Attorney’s Docket Number: YOR920151366US06
Filing Date: 06/28/2023
Continuity Data: RCE filed on 05/14/2026
Claimed Priority Date: 09/19/2019 (DIV of 16/576,201 now PAT 11,735,524)
04/05/2017 (DIV of 15/479,983 now PAT 10,541,206)
03/22/2016 (DIV of 15/076,878 now PAT 9,837,355)
Applicants: Briggs et al.
Examiner: Younes Boulghassoul
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 05/14/2026.
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's amendment filed on 05/14/2026 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Applicant cancelled 5-7, 11-12, and 17-18, and added new claims 19-25. Accordingly, pending in this application are claims 1-4, 8-10, 13-16, and 19-25.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, as previously formulated in the Final Office action mailed on 03/18/2026. However, the indicated allowability of claim 18 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered references. Accordingly, rejections based on the newly cited references are detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 13-16, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshida (US2013/0207269).
Regarding Claim 13, Oshida (see, e.g., Fig. 12B) shows most aspects of the instant invention, including an electrical device comprising:
- a plurality of electrically conductive lines (see, e.g., Par. [0038]: metal wirings 320 of Cu), wherein each of the plurality of electrically conductive lines is comprised of a metal present in trenches in a low-k dielectric material (see, e.g., Figs. 10A-B and Par. [0036]-[0037]: interlayer insulating layer 310 contains a low-k film) on a substrate (e.g., semiconductor substrate 100), and wherein each of the plurality of electrically conductive lines is positioned in an array having parallel lengths (see, e.g., Fig. 3A: the wirings 320 are linear and run parallel to each other in a plan view)
- a plurality of air gaps (e.g., air gaps 500) between the plurality of electrically conductive lines and in a same level as the plurality of electrically conductive lines, wherein one air gap of the plurality of air gaps is present between each adjacent pair of the plurality of electrically conductive lines, air gap sidewalls including portions of the low-k dielectric material (e.g., sidewalls of 500 are defined by portions of 310)
- an interconnect (e.g., interconnect comprising via 440 and barrier 442) in electrical communication and misaligned with one of the plurality of electrically conductive lines, wherein an exclusion zone for the interconnect is not present in the array of electrically conductive lines (see, e.g., Fig. 12B: air gap 500 is present between two adjacent metal wirings 320 at via 440 landing, therefore, an exclusion zone for the air gap is explicitly not present).
However, while Oshida (see, e.g., Fig. 12B) only depicts one interconnect 440,442 in electrical communication and misaligned with one of the plurality of electrically conductive lines 320, it would have been readily apparent to one of skill in the semiconductor art that a plurality of such interconnects could be arranged to respectively be in electrical communication with a corresponding electrically conductive line, based on a circuit designer’s choice for implementing a particular circuit layout function; and furthermore, the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) )).
Therefore, the plurality of interconnects in electrical communication and misaligned with the plurality of electrically conductive lines claimed by the applicant are only considered to be a duplication of the interconnect in electrical communication and misaligned with the electrically conductive line disclosed by Oshida, that a person having ordinary skill in the routing art would have been able to implement in the design of a circuit using routine layout techniques based, among other things, on current drive requirements, contact resistance considerations, design pitch density restrictions, etc. (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) )), since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e., results which are different in kind from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as an exclusion zone for a misaligned interconnects is not present in the array of electrically conductive lines, as already suggested by Oshida.
Therefore, because of the above, Oshida is understood as teaching a plurality of interconnects in electrical communication and misaligned with the plurality of electrically conductive lines, wherein an exclusion zone for the plurality of interconnects is not present in the array of electrically conductive lines
Regarding Claim 14, Oshida (see, e.g., Fig. 12B) shows that the interconnect (e.g., 440,442) does not enter the air gap (e.g., 500). Furthermore, Oshida teaches a plurality of interconnects. Therefore, Oshida teaches that the plurality of interconnects do not enter the plurality of air gaps.
Regarding Claim 15, Oshida (see, e.g., Fig. 12B and Par. [0036],[0044]) shows an insulating layer 410 present over the plurality of air gaps 500. Additionally, Oshida discloses that said insulating layer 410 is made of the same material as 310, e.g., SiCOH or Methyl Silsesquioxane, which are exemplary materials on a permeable cap dielectric of the instant application (see, Specification, Par. [0056]). Accordingly, Oshida teaches a permeable cap dielectric (e.g., 410) present over the plurality of air gaps.
Regarding Claim 16, Oshida (see, e.g., Fig. 4 and Par. [0069]) discloses that it is preferable that distance a between wirings be 40 nm or less. Therefore, Oshida teaches that a pitch separating adjacent ones of the plurality of electrically conductive lines (e.g., 320) in the plurality of electrically conductive lines ranges from 30 nm to 80 nm.
Regarding Claim 23, Oshida (see, e.g., Fig. 12B) shows that the interconnect (e.g., 440,442) is present extending over at least one of the plurality of air gaps (e.g., 500) but does not extend into the at least one of the plurality of air gaps. Additionally, Oshida teaches a plurality of interconnects. Therefore, Oshida teaches that the plurality of interconnects are present extending over at least one of the plurality of air gaps but do not extend into the at least one of the plurality of air gaps.
Regarding Claim 25, Oshida (see, e.g., Fig. 12B) shows that a bottom surface of the permeable cap dielectric (e.g., 410) provides at least a portion of an upper surface of at least one of the plurality of air gaps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 19-22 are allowable.
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younes Boulghassoul whose telephone number is (571) 270-5514. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST. 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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on (571) 272-1705. 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.
/YOUNES BOULGHASSOUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights