the plurality of dielectric layers 1621/1622 extend above top surfaces of the one or more conductive terminals 1641b such that the one or more conductive terminals are included in one or more recesses in the plurality of dielectric layers.
Claims 21, 24, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng (US 2014/0167253).
Regarding claim 21, Tseng (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows all aspects of the instant invention, including a semiconductor structure 100 comprising:
a first semiconductor die 110 (see, e.g., par.0025/ll.8);
a second semiconductor die 120, wherein the first semiconductor die and the second semiconductor die are vertically arranged in the semiconductor structure;
a top metal region 122 over the second semiconductor die;
a plurality of dielectric layers 124/126 (see also, e.g., par.0020/ll.11, wherein Tseng states that the dielectric layers 124/126 may comprise multiple layers); and
one or more conductive terminals 130 included in a first subset 126 of the plurality of dielectric layers, wherein a second subset 124 or 126 (see also, e.g., par.0020/ll.11, wherein Tseng states that the dielectric layers 124/126 may comprise multiple layers) of the plurality of dielectric layers are above top surfaces (e.g., surface of 130 closest to 120) of the one or more conductive terminals such that the one or more conductive terminals are exposed through the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers
With regards to other language recited in claim 21, see the comments stated above in paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 24, Tseng (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that the first semiconductor die 110 is bonded to the second semiconductor die 120.
Regarding claim 29, Tseng (see, e.g., fig. 1) shows that a top surface (e.g., surface of 130 closest to 120) of a conductive terminal 130, of the one or more conductive terminals 130, is exposed through a recess in the second subset 124 or 126 (see also, e.g., par.0020/ll.11, wherein Tseng states that the dielectric layers 124/126 may comprise multiple layers) of the plurality of dielectric layers 124/126 and in a polymer layer 128 over the plurality of dielectric layers.
With particular regard to the language of claim 29, see the comments stated above in paragraph 10.
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 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen or Chen in view of Chen II (US 2017/0005035).
Regarding claim 23, Chen shows that the one or more conductive terminals 1641b are structures (see, e.g., fig. 1G and par.0046).
Accordingly, it is noted that Chen shows all structural aspects of the semiconductor structure according to the claimed invention (see paragraphs 16-17 above), and the “dual damascene” method steps required such that the one or more conductive terminals are “dual damascene” structures are intermediate steps that do not affect the structure of the final device.
Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., pars.0088 and 0091) teaches that dual damascene methodologies and structures are compatible with Chen’s device, and that various process and structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention. Additionally, Chen II, in a similar device to Chen and in the same field of endeavor, teaches dual damascene conductive terminals formed by dual damascene processes to be one of several valid options for conductive terminals (see, e.g., Chen II: par.0018). Chen II further teaches that such dual damascene structures and methodologies are interchangeable with and equivalent to conductive terminal structures formed by a plethora of various other conductive-terminal-forming processes (see, e.g., Chen II: par.0018).
Chen II is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a dual damascene conductive terminal structure would be equivalent to a conductive terminal structure formed by any other method, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Chen. That is, the conductive terminal structures of both Chen and Chen II would yield the predictable result of providing suitable conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically connecting various layers 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 dual damascene conductive terminal structures, as explicitly taught by Chen II and implicitly taught by Chen, or a conductive terminal structure formed by another methodology, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing suitable conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically connecting various layers of a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tseng or Tseng in view of Chen II.
Regarding claim 23, Tseng shows that the one or more conductive terminals 130 are structures (see, e.g., fig. 1).
Accordingly, it is noted that Tseng shows all structural aspects of the semiconductor device according to the claimed invention (see paragraphs 24-25 above), and that the “dual damascene” method steps required such that the one or more conductive terminals are “dual damascene” structures are intermediate steps that do not affect the structure of the final device.
Furthermore, Chen II, in a similar device to Tseng and in the same field of endeavor, teaches dual damascene conductive terminals formed by dual damascene processes to be one of several valid options for conductive terminals (see, e.g., Chen II: par.0018). Chen II further teaches that such dual damascene structures and methodologies are interchangeable with and equivalent to conductive terminal structures formed by a plethora of various other conductive-terminal-forming processes (see, e.g., Chen II: par.0018).
