Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/400,791

ORTHOGONAL METAL LINES AT THE SAME METAL LEVEL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 29, 2023
Examiner
DIALLO, MAMADOU L
Art Unit
2897
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
1207 granted / 1315 resolved
+23.8% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1344
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§103
39.5%
-0.5% vs TC avg
§102
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§112
9.8%
-30.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1315 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Specification The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2023 and 03/14/2024 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 1,3,8,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al, US 20240203868 A1 in view of You et al, US 20180033691 A1. PNG media_image1.png 330 633 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 238 427 media_image2.png Greyscale Pertaining to claim 1, Singh teaches ( see fig.8C above) A semiconductor interconnect structure, comprising: a first set of metal lines[815] running along a first orientation; and a second set of metal lines[840] and running along a second orientation, wherein the second set of metal lines[840] ( first two metal line 840 from left to right for example) are embedded within the first set of metal lines [815] at respective cross points between the first and second sets of metal lines[815 and 840], such that the second set of metal lines are located in a same metal level as the first set of metal lines ( see fig.8C where both are in a same metal level). Singh is silent as to the second set of metal lines[840] having an insulating liner. However, in the same filed of endeavor, You teaches ( see fig 6J above) wherein the second set of metal lines[MLb] having an insulating liner [141].In view of You, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an insulating liner into that of Singh second metal line in order to prevent material diffusion. Pertaining to claim 3, Singh teaches ( see fig.8C above) the semiconductor interconnect structure of claim 1, wherein the first orientation is parallel to the second orientation ( see fig.8C showing parallel orientation). Pertaining to claim 8, Singh teaches ( see fig.8C above) A semiconductor interconnect structure, comprising: a first set of metal lines [840] and running along a first orientation; and a second set of metal lines[815] running along a second orientation, wherein the first set of metal lines[840] ( first two metal line 840 from left to right for example) are encapsulated by the second set of metal lines [815] at respective cross points between the first and second sets of metal lines [815 and 840], such that the first set of metal lines are located in a same metal level as the second set of metal lines ( see fig.8C where both are in a same metal level). Singh is silent as to the first set of metal lines[840] having an insulating liner. However, in the same filed of endeavor, You teaches ( see fig 6J above) wherein the first set of metal lines[MLb] having an insulating liner [141].In view of You, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an insulating liner into that of Singh first set metal line in order to prevent material diffusion. Pertaining to claim 10, Singh teaches ( see fig.8C above) The semiconductor interconnect structure of claim 8, wherein the first orientation is parallel to the second orientation ( see fig.8C showing parallel orientation). Allowable Subject Matter Claim15-20 is allowed. The closest prior art of record of Singh et al, US 20240203868 A1 in view of You et al, US 20180033691 A1 teaches the limitation of " A method of forming a semiconductor interconnect structure, comprising: forming a first set of metal lines running along a first orientation; and forming a second set of metal lines running along a second orientation, but it does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the independent claim 15 including “forming a first set of metal lines running along a first orientation; and forming a second set of metal lines running along a second orientation, such that the second set of metal lines intersect the first set of metal lines at respective cross points between the first and second set of metal lines, and the second set of metal lines are located in a same metal level as the first set of metal lines.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Claims 2,4,5-7,9,11,12-14 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 closest prior art of record of Singh et al, US 20240203868 A1 in view of You et al, US 20180033691 A1 teaches the limitation of claim1 and 8, but it does not teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 2 and 9 respectively including “wherein the first orientation is orthogonal to the second orientation.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. it does not also teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 4 including “wherein: a top surface of the first set of metal lines is substantially coplanar with a top surface of the second set of metal lines; and a bottom surface of the first set of metal lines is located below a bottom surface of the second set of metal lines. ” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. it does not also teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 5 and 12 including “wherein the insulating liner isolates the second set of metal lines from the first set of metal lines at the respective cross points between the first and second set of metal lines. ” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. it does not again teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 5 including “wherein the insulating liner isolates the second set of metal lines from the first set of metal lines at the respective cross points between the first and second set of metal lines. ” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. it does not again teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 6 including “wherein a first pitch between respective metal lines in the first set of metal lines is greater than a second pitch between respective metal lines in the second set of metal lines.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. it does not again teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 7 and 13 including “wherein a first pitch between respective metal lines in the first set of metal lines is less than or equal to a second pitch between respective metal lines in the second set of metal lines.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. it does not also teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 11 including “wherein: a bottom surface of the first set of metal lines[840] is substantially coplanar with a bottom surface of the second set of metal lines[815]; and a top surface of the first set of metal lines[840] is located below a top surface of the second set of metal lines.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. it does not again teach or suggest, singularly or in combination, at least the limitations of the dependent claim 14 including “ wherein a first pitch between respective metal lines in the first set of metal lines is greater than or equal to a second pitch between respective metal lines in the second set of metal lines.” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAMADOU L DIALLO whose telephone number is (571)270-5449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5PM. 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, FERNANDO TOLEDO can be reached at (571)272-1867. 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. /MAMADOU L DIALLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 29, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604773
ELECTRONIC DEVICE HAVING OPAQUE LAYER WITH OPENING FOR LIGHT TRANSMISSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598758
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCLUDING DUMMY PAD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598850
DISPLAY MODULE AND AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593467
THIN FILM SEMICONDUCTOR SWITCHING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588221
THREE-DIMENSIONAL FLASH MEMORY WITH HIGH DEGREE OF INTEGRATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
95%
With Interview (+3.0%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1315 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