Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/357,251

CAVITY IN METAL INTERCONNECT STRUCTURE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jul 24, 2023
Examiner
PARKER, JOHN M
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
763 granted / 831 resolved
+23.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
855
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
§102
37.3%
-2.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 831 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cui et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0309230). Regarding claim 1, Cui teaches an integrated circuit device, comprising: a metal interconnect over a substrate [fig. 1, 105, 110, 115, 120, 121, 123, 125 over substrate 101]; and a cavity within the metal interconnect [fig. 9, 955]; wherein a first dielectric layer provides a roof for the cavity [fig. 10b, 1060]; a second dielectric layer provides a floor for the cavity [fig. 9, 105]; and an oxide semiconductor provides a side edge for the cavity [fig. 10b, 1075, paragraph [0063] teaches 1075 is any materials taught for the IMD, ILD or cap, paragraph [0038] teaches the ILD is oxide]. Regarding claim 2, Cui discloses the integrated circuit device of claim 1, wherein the oxide semiconductor is a liner for a metal line or a metal via [fig. 10b, 1075 lines the sidewalls of the metal lines/vias]. Regarding claim 3, Cui teaches the integrated circuit device of claim 1, wherein the cavity has a height that is greater than a thickness of the first dielectric layer [fig. 10b, the height of the cavity is thicker than 1060]. Regarding claim 4, Cui discloses the integrated circuit device of claim 1, wherein the oxide semiconductor extends from the first dielectric to the second dielectric [fig. 10b, 1075 extends from 1060 to 105]. Claim(s) 13, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Oshida (US Pat. Pub. 2013/0207269). Regarding claim 13, Oshida teaches an integrated circuit device, comprising: a metal interconnect comprising a metallization layer over a substrate [fig. 1, metallization layers 240, 320, 440 over substrate 100]; a first metal line and a second metal line within the metallization layer, wherein a top height corresponds to a top of the first metal line and the second metal line, and a bottom height corresponds to a bottom of the first metal line and the second metal line [fig. 1, 240 with 320 above and adjacent 320 elements]; and a cavity between the first metal line and the second metal line, wherein a first dielectric layer provides a ceiling for the cavity and a second dielectric layer provides a floor for the cavity, the floor is above the bottom height and the ceiling is below the top height, and the floor and the ceiling are flat [fig. 1, cavity 500, first dielectric 410 providing a ceiling, second dielectric 210 providing a floor, 240 extends below the floor while the ceiling is below the top height of 320, the floor and ceiling are flat]. Regarding claim 16, Oshida discloses the integrated circuit device of claim 13, wherein an oxide semiconductor provides a sidewall for the cavity [fig. 1, 310, paragraph [0036] teaches silicon oxide]. Regarding claim 18, Oshida teaches the integrated circuit device of claim 13, wherein the cavity reduces a capacitance of the BEOL transistor [paragraph [0043] teaches air gaps reduce inter-wiring capacitance]. Regarding claim 19, Oshida discloses the integrated circuit device of claim 13, wherein a third dielectric provides a sidewall for the cavity [fig. 1, 310]. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oshida as applied to claims 13, 16, 18 and 19 above, and further in view of Joi et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0374747). Regarding claim 17, Oshida teaches a liner on the first and second metal lines, however they fail to teach the liner is an oxide semiconductor. Joi teaches an interconnect in a dielectric with a liner, the liner formed of semiconductor oxide [fig. 13c, paragraph [0101], zinc oxide liner]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Joi into the method of Oshida by forming the liner around the first and second metal layers out of zinc oxide (oxide semiconductor as taught in applicants instant specification, paragraph 0032) . The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Oshida in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of improving adhesion of the metal layer to the adjacent oxide layers [paragraph [0101]. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-12 are allowed. Claims 14, 15 and 20 are 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 5, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the device as claimed. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach a layer of material that provides a gate dielectric for the transistor is directly over the first dielectric layer. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M PARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-8794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 3:30pm. 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at 571-272-2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOHN M PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 24, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12581943
THREE-DIMENSIONAL (3D) METAL-INSULATOR-METAL CAPACITOR (MIMCAP) INCLUDING STACKED VERTICAL METAL STUDS FOR INCREASED CAPACITANCE DENSITY AND RELATED FABRICATION METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568837
SEMICONDUCTOR CHIP, SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE INCLUDING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12564043
MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12550721
INTER-WIRE CAVITY FOR LOW CAPACITANCE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12543556
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES AND METHODS OF FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+0.9%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 831 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month