Chen II is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a dual damascene conductive terminal structure would be equivalent to a conductive terminal structure formed by any other method, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Tseng. That is, the conductive terminal structures of both Tseng and Chen II would yield the predictable result of providing suitable conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically connecting various layers 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 dual damascene conductive terminal structures, as taught by Chen II, or a conductive terminal structure formed by another methodology, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing suitable conductive pathways capable of mechanically and electrically connecting various layers of a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 3 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen in view of Calcutt (Calcutt, V. (2001, August). Introduction to Copper: Types of Copper. Copper Applications in Metallurgy of Copper & Copper Alloys.) and Tuck (Tuck, C. D. S., Powell, C. A., & Nuttall, J. (2016, December). Corrosion of Copper and Its Alloys. In Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering. Elsevier.).
Regarding claim 3, Chen shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 14 above). Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and pars.0045/ll.27-28 and 0047/ll.6) shows that a copper pad 1641b, of the one or more copper pads 1641b, comprises:
a tapered portion; and
an approximately straight-walled portion over the tapered portion;
wherein:
the copper pad 1641b includes copper (see, e.g., par.0047/ll.6)
Although Chen teaches that Chen’s copper pad includes copper, Chen fails to specify an exact concentration for this copper, including that the copper pad includes at least 50% copper. Calcutt (see, e.g., Calcutt: pg.1/pars.4-5) teaches that copper concentrations of at least 50% copper (e.g., 99.99% copper) facilitate welding and brazing, exhibit exceptional electrical conductivity, and improve fabricability. Furthermore, Tuck (see, e.g., Tuck: pg.2/pars.4-6) teaches that certain copper concentrations of at least 50% copper (e.g., 99.99% copper) can facilitate fabrication and constitute the highest electrical conductivity commercially available.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the material of Chen’s copper pads include at least 50% copper, as taught by Calcutt and Tuck, so as to advantageously facilitate welding and brazing, improve fabricability, and provide exceptionally high electrical conductivity in Chen’s device.
Nevertheless, differences in concentration 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). Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed concentration produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed concentration limitation, i.e., at least 50% copper, does not render the claimed subject matter non-obvious.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph below) of the claimed concentration, i.e., at least 50% copper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Chen or Chen/Calcutt/Tuck.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed concentration 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 26, Chen shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 16-17 above). Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and 0047/ll.6) further teaches that the one or more conductive terminals 1641b include copper. Chen, however, fails to specify an exact concentration for this copper, including that the one or more conductive terminals include more than fifty percent concentration of copper. Calcutt (see, e.g., Calcutt: pg.1/pars.4-5) teaches that copper concentrations of more than fifty percent copper (e.g., 99.99% copper) facilitate welding and brazing, exhibit exceptional electrical conductivity, and improve fabricability. Furthermore, Tuck (see, e.g., Tuck: pg.2/pars.4-6) teaches that certain copper concentrations of more than fifty percent copper (e.g., 99.99% copper) can facilitate fabrication and constitute the highest electrical conductivity commercially available.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the material of Chen’s one or more conductive terminals, previously taught by Chen to comprise copper, include more than 50 percent concentration of copper (Cu), as taught by Calcutt and Tuck, so as to advantageously facilitate welding and brazing, improve fabricability, and provide exceptionally high electrical conductivity in Chen’s device.
Nevertheless, differences in concentration 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). Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed concentration produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed concentration limitation, i.e., more than fifty percent copper, does not render the claimed subject matter non-obvious. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentration, i.e., more than fifty percent copper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Chen or Chen/Calcutt/Tuck. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 43-48 with respect to claim 3 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Regarding claim 27, Chen shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 16-17 above). Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and 0047/ll.6) further teaches that the one or more conductive terminals 1641b include copper. Chen, however, fails to specify an exact concentration for this copper, including that the one or more conductive terminals include approximately 99% oxygen-free copper (Cu). Calcutt (see, e.g., Calcutt: pg.1/pars.4-5) teaches that copper concentrations of approximately 99% oxygen-free copper facilitate welding and brazing, exhibit exceptional electrical conductivity, and improve fabricability. Furthermore, Tuck (see, e.g., Tuck: pg.2/pars.4-6) teaches that copper concentrations of approximately 99% oxygen-free copper can facilitate fabrication and can constitute the highest electrical conductivity commercially available.
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the material of Chen’s one or more conductive terminals, previously taught by Chen to comprise copper, include approximately 99% oxygen-free copper (Cu), as taught by Calcutt and Tuck, so as to advantageously facilitate welding and brazing, improve fabricability, and provide exceptionally high electrical conductivity in Chen’s device.
Nevertheless, differences in concentration 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). Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed concentration produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed concentration limitation, i.e., approximately 99% oxygen-free copper (Cu), does not render the claimed subject matter non-obvious. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed concentration, i.e., approximately 99% oxygen-free copper (Cu), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Chen or Chen/Calcutt/Tuck. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 43-48 with respect to claim 3 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen/Calcutt/Tuck in view of Shih (US 2021/0125947), Huang (US 2016/0276248), and Lei (US 2022/0020590).
Regarding claim 4, Chen or Chen/Calcutt/Tuck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 14 and 43-48 above). Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) appears to show that a height of the approximately straight-walled portion is greater relative to a height of the tapered portion. Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and par.0091) further teaches that other conductive elements (e.g., 1641) are located on Chen’s copper pad 1641b and that various process and structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention. Chen, however, fails to explicitly state the relationship between a height of the approximately straight-walled portion and a height of the tapered portion. Shih, in a similar device to Chen and in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a height of an approximately straight-walled portion of a copper pad may be greater relative to a height of a tapered portion of the copper pad (see, e.g., Shih: fig. 1 and pars.0032/ll.1-2, 0033/ll.1-4, and 0048/ll.10-12). Huang, also in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, further teaches a metal interconnect 38 having both a tapered portion and an approximately straight-walled portion 38C, wherein a height of the approximately straight-walled portion is greater relative to a height H1 of the tapered portion (see, e.g., Huang: fig. 29 and par.0046/ll.11-13). Huang teaches that such a metal interconnect structure advantageously reduces sheer stress applied by the metal interconnect to other conductive elements located on the metal interconnect, improving the reliability of an overall semiconductor structure (see, e.g., Huang: par.0047). Additionally, Lei teaches that the physical dimensions of a copper interconnect affect the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such interconnects, wherein Lei further teaches that a height H2 of an approximately straight-walled portion of a copper interconnect may be greater relative to a height H1 of a tapered portion of the copper interconnect (see, e.g., Lei: fig. 2C and pars.0003/ll.1-5, 0026/ll.11-12, 0033, 0036, 0037/ll.8-9, and 0046/ll.8-10).
Shih, Huang, and Lei are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a height of an approximately straight-walled portion being explicitly greater relative to a height of a tapered portion would be equivalent to a height of an approximately straight-walled portion being implicitly greater or having another relation relative to a height of a tapered portion, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Chen. That is, the approximately straight-walled and tapered portions of both Chen and Shih, Huang, or Lei would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable tapered portion and approximately-straight-walled portion for a conductive metal interconnect capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in 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 a height of an approximately straight-walled portion being explicitly greater relative to a height of a tapered portion, as taught by Shih, Huang and Lei, or a height of an approximately straight-walled portion being implicitly greater or having another relation relative to a height of a tapered portion, as taught by Chen, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable tapered portion and approximately-straight-walled portion for a conductive metal interconnect capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Huang is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have in Chen’s device a height of the approximately straight-walled portion be greater relative to a height of the tapered portion, as taught by Huang, so as to advantageously reduce sheer stress applied by Chen’s copper pads to other conductive elements already taught by Chen to be located on the Chen’s copper pads, thereby improving the reliability of Chen’s semiconductor structure.
Moreover, Chen’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention taken together with Lei’s disclosure that scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality are directly affected by interconnect physical dimensions, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the height dimensions of a tapered portion and an approximately straight-walled-portion could be manipulated to the specifics of the claimed dimensions as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting height to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen in view of Shih, Huang, and Lei.
Regarding claim 18, Chen shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraph 15 above). Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and pars.0045/ll.27-28 and 0047/ll.6) shows that a copper pad 1641b, of the one or more copper pads 1641b, comprises:
a first portion having tapered sidewalls; and
a second portion, over the first portion, having approximately parallel sidewalls;
wherein Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) appears to show that:
a width of the second portion is greater relative to a width of the first portion
Chen teaches most aspects of the instant invention, and Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) further shows that other conductive elements (e.g., 1641) are located on Chen’s copper pad 1641b. Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) further appears to show that a width of the second portion is greater relative to a width of the first portion. Chen, however, fails to explicitly state this relationship.
Shih, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, teaches a copper pad 130 comprising a first portion having tapered sidewalls and a second portion, over the first portion, having approximately parallel sidewalls, wherein Shih teaches that a width W2 of the second portion is greater relative to a width of the first portion (see, e.g., Shih: fig. 1 and pars.0031/ll.11-16 and 0032/ll.1-2). Additionally, Huang, also in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, further teaches a semiconductor structure comprising a metal conductive terminal 38, wherein a metal conductive terminal of one or more metal conductive terminals 38 comprises a first portion 38D having tapered sidewalls and a second portion 38C, over the first portion, having approximately parallel sidewalls, wherein a width W1 of the second portion is greater relative to a width W2’ of the first portion (see, e.g., Huang: fig. 29 and par.0046/ll.7-10). Huang further teaches that such a structure advantageously reduces sheer stress applied by the conductive terminals to other conductive elements located on the conductive terminal, improving the reliability of the semiconductor structure (see, e.g., Huang: par.0047). Lei additionally teaches that the physical dimensions of a copper interconnect affect the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such interconnects, wherein Lei further teaches that a width D3 of an approximately parallel-sidewalled second portion of a copper interconnect may be greater relative to a width D1 of a tapered first portion of a copper interconnect (see, e.g., Lei: fig. 2C and pars.0003/ll.1-5, 0026/ll.11-12, 0033/ll.1-3, 0037/ll.8-9, 0041/ll.1-3, and 0046).
Shih, Huang, and Lei are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a width of a second portion being explicitly greater relative to a width of a first portion would be equivalent to a width of a second portion being implicitly greater relative to a width of a first portion, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Chen. That is, the first and second portions of both Chen and Shih, Huang, or Lei would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable tapered portion and approximately-parallel-sidewalled portion in a conductive terminal capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in 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 a width of the second portion being explicitly greater relative to the width of a first portion, as taught by Shih and Huang, or a width of the second portion being implicitly greater than a width of the first portion, as taught by Chen, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable tapered portion and approximately-parallel-sidewalled portion in a conductive terminal capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Huang is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have in Chen’s device a width of the second portion be greater relative to a width of the first portion, as taught by Huang, so as to advantageously reduce sheer stress applied by Chen’s copper pads to other conductive elements already taught by Chen to be located on the Chen’s copper pads, thereby improving the reliability of Chen’s semiconductor structure.
Moreover, Chen’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention taken together with Lei’s disclosure that scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality are directly affected by interconnect physical dimensions, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that width dimensions of a first portion and a second portion could be manipulated to the specifics of the claimed dimensions as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting width to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen/Calcutt/Tuck in view of Yu (US 2019/0252312), Huang, and Lei.
Regarding claim 5, Chen or Chen/Calcutt/Tuck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 14 and 43-48 above). Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) appears to show that a height of the approximately straight-walled portion is greater relative to a height of the tapered portion. Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and par.0091) further teaches that other conductive elements (e.g., 1641) are located on Chen’s copper pad 1641b and that various process and structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention. Chen, however, fails to explicitly state the relationship between a height of the approximately straight-walled portion and a height of the tapered portion, including that a ratio of a height of the approximately straight-walled portion to a height of the tapered portion is included in a range of approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1. Yu, in a similar device to Chen and in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a ratio of a height (H2 - T6) of an approximately straight-walled portion of a copper pad to a height T6 of a tapered portion of the copper pad may be included in a range of approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1 (see, e.g., Yu: fig. 15 and pars.0050/ll.21-22 and 0051/ll.1-4 and 8-9). Huang, also in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, further teaches a metal interconnect 38 having both a tapered portion and an approximately straight-walled portion 38C, wherein a ratio of a height of the approximately straight-walled portion to a height of the tapered portion is included in a range of approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1 (see, e.g., Huang: fig. 29 and par.0046/ll.11-13). Huang teaches that such a metal interconnect structure advantageously reduces sheer stress applied by the metal interconnect to other conductive elements located on the metal interconnect, improving the reliability of the semiconductor structure (see, e.g., Huang: par.0047). Additionally, Lei teaches that the physical dimensions of a copper interconnect affect the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such interconnects, wherein Lei further teaches that a ratio of a height H2 of an approximately straight-walled portion of a copper interconnect to a height H1 of a tapered portion of the copper interconnect may be included in a range of approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1 (see, e.g., Lei: fig. 2C and pars.0003/ll.1-5, 0026/ll.11-12, 0033, 0036, 0037/ll.8-9, and 0046/ll.8-10).
Yu, Huang, and Lei are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a ratio of a height of an approximately straight-walled portion to a height of a tapered portion being included in a range of approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1 would be equivalent to another ratio of a height of an approximately straight-walled portion to a height of a tapered portion, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Chen. That is, the approximately straight-walled and tapered portions of both Chen and Yu, Huang, or Lei would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable tapered portion and approximately-straight-walled portion for a conductive metal interconnect capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in 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 a ratio of a height of an approximately straight-walled portion to a height of a tapered portion being included in a range of approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1, as taught by Yu, Huang and Lei, or another ratio of a height of an approximately straight-walled portion to a height of a tapered portion, as taught by Chen, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitable tapered portion and approximately-straight-walled portion for a conductive metal interconnect capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Furthermore, Huang is evidence that at the time of filing the invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have in Chen’s device a ratio of a height of the approximately straight-walled portion to a height of the tapered portion be included in a range of approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1, as taught by Huang, so as to advantageously reduce sheer stress applied by Chen’s copper pads to other conductive elements already taught by Chen to be located on the Chen’s copper pads, thereby improving the reliability of Chen’s semiconductor structure.
Moreover, Chen’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention taken together with Lei’s disclosure that scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality are directly affected by interconnect physical dimensions, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the height dimensions of a tapered portion and an approximately straight-walled-portion could be manipulated to the values of the claimed dimensions (a ratio of approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting height to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, differences in physical dimension (i.e., height) 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). Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed height ratio limitation produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed height ratio limitation, i.e., approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1, does not render the claimed subject matter non-obvious. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed height ratio, i.e., approximately 1.8:1 to approximately 18:1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Chen. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 43-48 with respect to claim 3 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen/Calcutt/Tuck in view of Lei and Huang II (US 2021/0280505).
Regarding claim 6, Chen or Chen/Calcutt/Tuck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 17 and 34-39 above). Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) appears to show a relationship between a height of the tapered portion to a width of a top of the tapered portion. Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and par.0091) further teaches that other conductive elements (e.g., 1641) are located on Chen’s copper pad 1641b and that various process and structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention. Chen, however, fails to explicitly state the relationship between a height of the tapered portion and a width of a top of the tapered portion, including that a ratio of a height of the tapered portion to a width of a top of the top of the tapered portion is included in a range of approximately 0.25:1 to approximately 2.7:1. Lei teaches that the physical dimensions of a copper interconnect affect the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such interconnects, wherein Lei further that a ratio of a height H1 of a tapered portion of a copper interconnect to a width D1 of a top surface of the copper interconnect may be included in a range of approximately 0.25:1 to approximately 2.7:1 (see, e.g., Lei: fig. 2C and pars.0003/ll.1-5, 0026/ll.11-12, 0033, 0037/ll.8-9, 0041, and 0046/ll.8-10). Furthermore, Huang II, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, also teaches that a ratio of a height of a tapered portion of a metal interconnect to a width of a top of the tapered portion may be included in a range of approximately 0.25:1 to approximately 2.7:1 (see, e.g., Huang II: pars.0066/ll.10-12 and 0079/ll.1-3 and 43-44).
Lei and Huang II are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a ratio of a height of a tapered portion to a width of a top of the tapered portion being included in a range of approximately 0.25:1 to approximately 2.7:1 would be equivalent to another ratio of a height of a tapered portion to a width of a top of the tapered portion, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Chen. That is, the physical dimensions of both Chen and Lei or Huang II would yield the predictable result of providing a suitably-sized and formed tapered metal interconnect structure capable of mechanical and electrical interconnection with other features 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 a ratio of a height of a tapered portion to a width of a top of the tapered portion be included in a range of approximately 0.25:1 to approximately 2.7:1, as taught by Lei and Huang II, or another ratio of a height of a tapered portion to a width of a top of the tapered portion, as taught by Chen, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitably-sized and formed tapered metal interconnect structure capable of mechanical and electrical interconnection with other features of a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Chen’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention taken together with Lei’s disclosure that scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality are directly affected by interconnect physical dimensions, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the height and width dimensions of a tapered portion could be manipulated to the specifics of the claimed dimensions (a ratio of approximately 0.25:1 to approximately 2.7:1) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting height and width to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, differences in physical dimension (i.e., height and width) 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). Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed height to width ratio limitation produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed height to width ratio limitation, i.e., approximately 0.25:1 to approximately 2.7:1, does not render the claimed subject matter non-obvious. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed height to width ratio, i.e., approximately 0.25:1 to approximately 2.7:1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Chen. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 43-48 with respect to claim 3 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen/Calcutt/Tuck in view of Yu and Lei.
Regarding claim 7, Chen or Chen/Calcutt/Tuck shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 14 and 43-48 above). Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) appears to show that a width of the approximately straight-walled portion is greater relative to a height of the approximately straight-walled portion. Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and par.0091) further teaches that other conductive elements (e.g., 1641) are located on Chen’s copper pad 1641b and that various process and structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention. Chen, however, fails to explicitly state the relationship between a width of the approximately straight-walled portion and a height of the approximately straight-walled portion, including that a ratio of a width of the approximately straight-walled portion to a height of the approximately straight-walled portion is included in a range of approximately 3.8:1 to approximately 35.7:1. Yu, in a similar device to Chen and in the same field of endeavor, teaches that a ratio of a width W4 of an approximately straight-walled portion of a copper pad to a height (H2 – T6) of an approximately straight-walled portion of the copper pad may be included in a range of approximately 3.8:1 to approximately 35.7:1 (see, e.g., Yu: fig. 15 and pars.0050/ll.21-22 and 0051/ll.1-4 and 6-9). Furthermore, Lei teaches that the physical dimensions of a copper interconnect affect the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such interconnects, wherein Lei further teaches that a ratio of a width D1 of an approximately straight-walled portion of a copper interconnect to a height H2 of the approximately straight-walled portion may be included in a range of approximately 3.8:1 to approximately 35.7:1 (see, e.g., Lei: fig. 2C and pars.0003/ll.1-5, 0026/ll.11-12, 0036, 0037/ll.8-9, 0041, and 0046/ll.8-10).
Yu and Lei are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a ratio of a width of an approximately straight-walled portion to a height of the approximately straight-walled portion being included in a range of approximately 3.8:1 to approximately 35.7:1 would be equivalent to another ratio of a width of an approximately straight-walled portion to a height of the approximately straight-walled portion, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Chen. That is, the approximately straight-walled portions physical dimensions of both Chen and Yu or Lei would yield the predictable result of providing suitably-sized and formed approximately straight-walled portions for a conductive metal interconnect capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in 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 a ratio of a width of an approximately straight-walled portion to a height of the approximately straight-walled portion be included in a range of approximately 3.8:1 to approximately 35.7:1, as taught by Yu and Lei, or another ratio of a width of an approximately straight-walled portion to a height of the approximately straight-walled portion, as taught by Chen, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing suitably-sized and formed approximately straight-walled portions for a conductive metal interconnect capable of electrical and mechanical connection with various other conductive features in a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Chen’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention taken together with Lei’s disclosure that scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality are directly affected by interconnect physical dimensions, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the width and height dimensions of an approximately straight-walled portion could be manipulated to the values of the claimed dimensions (a ratio of approximately 3.8:1 to approximately 35.7:1) as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting width and height to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of Amer.v.Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Nevertheless, differences in physical dimension (i.e., width and height) 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). Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the claimed width to height ratio limitation produces results unexpected in kind or that the claimed values reflect criticality beyond what is taught or suggested by the prior art. Accordingly, the claimed width to height ratio limitation, i.e., approximately 3.8:1 to approximately 35.7:1, does not render the claimed subject matter non-obvious. Since the applicant has not established the criticality of the claimed width to height ratio, i.e., approximately 3.8:1 to approximately 35.7:1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device of Chen. See the comments stated above in paragraphs 43-48 with respect to claim 3 regarding criticality, which are considered to be repeated here.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen/Shih/Huang in view of Lei and Huang II.
Regarding claim 19, Chen/Shih/Huang shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 15 and 62-68 above). Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G and par.0045/ll.27-28) appears to show that a height of the first portion is greater relative to a width of a bottom surface of the first portion and explicitly shows that a width of a top of the first portion is greater relative to the width of the bottom surface of the first portion (as an inherent result of the tapered first portion shape disclosed by Chen). Chen (see, e.g., par.0091) further teaches that various process and structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention. However, Chen fails to explicitly disclose that a height of the first portion is greater relative to a width of a bottom surface of the first portion.
Lei teaches that the physical dimensions of a copper interconnect affect the scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality of such interconnects, wherein Lei further that a height H1 of a tapered first portion of a copper interconnect may be greater relative to a width D2 of a bottom surface of the first portion (see, e.g., Lei: fig. 2C and pars.0003/ll.1-5, 0026/ll.11-12, 0033/ll.1-3, 0037/ll.8-9, 0041/ll.1-3, and 0046). Furthermore, Huang II, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, also teaches that a height of a tapered first portion of a metal interconnect may be greater relative to a width of a bottom surface of the first portion (see, e.g., Huang II: pars.0066/ll.10-12 and 0079/ll.1-3 and 43-44).
Lei and Huang II are evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a height of a first portion being explicitly greater relative to a width of a bottom surface of the first portion would be equivalent to a height of a first portion being implicitly greater relative to a width of a bottom surface of the first portion, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Chen. That is, the physical dimensions of both Chen and Lei or Huang II would yield the predictable result of providing a suitably-sized and formed tapered metal interconnect structure capable of mechanical and electrical interconnection with other features 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 a height of a first portion being explicitly greater relative to a width of a bottom surface of the first portion, as taught by Lei and Huang II, or a height of a first portion being explicitly greater relative to a width of a bottom surface of the first portion, as taught by Chen, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitably-sized and formed tapered metal interconnect structure capable of mechanical and electrical interconnection with other features of a semiconductor structure. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Chen’s express teaching that a variety of structural modifications may be made to Chen’s device without departing from the scope of Chen’s invention taken together with Lei’s disclosure that scalability, manufacturing volume, and interconnect quality are directly affected by interconnect physical dimensions, would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the width and height dimensions of a first portion could be manipulated to the specifics of the claimed dimensions as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable. Adjusting width and height to achieve predictable results, such as improved scaling, reduced material usage, or modified electrical/mechanical performance, would have been well within the ordinary skill in the art. No evidence of criticality of unexpected results for the claimed dimensions is apparent. Accordingly, the claimed limitation represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claims 20 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chen in view of Tseng and Hou (US 2021/0242100).
Regarding claim 20, Chen shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 15 above). Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) shows that a top surface of a copper pad 1641b, of the one or more copper pads 1641b, is exposed through a recess in the second subset 1622 of the plurality of dielectric layers 1621/1622. Chen additionally teaches that Chen’s conductive terminals may connect to other conductive structures over Chen’s semiconductor structure, plurality of dielectric layers, conductive terminal (see, e.g., fig. 5 and par.0086). Chen, however, fails to specify that a top surface of a copper pad, of the one or more copper pads, is in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers and that a first width of a recess through the polymer layer is greater relative to a second width of the recess through the second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers.
Tseng, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, teaches a top surface of a metal pad 130 being in a polymer layer 128 over a plurality of dielectric layers 126/128, wherein Tseng teaches that such a polymer layer may act to buffer stress (see, e.g., Tseng: fig. 1 and par.0020/ll.12-14). Hou, also in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, further teaches a top surface of a copper pad 240, of one or more copper pads 240, being exposed through a recess in a second subset 250 of a plurality of dielectric layers 250/400/230 over a semiconductor device 210 and in a polymer layer 530 over the plurality of dielectric layers. Hou teaches that such a structure and the inclusion of such a polymer layer help to alleviate mechanical stress transmitted by conductive structures above the semiconductor structure, increase the yield of the manufacturing process, reduce unitary production costs, and ensure the reliability and lifetime of the semiconductor structure (see, e.g., Hou: figs. 2-3 and par.0035/ll.31-47). Hou additionally teaches that having a first width W5 of a recess through the polymer layer being greater relative to a second width W4 of a recess through a second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers functions equivalently to a first width of a recess through the polymer layer being lesser or equal relative to a second width of a recess through a second subset of the plurality of dielectric layers, but a greater relative first width allows for the placement of conductive structures of greater width than the copper pad to be placed over the copper pad (see, e.g., pars.0014/ll.8-9 and 0036/ll.46-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a top surface of Chen’s conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals, be in a polymer layer over Chen’s plurality of dielectric layers, as taught by Tseng and Hou, so as to buffer stress (e.g., as transmitted by conductive structures over Chen’s semiconductor structure – see, e.g., fig. 5) and subsequently increase the yield of Chen’s manufacturing process, reduce unitary production costs, and ensure the reliability and lifetime of Chen’s semiconductor structure.
Furthermore, Hou is evidence showing that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a first width of a recess through a polymer layer being greater relative to a second width of a recess through a second subset of a plurality of dielectric layers would be equivalent to any other relation between a first width of a recess through a polymer layer and a second width of a recess through a second subset of a plurality of dielectric layers, and that such differences would result in no unexpected changes in the performance of the semiconductor structure of Chen/Tseng/Hou. That is, all recess width relationships would yield the predictable result of providing a suitably-sized recess in a dielectric layer allowing for the exposure of a conductive interconnect to other features or conductive structures 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 a first width of a recess through a polymer layer be greater relative to a second width of a recess through a second subset of a plurality of dielectric layers, as taught by Tseng, or any other relation between a first width of a recess through a polymer layer and a second width of a recess through a second subset of a plurality of dielectric layers, because these were recognized as equivalents in the semiconductor art and would yield the predictable result of providing a suitably-sized recess in a dielectric layer allowing for the exposure of a conductive interconnect to other features or conductive structures in a semiconductor device. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.-- ,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Moreover, Hou is evidence that it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention that one of ordinary skill in the art might have particular incentive to have a first width of a recess through a polymer layer be greater relative to a second width of a recess through a second subset of a plurality of dielectric layers, as taught by Hou, so as to facilitate the placement of greater width conductive structures over Chen’s copper pad.
With regards to other language recited in claim 20, see the comments stated above in paragraph 8.
Regarding claim 29, Chen shows most aspects of the instant invention (see paragraphs 16-17 above). Furthermore, Chen (see, e.g., fig. 1G) shows that a top surface of a conductive terminal 1641b, of the one or more conductive terminals 1641b, is exposed through a recess in the second subset 1622 of the plurality of dielectric layers 1621/1622. Chen additionally teaches that Chen’s conductive terminals may connect to other conductive structures over Chen’s semiconductor structure, plurality of dielectric layers, conductive terminal (see, e.g., fig. 5 and par.0086). Chen, however, fails to specify that a top surface of a conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals, is in a polymer layer over the plurality of dielectric layers.
Tseng, in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, teaches a top surface of a conductive terminal 130 being in a polymer layer 128 over a plurality of dielectric layers 126/128, wherein Tseng teaches that such a polymer layer may act to buffer stress (see, e.g., Tseng: par.0020/ll.12-14). Hou, also in the same field of endeavor and in a similar device to Chen, further teaches a top surface of a conductive terminal 240, of one or more conductive terminals 240, being exposed through a recess in a second subset 250/400 of a plurality of dielectric layers 250/400/230 over a semiconductor device 210 and in a polymer layer 530 over the plurality of dielectric layers, wherein Hou teaches that such a structure and the inclusion of such a polymer layer help to alleviate mechanical stress transmitted by conductive structures above the semiconductor structure, thereby increasing the yield of the manufacturing process, reducing unitary production costs, and ensuring the reliability and lifetime of the semiconductor structure (see, e.g., Hou: figs. 2-3 and par.0035/ll.31-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a top surface of Chen’s conductive terminal, of the one or more conductive terminals, be in a polymer layer over Chen’s plurality of dielectric layers, as taught by Tseng and Hou, so as to buffer stress (e.g., as transmitted by conductive structures over Chen’s semiconductor structure – see, e.g., fig. 5) and subsequently increase the yield of Chen’s manufacturing process, reduce unitary production costs, and ensure the reliability and lifetime of Chen’s semiconductor structure.
With particular regard to the language of claim 29, see the comments stated above in paragraph 10.
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