DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated December 29, 2025, in which claims 1, 6-8, and 10 were amended, and claims 18-20 were added, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, it is not understood what is being compared between a width and a height, or how to determine one is greater than the other.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected due to its dependency.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “a second wiring connected to the first wiring part” in line 6 was not described. Based on the Disclosure, the second wiring IS connected to the first via, NOT the first wiring part. This is also consistent with the limitation “wherein the first wiring, the first via, the second wiring and the second via are connected as a single layer” in lines 10-11 of the claim.
Claims 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0262738) [Hereafter “Lee”] in view of Scarbrough et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0319985) [Hereafter “Scarbrough”].
Regarding claim 1, Lee [Fig.2] discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
a first interconnection structure [314]; and
a second interconnection structure including a first wiring part [324/325] electrically connected to the first interconnection structure [314], a first hard mask pattern [327] on the first wiring part, and a first via part [V21] connected to the first wiring part through the first hard mask pattern;
wherein, the first wiring part [324/325] is connected to the first via part [V21].
Lee fails to explicitly disclose wherein (the first wiring part and the first via part) “they” are parts of a single layer. However, Scarbrough [Fig.20] discloses wherein (the first wiring part and the first via part) “they” are parts of a single layer [96]. It would have been obvious to provide wherein (the first wiring part and the first via part) “they” are parts of a single layer, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claims 2-5 and 17, Lee [Fig.2] discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
wherein the second interconnection structure comprises:
a barrier layer [322]; and
a metal layer located in the barrier layer and including the first wiring part [324/325] and the first via part [334/V21];
wherein the barrier layer includes metal nitride [Para.62] and the metal layer includes tungsten (W) [Para.65];
wherein the second interconnection structure includes a metal layer including the first wiring part [324/325] contacting the first hard mask pattern [327] and the first via part [V21];
wherein the metal layer includes molybdenum (Mo) [Para.65];
further comprising:
a circuit [100,200] electrically connected to the first interconnection structure [300] [Fig.1].
Regarding claim 7, Scarbrough [Fig.20] discloses wherein the first wiring part [portion of 96 in layer 28] has a first width and a first height, the first via part [portions of 96 in layers 72 and 76] has a second width. Scarbrough fails to explicitly disclose the second width at a connection portion where the first wiring part and the first via part are connected, and the second width is greater than the first width. However, determining the dimensions of the openings and subsequent interconnects being formed is well-known and obvious in semiconductor manufacturing and is well within the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to provide the relative widths as claimed, since it has been held that applying a known technique to a known process in order to yield predictable results would have been obvious. Further, it would have been obvious to try one of the known methods with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s amendments to the claims and/or arguments were persuasive. Additional reasons for allowance were provided in the previous Office Action.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claims 6, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant did not fully address the issues presented in the previous Office Action. The rejection is presented again.
Applicant asserts “…the third via V21 does not extend through the Lee hard mask pattern 327”. As best understood, this assertion is respectfully traversed. Lee [Fig.2], as presented above, clearly discloses V21 extends through hard mask 327, and contacting wiring part 324/325. Lee [Para.76] also clearly discloses “(opening) V21 extending through at least a portion of the third insulating layer 331, the second stop layer 330, the second hard mask pattern 327 and the second capping pattern 326”. Lee [Para.81] subsequently states “The third metal layer 334 may fill the third via V21 … the third metal layer 334 may be connected to a portion (e.g., at least one) of the second wiring structures 324/325, such as the second metal layers 325 by the third via V21”. Thus, Lee [V21 metal] is connected to the first wiring part [324/325] through the first hard mask pattern [327].
Applicant’s asserts “The Lee hard mask pattern 327 is not on the Lee first wiring part 324/325. The first hard mask pattern 327 is on the capping layer 326”. This assertion is not persuasive. The first hard mask pattern 327 is on the capping layer 326, and the capping layer 326 is on the first wiring part 324/325. Therefore, first hard mask pattern 327 is on the first wiring part 324/325. The claim as written does not preclude such interpretation.
Applicant asserts “There is no "second interconnection structure" in Lee nor is there an electrical connection between Lee's first wiring part 324/325 and Lee's first interconnection structure 314”. This assertion is traversed. The claim requires a second interconnecting structure including the various elements that make up the second interconnecting structure. As clearly presented above, Lee [Fig.2] discloses “a second interconnection structure including a first wiring part [324/325] electrically connected to the first interconnection structure [314], a first hard mask pattern [327] on the first wiring part, and a first via part [V21] connected to the first wiring part through the first hard mask pattern”. The various elements that make up the second interconnecting structure are provided. Therefore the second interconnecting structure is identified. Secondly, Lee [Fig. 2] clearly discloses a first wiring part [324/325] electrically connected to the first interconnection structure [314]. Additionally, Lee [Para.64] states “…the first metal layer 324 may be connected to a portion (e.g., at least one) of the first wiring structures 314 through the second via V1”. Thus, there is a second interconnection structure in Lee and there is an electrical connection between Lee's first wiring part 324/325 and Lee's first interconnection structure 314.
Applicant’s additional arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected and the Action is made Final.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAC H AU whose telephone number is (571)272-8795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/BAC H AU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898