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 .
Election/Restrictions Acknowledged
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Claims 1-21, in the Response to Restriction Requirements filed on 02/09/26 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 22-25 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-21 are examined on merits herein.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
the “first metal via is disposed on the first metal line”, as Claims 1 and 15 recite, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims;
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Abstract and Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contradicts to the specification: Abstract recites that “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line”, but while paragraph 0059 of the specification of the published application, US 2025/0038107, teaches that a (first) metal line 110 is disposed on the first via (e.g., it teaches an opposite relation in comparison with the Abstract); note that paragraph 0069 of the published application teaches that a metal line comprises a first metal line 110a and a second metal line 110b, e.g., the first and second metal lines are created from a same metal line.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 1 and 15 recite: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second via is disposed on the second metal line”, where the specification, including drawings (see Annotated Fig. 6 reproduced below and paragraph 0059 of the published application), does not support the first part of the recitation.
Annotated Fig. 6
PNG
media_image1.png
304
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1-7 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1: Lines 7-8 of Claim 1 recite: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed on the second metal line”.
The recitation is unclear in its first part, since contradicts with paragraphs 0059 and 0069 of the published application and with drawings (which are also a part of the specification), teaching (see Annotated Fig. 6) that the first metal via 106 is disposed under the first metal line 110a, while the second metal via 122 is really disposed on the second metal line 110b:
In accordance with MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims [R-07.2022] inconsistence of the claim with the specification makes the claim indefinite, even though the terms of a claim may appear to be definite: see In re Cohn 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971).
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claimed subject matter.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation of Claim 1 was interpreted as: “the first metal via is disposed under the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed on the second metal line”.
In re Claim 15: Claim 15 has a same issue as Claim 1, and for this Office Action, their limitations corresponding the above-cited limitation of Claim 1, were interpreted in a way similar to interpretation of Claim 1.
In re Claims 2-7 and 16-21: Claims 2-7 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependency on Claim 1 or on Claim 15.
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.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2022/0384344) in view of Ikeda (US 20070271783).
In re Claim 8, Chen teaches an interconnect structure, comprising (Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 2):
Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
364
547
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first via metallization layer (as a lower part of layer 106, paragraph 0036) comprising at least a first metal via FML (as in Annotated Fig. 2);
a second via metallization layer (as a lower part of layer 108, paragraph 0037) comprising at least a second metal via SMV (as in Annotated Fig. 2); and
a first metallization layer (as an upper part of layer 106) disposed between the first via metallization layer and the second via metallization layer, the first metallization layer comprising a first metal line FML having a first sidewall at a first angle and a second metal line SML having a second sidewall at a second angle (both being straight angles); wherein
the first metal via FMV is disposed at a first outer edge of the first sidewall of the first metal line FML; wherein
the second metal via SMV is disposed at a second outer edge of the second sidewall of the second metal line SML; and wherein
the second metal via SMV is in an overlapping configuration with the first metal via FMV.
Chen does not teach that the first sidewall is at a first tapered angle and the second sidewall is at a second tapered angle.
Ikeda teaches (Fig. 1) two metal lines 40a and 40b, the first metal line 40a has a first side at a first tapered angle and the second metal line 40 has a second sidewall at a second tapered angle.
Chen and Ikeda teach analogous arts directed to metal lines, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Chen device in view of the Ikeda device, since they are from the same field if endeavor, and Ikeda created a successfully operated device.
It could have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to modify the Chen device by creating its first metal line with the first sidewall having a first tapered angle and its second metal line having the second sidewall with the second tapered angle, if such shapes of the first and second metal lines is preferred for the manufacturer: However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Claim 9, Chen/Ikea teaches the interconnect structure according to Claim 8 as cited above, with Ikea teaching the first and second tapered angles.
Ikea further teaches (Annotated Fig. 1) that the first tapered angle – FTA - is the same as the second tapered angle - STA.
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
376
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of filing the application to create, in the Chen/Ikea structure of Claim 8 – the first tapered angle being a same as the second tapered angle, if these first and second tapered angle are preferred for the manufacturer. Note that in accordance with MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Claim 10, Chen/Ikea teaches the interconnect structure of Claim 8 as cited above.
Chen further teaches (Annotated Fig. 2) that
the first via metallization layer – with the first via FMV - is disposed on a second metallization layer 104 (paragraph 0035) comprising a first plurality of metal lines (as shown by hatching), and
a given one of the first plurality of metal lines is in contact with the first metal via FMV.
In re Claim 11, Chen/Ikea teaches the interconnect structure of Claim 10 as cited above.
Chen further teaches (Fig. 2 and Annotated Fig. 2)
a third metallization layer 108 (paragraph 0037) disposed on the second via metallization layer – with SMV,
the third metallization layer 108 comprising a second plurality of metal lines (as shown by hatching), wherein
a given one of the second plurality of metal lines is in contact with the second metal via - SMV.
In re Claim 12, Chen/Ikea teaches the interconnect structure of Claim 8 as cited above, including the first and second metal vias.
Chen does not teach that: the first metal via has a tapered shape such that a width of an upper portion of the first metal via is less than a width of a lower portion of the first metal via and wherein the second metal via has a tapered shape such that a width of an upper portion of the second metal via is greater than a width of a lower portion of the second metal via.
Ikea teaches (Fig. 1) that
a first metal via 52 (paragraph 0034) has a tapered shape such that a width of an upper portion of the first metal via is less than a width of a lower portion of the first metal via and
a second metal via 54 (paragraph 0053) has a tapered shape such that a width of an upper portion of the second metal via is greater than a width of a lower portion of the second metal via.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the application to modify the Chen/Ikea structure of Claim 8 and creating the first and second metal vias in a tapered shape and such that a width of an upper portion of the first metal via is less than a width of the lower portion of the first via and a width of an upper portion of the second metal via is greater than a width of a lower portion of the second metal via, if such shales are preferred for the manufacture: See MPEP 2144.04. I.B, referencing In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), where the court held that changes in shape is not patentable since this is a matter of choice of a person of ordinary skill in the art in absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Claim 13, Chen/Ikea teaches the interconnect structure of Claim 8 as cited above.
Chen further teaches (Annotated Fig. 2), wherein the first via metallization layer is disposed within a dielectric layer (as shown by non-hatching regions; see paragraph 0096).
In re Claim 14, Chen/Ikea teaches the interconnect structure of Claim 13 as cited above.
Chen further teaches (Annotated Fig. 2) that the first metallization layer and the second via metallization layer are further disposed within the dielectric layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 15, as interpreted, contain allowable subject matter.
Reason for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claim 1: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation as: “the second metal via is in an overlapping configuration with the first metal via”, in combination with other limitations of Claim 1 as interpreted.
Re Claim 15: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such limitation as: “the second metal via is in an overlapping configuration with the first metal via”, in combination with other limitations of Claim 15 as interpreted.
The prior arts of record, in addition to the prior arts cited above by the current Office Action, also include: Wang et al. (US 2024/0414907), Chen et al. (US 2023/0100368), Willing (US 11,784,115), Barth et al. (US 7,812,424), Sio et al. (US 2020/0135640), and Lanzillo et al. (US 2022/0406717).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to GALINA G YUSHINA whose telephone number is 571-270-7440. The Examiner can normally be reached between 8 AM - 7 PM Pacific Time (Flexible).
Examiner interviews are available. 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300; a fax phone number of Galina Yushina is 571-270-8440.
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 visit 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.
/GALINA G YUSHINA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2811, TC 2800,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
E-mail: galina.yushina@USPTO.gov
Phone: 571-270-7440
Date: 02/23/26