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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application No. 18405973 filed on 01/05/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. These IDS has been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14, 21-26 in the reply filed on 5/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 10-14, 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (independent claims 8 & 21), 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: Lanzillo et al. (US 2024/0421079) & Martin et al. (US 2024/0282740).
With respect to dependent claim 10, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “wherein top surfaces of the first and second regions are coplanar”.
With respect to dependent claim 11, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “wherein the second region further comprises a third dielectric material layer on bottom and side surfaces of the second region, wherein the third dielectric material is different from the second dielectric material”.
With respect to dependent claim 12, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “wherein the second region further comprises a third dielectric layer on the second dielectric layer and embedding an upper portion of the second metal structure”.
With respect to dependent claims 13-14, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “another interconnect layer on the interconnect layer and comprising third and fourth regions, wherein: the third region comprises a third metal structure and the first dielectric material; the fourth region comprises a fourth metal structure and the second dielectric material; a third ratio of a third metal surface area to a third non-metal surface area in the third region is substantially equal to the first ratio; and a fourth ratio of a fourth metal surface area to a fourth non-metal surface area in the fourth region is substantially equal to the second ratio”.
With respect to dependent claim 24, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “wherein the third dielectric layer comprises: a first sublayer in contact with the first and second dielectric layers; and a second sublayer in the first sublayer and surrounding the third metal structure”.
With respect to dependent claim 25, the cited prior art does not anticipate or make obvious, inter alia, the step of: “wherein the second interconnect structure further comprises a fourth dielectric layer and a fourth metal structure embedded in the third dielectric layer, wherein the third and fourth dielectric layers are coplanar”.
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 1-7, 21-23, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (US 2024/0282740).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Martin et al. teach a structure, comprising:
first (Fig. 1, element 132, paragraph 0043) and second (Fig. 1, element 116, paragraph 0042) dielectric regions on a substrate,
wherein: the first dielectric region comprises a first dielectric material (paragraph 0043 discloses a dielectric material. Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select known dielectric materials such as epoxy, low-k dielectric as disclosed in paragraph 0048, 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);
the second dielectric region comprises a second dielectric material (paragraph 0042 discloses polyimide) different from the first dielectric material; and
top surfaces of the first and second dielectric regions are coplanar (Fig. 1);
a first metal structure first (Fig. 1, metal line 134 & via, paragraph 0043) in the first dielectric region and having a first density; and
a second metal structure (Fig. 1, metal line 118 & vias, paragraph 0042) in the second dielectric region and having a second density different from the first density.
Regarding claim 2, Martin et al. teach wherein: the first density is less than the second density (Fig. 1); and a first porosity of the first dielectric material is less than a second porosity of the second dielectric material (paragraph 0042-0043, 0048 disclose various dielectric materials. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the appropriate dielectric material with the claimed porosity, 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 3, Martin et al. teach wherein: the first density is less than the second density (Fig. 1); and a first carbon concentration of the first dielectric material is less than a second carbon concentration of the second dielectric material (paragraph 0042-0043, 0048 disclose various dielectric materials. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the appropriate dielectric material with the claimed carbon concentrations, 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 4, Martin et al. teach wherein: the first density is less than the second density (Fig. 1); and a first dielectric constant of the first dielectric material is greater than a second dielectric constant of the second dielectric material (paragraph 0042-0043, 0048 disclose various dielectric materials. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the appropriate dielectric material with the claimed dielectric constants, 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 5, Martin et al. teach wherein: the first density is less than the second density (Fig. 1); and a first breakdown voltage of the first dielectric material is greater than a second breakdown voltage of the second dielectric material (paragraph 0042-0043, 0048 disclose various dielectric materials. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the appropriate dielectric material with the claimed dielectric constants, 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 6, Martin et al. teach wherein top surfaces of the first and second metal structures are coplanar (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Martin et al. teach wherein the first and second metal structures comprise copper (paragraph 0042-0043. Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select known conductive/metal material such as copper as disclosed in paragraph 0047, 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 Independent claim 21, Martin et al. teach a structure, comprising:
a first interconnect structure on a substrate (Fig. 1, element 106, paragraph 0041),
wherein the first interconnect structure comprises:
a first dielectric layer (paragraph 0043 discloses a dielectric material. Before the effective filling date of the invention it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select known dielectric materials such as epoxy, low-k dielectric as disclosed in paragraph 0048, 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) having a first polishing rate;
a first metal structure (Fig. 1, metal line 134 & via, paragraph 0043) embedded in the first dielectric layer having a first metal density;
a second dielectric layer (Fig. 1, element 116, paragraph 0042 discloses polyimide) having a second polishing rate different from the first polishing rate; and
a second metal structure (Fig. 1, metal line 118 & vias, paragraph 0042) embedded in the second dielectric layer having a second metal density different from the first metal density (Fig. 1); and
a second interconnect structure on the first interconnect structure, wherein the second interconnect structure comprises: a third dielectric layer (Fig. 1, element 148, paragraph 0048) overlapping with the first and second dielectric layers; and a third metal structure (Fig.1, elements 146, 144, paragraph 0047, 0049) embedded in the third dielectric layer.
Regarding claim 22, Martin et al. teach wherein the third metal structure is electrically coupled with the first metal structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Martin et al. teach wherein a first interface between the first and third dielectric layers and a second interface between the second and third dielectric layers are coplanar (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Martin et al. teach wherein: a third metal density of the third metal structure is greater than the second metal density (Fig. 1); and a third polishing rate of the third dielectric layer is less than the second polishing rate (paragraph 0042-0043, 0048 disclose various dielectric materials. Accordingly, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the appropriate dielectric material with the claimed polishing rates, 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).
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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lanzillo et al. (US 2024/0421079)
Regarding Independent claim 8, Lanzillo et al. teach a structure, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 3, element 2, paragraph 0047); and
an interconnect layer on the substrate and comprising first and second regions,
wherein: the first region comprises a first metal structure (Fig. 3, element 5F, paragraph 0071) embedded in a first dielectric layer (Fig. 3, element 31F, paragraph 0071),
wherein the first dielectric layer comprises a first dielectric material (paragraph 0079);
the second region comprises a second metal structure (Fig. 3, element 30F, paragraph 0071) embedded in a second dielectric layer (Fig. 3, element 33F, paragraph 0071),
wherein the second dielectric layer comprises a second dielectric material different from the first dielectric material (paragraph 0079 discloses elements 31F and 33F can be different), and
wherein thicknesses of the first and second dielectric layers are different (paragraph 0079 discloses thickness of elements 31F and 33F can be different);
a first ratio of a first metal surface area to a first non-metal surface area in the first region is less than a reference value (Fig. 3); and
a second ratio of a second metal surface area to a second non-metal surface area in the second region is greater than the reference value (Fig. 3, the second ratio is greater than the first ratio).
Regarding claim 9, Lanzillo et al. teach wherein the reference value is between about 1.0 and about 1.4 (Fig. 3, the second ratio is greater than the first ratio).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
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