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
The amendment filed on 05/28/206 under 37 CFR 1.131 has been considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 has been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references as being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 8-16, 25 are persuasive, accordingly, claims 8-16, 25 are allowed.
Claims 21-25 have been added.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18378789 filed on 10/11/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Allowable subject matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (independent claim 1), 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art known to the Examiner is listed on the PTO 892 forms of record.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Koh et al. (US 2024/0096785).
With respect to dependent claim 6, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “wherein the 1st top via has an amorphous or polycrystalline structure, and the 1st metal line and the 2nd metal line have a columnar material structure”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koh et al. (US 2024/0105589).
Regarding independent claim 1, Koh et al. teach a semiconductor device comprising:
a frontside structure comprising at least one of a front-end-of-line (FEOL) structure (Fig. 1, element 110, paragraph 0030), and a middle-of-line (MOL) structure (Fig. 1, elements 165B, 165D, 150E comprise middle-of-line (MOL) structure); and
an interconnect structure on the frontside structure, the interconnect structure comprising:
a 1st metal line (Fig. 1, element 165B, paragraph 0049) on the frontside structure; and
a 2nd metal line (Fig. 1, element 165D, paragraph 0049) on the frontside structure,
wherein the 1st metal line has a greater width than the 2nd metal line in a same direction (Fig. 1, paragraph 0052), and
wherein the 1st metal line and the 2nd metal line have an equal height (Fig. 1), and
wherein the 1st metal line and the 2nd metal line are included in a lowermost metallization layer of the interconnect structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Koh et al. teach further comprising a 1st top via (Fig. 1, element 150E, paragraph 0053) on the 1st metal line without an intervening layer.
Regarding claim 3, Koh et al. teach further wherein the 1st top via and the 1st metal line comprise a same material composition (paragraph 0047 0051 disclose that the vias and metal line comprise of metal).
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.
Claims 4, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US 2024/0105589).
Regarding claim 4, Koh et al. teach wherein the 1st top via and the 1st metal line comprise ruthenium (Ru) (Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a known metal such as ruthenium as disclosed by Koh in paragraph 0015 , since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416).
Regarding claim 21, Koh et al. teach wherein the 1st metal line is configured as a power rail that electrically connects the frontside structure to a voltage source, and wherein the 2nd metal line is configured as a signal line (This is an intended use recitation. The examiner notes that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). Furthermore, the interconnect structure can be used in a computing device 2400 as shown in Fig. 9 that is coupled to voltage sources and signal lines).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US 2024/0096785) in view of Hsu et al. (US 2024/0312840).
Regarding claim 5, Koh et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Koh et al. do not explicitly disclose wherein a material structure of the 1st top via is different from a material structure of the 1st metal line and the 2ndmetalline.
Hsu et al. teach an interconnect structure comprising using different deposition process to form metal lines and vias in the same interconnect level (paragraph 0050) which would result in the metal line and via having different microstructures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Koh et al. according to the teachings of Hsu et al. with the motivation to improve performance of integrated circuits (ICs) (paragraph 0002).
Claims 7, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US 2024/0096785) in view of Choi et al. (US 2024/0096785).
Regarding claim 7, Koh et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Koh et al. do not explicitly disclose a 2nd top via (Fig. 1, element 150G, paragraph 0054) on the 2nd metal line without an intervening layer therebetween, wherein the 1st top via and the 2nd top via have an equal height (Fig. 1).
Choi et al. teach an interconnect structure comprising a 2nd top via (Fig. 1, element 150F, paragraph 0052) on the 2nd metal line (Fig. 1, element 165B, paragraph 0049) without an intervening layer therebetween, wherein the 1st top via (Fig. 1, element 150D, paragraph 0052) and the 2nd top via have an equal height (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Koh et al. according to the teachings of Choi et al. with the motivation to improve performance to optimize the resistance and capacitance (paragraph 0017).
Regarding claim 24, Koh et al. modified by Hsu et al. teach wherein the same direction is a 1st direction, wherein the 1st metal line and the 2nd metal line are spaced apart in the 1st direction (Fig. 1), and wherein the 1st metal line and the 2nd metal line each have a longest dimension in a 2nd direction intersecting the 1st direction (paragraph 0089 of Koh and paragraph 0049 of Choi disclose the width and heigh can be adjusted. Accordingly, the width and height are art recognized optimizable parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the dimensions and arrive at the claimed limitation. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed dimension is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US 2024/0096785) in view of Kung et al. (US 2024/0087951).
Regarding claim 22, Koh et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Koh et al. do not explicitly disclose further comprising an adhesive layer between the frontside structure and each of the 1st metal line and the 2nd metal line, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a metal nitride material.
Kung et al. teach an interconnect structure comprising an adhesive layer (Fig. 1A, element 123, paragraph 0031) between the frontside structure (Fig. 1A, element 110, paragraph 0025) and each of the 1st metal line (Fig. 1A, element 124, paragraph 0029) and the 2nd metal line (Fig. 1A, element 124, paragraph 0039), wherein the adhesive layer comprises a metal nitride material (paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Koh et al. according to the teachings of Kung et al. with the motivation to improve adhesion (paragraph 0070).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koh et al. (US 2024/0096785) in view of Usami et al. (US 2013/0069238) and further in view of Choi et al. (US 2024/0096785).
Regarding claim 23, Koh et al. teach all of the limitations as discussed above.
Koh et al. do not explicitly disclose further comprising a 3rdmetal line and a 4th metal line on the frontside structure, wherein the 3rd metal line is between the 1st metal line and the 2nd metal line in the same direction, wherein the 1st metal line is between the 3rd metal line and the 4th metal line in the same direction, wherein the 3rd metal line has a same width as the 2ndmetal line, wherein the 4th metal line has a same width as the 1st metal line, and wherein 1st metal line, the 2nd metal line, the 3rd metal line, and the 4th metal line have an equal height.
PNG
media_image1.png
666
777
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Usami et al. teach an interconnect structure comprising a 3rdmetal line and a 4th metal line on the frontside structure, wherein the 3rd metal line is between the 1st metal line and the 2nd metal line in the same direction, wherein the 1st metal line is between the 3rd metal line and the 4th metal line in the same direction (see annotated figure above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Koh et al. according to the teachings of Usami et al. with the motivation to provide a semiconductor device having a low-resistance fine-pitch wiring structure (paragraph 0012).
Koh et al. modified by Usami et al. do not explicitly disclose , wherein the 3rd metal line has a same width as the 2ndmetal line, wherein the 4th metal line has a same width as the 1st metal line, and wherein 1st metal line, the 2nd metal line, the 3rd metal line, and the 4th metal line have an equal height.
Koh et al. in paragraph 0089 of Koh Choi et al. in 0049 disclose the width and heigh can be adjusted form metal lines. Accordingly, the width and height are art recognized optimizable parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the dimensions and arrive at the claimed limitation. Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed dimensions are for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the teachings of Koh et al. and Usami et al. according to the teachings of Choi et al. with the motivation to improve performance to optimize the resistance and capacitance (paragraph 0017).
Conclusion
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 SHAHED AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-3477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Steven Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/SHAHED AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights