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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
Applicant’ amendment filed 06/18/26 has been acknowledged.
Applicant amended Abstract, a few paragraphs of the specification, and Claims 1, 8, 15.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a top surface of the first metal via is in contact with a bottom surface of the first metal line, and a bottom surface of the second metal via is in contact with a top surface of the second metal line”, as Claim 4 recites, where Claim 4 depends on Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line”.
“the first via metallization layer is disposed on a second metallization layer comprising a first plurality of metal lines, and a given one of the first plurality of metal lines is in contact with the first metal via”, as Claim 5 recites, where Claim 5 depends on Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line”.
“the third metallization layer comprising a second plurality of metal lines, wherein a given one of the second plurality of metal lines is in contact with the second metal via”, as Claim 6 recites, where Claim 6 depends on Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line”.
“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”, as Claim 7 recites, where Claim 7 depends on Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line”.
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.
Specification
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:
Claim 4 recites: “a top surface of the first metal via is in contact with a bottom surface of the first metal line, and a bottom surface of the second metal via is in contact with a top surface of the second metal line”, where Claim 4 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: "the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 4 that depends on the amended Claim 1.
Claim 5 recites: “the first via metallization layer is disposed on a second metallization layer comprising a first plurality of metal lines, and a given one of the first plurality of metal lines is in contact with the first metal via”, where Claim 5 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: "the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 5 that depends on the amended Claim 1.
Claim 6 recites: “the third metallization layer comprising a second plurality of metal lines, wherein a given one of the second plurality of metal lines is in contact with the second metal via”, where Claim 6 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 5 that depends on the amended Claim 1.
Claim 7 recites: “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”, where Claim 7 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 7 that depends on the amended Claim 1.
Claims 18-20 have same issues as Claims 5, 6, and 7, accordingly.
The amendment filed 06/18/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action:
Claim 4 recites: “a top surface of the first metal via is in contact with a bottom surface of the first metal line, and a bottom surface of the second metal via is in contact with a top surface of the second metal line”, where Claim 4 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: "the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the combination of the cited limitations of Claim 4 and the amended Claim 1 is not taught by the specification and original claims of the application; accordingly, at this time, the limitations of Claim 4 represent a new matter.
Claim 5 recites: “the first via metallization layer is disposed on a second metallization layer comprising a first plurality of metal lines, and a given one of the first plurality of metal lines is in contact with the first metal via”, where Claim 5 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: "the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 5 that depends on the amended Claim 1, and, accordingly, the limitation of Claim 5 represents a new matter.
Claim 6 recites: “the third metallization layer comprising a second plurality of metal lines, wherein a given one of the second plurality of metal lines is in contact with the second metal via”, where Claim 6 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 6 that depends on the amended Claim 1, and, correspondingly, the cited limitation of Claim 6 represents a new matter.
Claim 7 recites: “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”, where Claim 7 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 7 that depends on the amended Claim 1, accordingly, the limitation of Claim 7 represents a new matter.
Claims 18-20 have same issues as Claims 5-7, in view of the amended Claim 15.
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.
Claims 4-7 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re Claim 4: Claim 4 recites: “a top surface of the first metal via is in contact with a bottom surface of the first metal line, and a bottom surface of the second metal via is in contact with a top surface of the second metal line”, where Claim 4 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: "the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line”. In view of the amendment to Claim 1, the limitation of Claim 4 represents a new matter, since the specification, including drawings and and original claims, does not teach a top surface of the first metal via in contact with a bottom surface of the first metal line, wherein the same first via is also disposed on the first metal line and does not teach a bottom surface of the second metal via in contact with a top surface of the second metal line, wherein the same second via is disposed under the first metal line. Appropriate correction of Claim 4 is required.
In re Claim 5: Claim 5 recites: “the first via metallization layer is disposed on a second metallization layer comprising a first plurality of metal lines, and a given one of the first plurality of metal lines is in contact with the first metal via”, where Claim 5 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: "the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 5 that depends on the amended Claim 1, and, accordingly, the limitation of Claim 5 represents a new matter. Appropriate correction of Claim 5 is required.
In re Claim 6: Claim 6 recites: “the third metallization layer comprising a second plurality of metal lines, wherein a given one of the second plurality of metal lines is in contact with the second metal via”, where Claim 6 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 6 that depends on the amended Claim 1, and, correspondingly, the cited limitation of Claim 6 represents a new matter. Appropriate correction of Claim 6 is required.
In re Claim 7: Claim 7 recites: “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”, where Claim 7 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 7 that depends on the amended Claim 1, accordingly, the limitation of Claim 7 represents a new matter. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claims 18-20: Claims 18-20 have same issues as Claims 5-7, in view of the amended Claim 15. Appropriate corrections are required.
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 4-7 and 18-20 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 4: Claim 4 recites: “a top surface of the first metal via is in contact with a bottom surface of the first metal line, and a bottom surface of the second metal via is in contact with a top surface of the second metal line”. The recitation is unclear, since Claim 4 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: "the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line”.
For a better clarity of the rejection, see Annotated Fig. 6 of the current application provided below.
Annotated Fig. 6
PNG
media_image1.png
320
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“Numbered” cited recitations of Claim 1, are read as follows: "the first metal via 122 is disposed on the first metal line 110b and the second metal via 106 is disposed under the second metal line 110a”.
“Numbered” cited recitations of Claim 4, in view of the identifications applicable for Claim 1, are read as follows: “a top surface of the first metal via 122 is in contact with a bottom surface of the first metal line 110b, and a bottom surface of the second metal via 106 is in contact with a top surface of the second metal line 110a”. However, the cited dispositions of Claim 4 are not read on Fig. 6 of the current application when the first metal via is via 122 and the second metal via is via 106.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claimed subject matter.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation of Claim 4 was interpreted as: “a bottom surface of the first metal via (122) is in contact with a top surface of the first metal line (110b), and a top surface of the second metal via (106) is in contact with a bottom surface of the second metal line (110a)”.
In re Claim 5: Claim 5 recites: “the first via metallization layer is disposed on a second metallization layer comprising a first plurality of metal lines, and a given one of the first plurality of metal lines is in contact with the first metal via”. The recitation is unclear, since Claim 6 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: "the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line”. – See Annotated Fig. 6 to understand contradictions between the original Claim 5 and the amended Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required to clarify the claimed subject matter.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation of Claim 5 was interpreted as: “the second via metallization layer is disposed on a second metallization layer comprising a first plurality of metal lines, and a given one of the first plurality of metal lines is in contact with the second metal via”
In re Claim 6: Claim 6 recites: “a third metallization layer disposed on the second via metallization layer, the third metallization layer comprising a second plurality of metal lines, wherein a given one of the second plurality of metal lines is in contact with the second metal via”. The recitation is unclear, since Claim 6 depends on Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line” – the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 6 that depends on the amended Claim 1.
Appropriate correction of Claim 6 is required.
For this Office Action, the cited limitation of Claim 6 was interpreted as: “a third metallization layer is disposed on the first via metallization layer, the third metallization layer comprising a second plurality of metal lines, wherein a given one of the second plurality of metal lines is in contact with the first metal via”.
In re Claim 7: Claim 7 recites: “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”. The recitation is unclear, since Claim 7 depends on the amended Claim 1 that recites: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line”, and the specification does not teach the cited limitation of the original Claim 7 that depends on the amended Claim 1.
Appropriate correction of Claim 7 is required.
For this Office Action, the cited recitation of Claim 7 was interpreted as: “the first metal via has a tapered shape such that a width of an upper portion of the first metal via is larger than a width of a lower portion of the first metal via”.
In re Claims 18-20: Claims 18-20 have same issues as Claims 5-7. Appropriate corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 8-17, and 21 are allowed.
Reason for Identification Allowable Subject Matter
Re Claim 1: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such combination of limitations as: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line, and wherein the second metal via is an overlapping configuration with the first metal via”, in combination with other limitations of the claim.
Re Claim 8: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such combination of limitations as: “the first metal via is disposed at a first outer edge of the first sidewall of the first metal line and is electrically connected to the first metal line; wherein the second metal via is disposed at a second outer edge of the second sidewall of the second metal line and is electrically connected to the second metal line; and wherein the second metal vi is in an overlapping configuration with the first metal via”, in combination with other limitations of the claim.
Re Claim 15: The prior arts of record, alone or in combination, fail(s) to anticipate or render obvious such combination of limitations as: “the first metal via is disposed on the first metal line and the second metal via is disposed under the second metal line, and wherein the second metal via is an overlapping configuration with the first metal via”, in combination with other limitations of the claim.
Re Claims 2-3, 9-14,16-17, and 21 are allowed due to dependency on a corresponding independent Claim 1, 8, or 15.
The prior arts of record include all prior arts cited by the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/18/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’ arguments (REMARKS, filed 06/18/26) have been fully considered.
Examiner agrees with the presented summary of the interview (REMARKS, page 11).
Agreeing with Applicant that amendments to Claims 1 and 15 overcome objections to the drawings presented earlier (REMARKS, page 12), Examiner notes that new objections to the drawings arise.
Examiner agrees with the amendments to the Abstract and Specification (REMARKS, page 12), but notes that additional amendments to the specification are required, in view of the amendments associated with amendments to Claims 1 and 15.
Examiner agrees that the amended Claim 8 and Claims 9-14, dependent on Claim 8, are patentable (REMARKS, pages 12-15).
Agreeing with patentability of the amended independent Claims 1 and 15 (REMARKS, page 15), Examiner disagrees that all claims dependent on Claims 1 and 15 are patentable: As the current Office Action shows, some claims dependent on Claims 1 and 15 - cannot be allowed.
Regarding a request for rejoinder of method claims with the examined device claims (REMARKS, page 15), Examiner reminds that the request for rejoinder it typically considered when all examined device claims are allowable.
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 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: 07/06/26
Prosecution Insights