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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
1. Applicant's amendment of claim 1 in “Claims - 06/02/2026” with “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject - 06/02/2026”, have been acknowledged by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-14 are presented for examination.
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 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 20200075709 A1; hereinafter Wu), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1A+; [0004+], and as cited below), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
542
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a metal-insulator-metal capacitor ({31, 10, 33, 10, 35a, 10, 35b}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) disposed between a first metallization level ({121a, 121b, 122}; Fig. 1C; [0015]) and a second metallization level ({1299, 129}; Fig. 1C; [0025]), the metal-insulator-metal capacitor comprising ({31, 10, 33, 10, 35a, 10, 35b}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) a first electrode ({31}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]), a second electrode ({33}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) and a third electrode ({35a}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]);
a first via (92a; Fig. 1C; [0023]) extended from and contacting a conductive line ({1299}; Fig. 1C; [0025]) of the second metallization level ({1299, 129}; Fig. 1C; [0025]); and
a second via (90a; Fig. 1C; [0022]) extended from and contacting the first via (92a; Fig. 1C; [0023]);
wherein the second via (90a; Fig. 1C; [0022]) contacts the first electrode ({31}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) and the third electrode ({35a}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) of the metal-insulator-metal capacitor ({31, 10, 33, 10, 35a, 10, 35b}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]); and
wherein a slope of a side surface of the first via (92a; Fig. 1C; [0023]) is different from a slope of a side surface of the second via (90a; Fig. 1C; [0022]), and further wherein the side surface of the second via (90a; Fig. 1C; [0022]) (see below for “orthogonally”) passes through both of the first electrode ({31}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) and the third electrode ({35a}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]).
As noted above, Wu does not expressly disclose “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is significant. Thus, claimed limitation of “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is not patentable over Wu.
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Wu further teaches wherein a shape of the first via (92a; Fig. 1C; [0023]) is different from a shape of the second via (90a; Fig. 1C; [0022]).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Wu further comprising a dielectric layer ({10}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) disposed between the first electrode ({31}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) and the third electrode ({35a}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Wu further teaches wherein the second via (90a; Fig. 1C; [0022]) contacts the first electrode ({31}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) and the third electrode ({35a}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) at the side surface of the second via (90a; Fig. 1C; [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Wu further comprising: a third via (92b; Fig. 1C; [0023]) extended from and contacting an additional conductive line ({1299}; Fig. 1C; [0025]) of the second metallization level ({1299, 129}; Fig. 1C; [0025]); a fourth via (90b; Fig. 1C; [0022]) extended from and contacting the third via (92b; Fig. 1C; [0023]); wherein the fourth via (90b; Fig. 1C; [0022]) contacts the second electrode ({33}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) of the metal-insulator-metal capacitor ({31, 10, 33, 10, 35a, 10, 35b}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]); and wherein a slope of a side surface of the third via (92b; Fig. 1C; [0023]) is different from a slope of a side surface of the fourth via (90b; Fig. 1C; [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches all of the features of claim 11.
Wu further teaches wherein a shape of the third via (92b; Fig. 1C; [0023]) is different from a shape of the fourth via (90b; Fig. 1C; [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Wu teaches all of the features of claim 11.
Wu further teaches wherein the metal-insulator- metal capacitor ({31, 10, 33, 10, 35a, 10, 35b}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) further comprises a fourth electrode ({35b}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) and the fourth via (90b; Fig. 1C; [0022]) contacts the fourth electrode ({35b}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]).
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 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over by Huang (US 20220328398 A1; hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 2+; [0003+], and as cited below), comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
461
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a metal-insulator-metal capacitor ({54, 58, 60, 64, 66}; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]) disposed between a first metallization level ({46, 50}; Fig. 17; [0021]) and a second metallization level ({97, 90}; Fig. 17; [0048]), the metal-insulator-metal capacitor comprising ({54, 58, 60, 64, 66}; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]) a first electrode ({54}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0030, 0031]), a second electrode ({60}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]) and a third electrode ({66}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]);
a first via (86A-3; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]) extended from and contacting a conductive line ({97}; Fig. 17; [0048]) of the second metallization level ({97, 90}; Fig. 17; [0048]); and
a second via (see Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1) extended from and contacting the first via (86A-3; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]);
wherein the second via (see Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1; hereinafter the second via) contacts the first electrode ({54}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0030, 0031]) and the third electrode ({66}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]) of the metal-insulator-metal capacitor ({54, 58, 60, 64, 66}; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]); and
wherein a slope of a side surface of the first via (86A-3; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]) is different from a slope of a side surface of the second via (the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1), and further wherein the side surface of the second via (the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1) (see below for “orthogonally”) passes through both of the first electrode ({54}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0030, 0031]) and the third electrode ({66}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]).
As noted above, Huang does not expressly disclose “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is significant. Thus, claimed limitation of “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is not patentable over Huang.
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Huang further teaches wherein a shape of the first via (86A-3; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]) is different from a shape of the second via (the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Huang further teaches wherein the first via (86A-3; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]) comprises a trapezoidal shape and the second via (the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1) comprises at least one of a rectangular shape (see Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; where 86A-2 has a rectangular shape) and a square shape.
Regarding claim 4, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Huang further comprising a dielectric layer ({58}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]) disposed between the first electrode ({24}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]) and the third electrode ({66}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Huang further teaches wherein the second via (the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1) contacts the first electrode ({54}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0030, 0031]) and the third electrode ({66}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]) at the side surface of the second via (86A-2; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Huang further teaches wherein the second via (the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1) comprises a first portion (top portion of the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; where the top portion is in contact with electrodes 54 and 66) contacting the first electrode ({54}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0030, 0031]) and the third electrode ({66}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]) and a second portion (bottom portion of the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; where the bottom portion is in contact with electrode 54) extended from the first portion (top portion of the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; where the top portion is in contact with electrodes 54 and 66) and contacting the first electrode ({54}; Fig. 17; [0024, 0027, 0030, 0031]), and wherein a slope of a side surface of the first portion (top portion of the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; where the top portion is in contact with electrodes 54 and 66) is different from a slope of a side surface of the second portion (bottom portion of the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; where the bottom portion is in contact with electrode 54).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 6.
Huang further teaches wherein a dimension of the second portion (bottom portion of the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; where the bottom portion is in contact with electrode 54) between side surfaces of the second portion is less than a dimension of the first portion (top portion of the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; where the top portion is in contact with electrodes 54 and 66) between side surfaces of the first portion.
Regarding claim 8, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 6.
Huang further teaches wherein the first portion (top portion of the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; where the top portion is in contact with electrodes 54 and 66) and the second portion (bottom portion of the second via; see Annotated Fig. 17, above; where the bottom portion is in contact with electrode 54) respectively comprise at least one of a rectangular shape (see Annotated Fig. 17; rectangular shape) and a square shape.
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Huang further comprising a third via (see 2nd Annotated Fig. 17, above; the third via includes part of 86A-1; the third via extends from the top portion of layer 54 to contact 46; hereinafter the third via) extended from the second via (the second via; see 2nd Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1) and contacting a conductive line ({46}; Fig. 17; [0021]) of the first metallization level ({46, 50}; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0021]); wherein a slope of a side surface of the third via (the third via; see 2nd Annotated Fig. 17, above; the third via includes part of 86A-1; the third via extends from the top portion of layer 54 to contact 46) is different from the slope of the side surface of the second via (the second via; see 2nd Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1).
Regarding claim 10, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 9.
Huang further teaches wherein a shape of the third via (the third via; see 2nd Annotated Fig. 17, above; the third via includes part of 86A-1; the third via extends from the top portion of layer 54 to contact 46) is different from a shape of the second via (the second via; see 2nd Annotated Fig. 17, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1).
Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Huang further comprising: a third via (86B-2; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]) extended from and contacting an additional conductive line ({97}; Fig. 17; [0048]) of the second metallization level ({97, 90}; Fig. 17; [0048]);
a fourth via (86B-1; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]) extended from and contacting the third via (86B-2; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]);
wherein the fourth via (86B-1; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]) contacts the second electrode ({60}; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]) of the metal-insulator-metal capacitor ({54, 58, 60, 64, 66}; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0024, 0027, 0028, 0030, 0031]); and
wherein a slope of a side surface of the third via (86B-2; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]) is different from a slope of a side surface of the fourth via (86B-1; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]).
Regarding claim 12, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 11.
Huang further teaches wherein a shape of the third via (86B-2; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]) is different from a shape of the fourth via (86B-1; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]).
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 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
4. Claims 1, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over by Park (US 20200350248 A1; hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0009+], and as cited below), comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
515
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a metal-insulator-metal capacitor ({201, 203, 205, 207, 209}; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3A, 3B; [0024-0036]) disposed between a first metallization ({113, 115, 117}; Fig. 2; [0022]) and a second metallization level ({221, 223, 225}; Fig. 2; [0038]), the metal-insulator-metal capacitor comprising ({201, 203, 205, 207, 209}; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3A, 3B; [0024-0036]) a first electrode ({201}; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3A, 3B; [0024-0036]), a second electrode ({205}; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3A, 3B; [0024-0036]) and a third electrode ({209}; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3A, 3B; [0024-0036]);
a first via (CP2; Fig. 2 in view of Annotated Fig. 3B; [0032-0038]) extended from and contacting a conductive line ({223}; Fig. 2; [0038]) of the second metallization level ({221, 223, 225}; Fig. 2; [0038]); and
a second via (see Annotated Fig. 3B, above; the portion of contact plug extending from CP2; hereinafter the second via) contacts the first electrode ({201}; see Annotated Fig. 3B, above) and the third electrode ({209}; see Annotated Fig. 3B, above) of the metal-insulator-metal capacitor ({201, 203, 205, 207, 209}; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3A, 3B; [0024-0036]); and
wherein a slope of a side surface of the first via (CP2; Fig. 2 in view of Annotated Fig. 3B; [0032-0038]) is different from a slope of a side surface of the second via (the second via; see Annotated Fig. 3B, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1), and further wherein the side surface of the second via (the second via; see Annotated Fig. 3B, above; the second via includes 86A-2 and the top portion of 86A-1, where the second via extends from the top portion of layer 66 to the bottom portion of layer 54; Fig. 17 in view of Fig. 15; [0042]; in view of Fig. 15, the second via comprises of the portion of 86 that includes the diameters of D3 and D1) (see below for “orthogonally”) passes through both of the first electrode ({201}; see Annotated Fig. 3B, above) and the third electrode ({209}; see Annotated Fig. 3B, above).
As noted above, Park does not expressly disclose “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is significant. Thus, claimed limitation of “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the side surface of the second via orthogonally passes through both of the first electrode and the third electrode” is not patentable over Park.
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
PNG
media_image5.png
567
557
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Wu further comprising: a third via (CP1; Fig. 2 in view of Annotated Fig. 3A; [0029]) extended from and contacting an additional conductive line ({221}; Fig. 2; [0038]) of the second metallization level ({221, 223, 225}; Fig. 2; [0038]);
a fourth via (see Annotated Fig. 3A, above; the portion of contact plug extending from CP1; hereinafter the fourth via) extended from and contacting the third via (CP1; Fig. 2 in view of Annotated Fig. 3A; [0029]); wherein the fourth via (the fourth via; see Annotated Fig. 3A, above; the portion of contact plug extending from CP1) contacts the second electrode ({205}; Fig. 1C; [0028-0030]) of the metal-insulator-metal capacitor ({201, 203, 205, 207, 209}; Fig. 2 in view of Figs. 3A, 3B; [0024-0036]); and
wherein a slope of a side surface of the third via (CP1; Fig. 2 in view of Annotated Fig. 3A; [0029]) is different from a slope of a side surface of the fourth via (the fourth via; see Annotated Fig. 3A, above; the portion of contact plug extending from CP1).
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches all of the features of claim 11.
Huang further teaches wherein the third via (CP1; Fig. 2 in view of Annotated Fig. 3A; [0029]) comprises a trapezoidal shape and the fourth via (the fourth via; see Annotated Fig. 3A, above; the portion of contact plug extending from CP1) comprises at least one of a rectangular shape (see Fig. 2 in view of Annotated Fig. 3A) and a square shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 06/02/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following: the Applicant's amendment of claim 1 necessitated the shift in new grounds of rejection detailed in sections above. The shift in grounds of rejection renders the Applicant's arguments moot.
Please see the analysis of rejection for claims above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights