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
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1-9 and 18-20 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-9 and 18-20 are presented for examination.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bourjot et al. (US 20190312116 A1; hereinafter Bourjot).
Regarding claim 1, Bourjot teaches a semiconductor structure (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0008+], and as cited below), comprising (see alternative rejection for claim 1 in section 4 below):
PNG
media_image1.png
452
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a metal level (see Fig. 5; [0027]) comprising a first metal line ({57, 26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]) of a first type,
wherein the first metal line ({57, 26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]) of the first type has a first section ({26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5) and a second section (top section of {57}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5) on top of the first section ({26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5), the first section ({26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5) has a first width (width of {26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5), the second section (top section of {57}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5) has a second width (width of top section of {57}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5)at a top surface and a third width (width of bottom section of {57}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5) at a bottom surface, and the first width (width of {26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5) and the second width (width of top section of {57}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5) are larger than the third width (width of bottom section of {57}; Fig. 5; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Bourjot teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Bourjot further comprising a dielectric trench pillar (44; Fig. 5; [0025]) and the metal level (see Fig. 5; [0027]) further comprising a second metal line ({55, 26b}; Fig. 5; [0027]) of the first type, the dielectric trench pillar (44; Fig. 5; [0025]) being adjacent to and between the first ({57, 26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]) and the second metal line ({55, 26b}; Fig. 5; [0027]), wherein the first ({57, 26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]) and the second metal line ({55, 26b}; Fig. 5; [0027]) are positioned mirror-symmetric with respect to the dielectric trench pillar (44; Fig. 5; [0025]).
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Bourjot et al. (US 20190312116 A1; hereinafter Bourjot), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 4, Bourjot teaches all of the features of claim 3.
Bourjot further teaches wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar (44; Fig. 5; [0025]) (see below for “is higher than”) a height of the first ({57, 26c}; Fig. 5; [0027]) and the second metal line ({55, 26b}; Fig. 5; [0027]).
As noted above, Bourjot does not expressly disclose “wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar is higher than a height of the first and the second metal line”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar is higher than a height of the first and the second metal line” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar is higher than a height of the first and the second metal line). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar is higher than a height of the first and the second metal line” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar is higher than a height of the first and the second metal line”. Thus, the claimed “wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar is higher than a height of the first and the second metal line” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar is higher than a height of the first and the second metal line” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar is higher than a height of the first and the second metal line” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein a height of the dielectric trench pillar is higher than a height of the first and the second metal line” is not patentable over Bourjot.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
4. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh et al. (US 20240049611 A1; hereinafter Hsieh).
Regarding claim 1, Hsieh teaches a semiconductor structure (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1A+; [0001+], and as cited below), comprising (see alternative rejection for claim 1 in section 2 above):
PNG
media_image3.png
387
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a metal level (see Fig. 1A; [0025-0030]) comprising a first metal line ({102, 134, 140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]) of a first type,
wherein the first metal line ({102, 134, 140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]) of the first type has a first section ({140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) and a second section ({104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) on top of the first section ({140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A), the first section ({140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) has a first width (width of {140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A), the second section ({104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) has a second width (width of top surface of {104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) at a top surface and a third width (width of bottom section of {134}; Fig. 1A; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) at a bottom surface, and the first width (width of {140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) and the second width (width of top surface of {104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) are larger than the third width (width of bottom section of {134}; Fig. 1A; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 1A).
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
5. Claim 2, 5-9, and 18-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Hsieh et al. (US 20240049611 A1; hereinafter Hsieh), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 2, Hsieh teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Hsieh further teaches wherein the first section ({140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) of the first metal line ({102, 134, 140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see [0045], where 140 comprises of other suitable metals and alloys, where other metals such as ruthenium are detailed in [0045]) comprises a first type of ruthenium (see below for “having a first impurity level”) and the second section ({104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) of the first metal line ({102, 134, 140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]’ see [0045], ruthenium) comprises a second type of ruthenium (see below for “having a second impurity level, the first impurity level being lower than the second impurity level”).
As noted above, Hsieh does not expressly disclose “wherein the first section of the first metal line comprises a first type of ruthenium having a first impurity level and the second section of the first metal line comprises a second type of ruthenium having a second impurity level, the first impurity level being lower than the second impurity level”.
However, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “wherein the first section of the first metal line comprises a first type of ruthenium having a first impurity level and the second section of the first metal line comprises a second type of ruthenium having a second impurity level, the first impurity level being lower than the second impurity level” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen compositions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen compositions are critical. (.In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
Regarding claim 5, Hsieh teaches all of the features of claim 2
Hsieh further teaches wherein the metal level (see Fig. 1A) further comprises a second metal line ({136}; Fig. 1A; [0030]) of a second type that is different from the first type ({102, 134, 140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]), the second metal line ({136}; Fig. 1A; [0030]; where 136 comprises of other suitable metals and alloys, where other metals such as ruthenium are detailed in [0045]) comprises the first type of ruthenium and is devoid of the second type of ruthenium.
Regarding claim 6, Hsieh teaches all of the features of claim 5
Hsieh further comprising a dielectric trench pillar ({122}; Fig. 1A; [0030]) and the metal level (see Fig. 1A) further comprising a third metal line ({138}; Fig. 1A; [0030]; where 138 comprises of other suitable metals and alloys, where other metals such as ruthenium are detailed in [0045]) of the second type, the dielectric trench pillar ({122}; Fig. 1A; [0030]) being adjacent to and between the second ({136}; Fig. 1A; [0030]) and the third metal line ({138}; Fig. 1A; [0030]), wherein the dielectric trench pillar ({122}; Fig. 1A; [0030]) has a height (see below for “that is higher than a”) height of the second ({136}; Fig. 1A; [0030]) and the third metal line ({138}; Fig. 1A; [0030]).
As noted above, Hsieh does not expressly disclose “wherein the dielectric trench pillar has a height that is higher than a height of the second and the third metal line”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the dielectric trench pillar has a height that is higher than a height of the second and the third metal line” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the dielectric trench pillar has a height that is higher than a height of the second and the third metal line). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the dielectric trench pillar has a height that is higher than a height of the second and the third metal line” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the dielectric trench pillar has a height that is higher than a height of the second and the third metal line”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the dielectric trench pillar has a height that is higher than a height of the second and the third metal line” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image2.png
18
19
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein a sidewall of the bottom capacitor plate is coplanar with a sidewall of the one or more bottom plate contacts” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the dielectric trench pillar has a height that is higher than a height of the second and the third metal line” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the dielectric trench pillar has a height that is higher than a height of the second and the third metal line” is not patentable over Hsieh.
Regarding claim 7, Hsieh teaches all of the features of claim 5
Hsieh further teaches wherein the metal level (see Fig. 1A) further comprises a third metal line ({138}; Fig. 1A; [0030]; where 138 comprises of other suitable metals and alloys, where other metals such as ruthenium are detailed in [0045]) of the second type and a fourth metal ({112}; Fig. 1A; [0028, 0030, 0045]) line of the first type, the fourth metal line ({112}; Fig. 1A; [0028, 0030, 0045]) being adjacent to and between the second ({136}; Fig. 1A; [0030]) and the third metal line ({138}; Fig. 1A; [0030]; where 138 comprises of other suitable metals and alloys, where other metals such as ruthenium are detailed in [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Hsieh teaches all of the features of claim 7
Hsieh further comprising a topvia ({110}; Fig. 1A; [0028, 0030, 0045]) directly on top of the fourth metal line ({112}; Fig. 1A; [0028, 0030, 0045]) of the first type, wherein the topvia ({110}; Fig. 1A; [0028, 0030, 0045]) comprises the second type of ruthenium.
Regarding claim 9, Hsieh teaches all of the features of claim 5
Hsieh further comprising a topvia ({110}; Fig. 1A; [0028, 0030, 0045]) directly on top of the second metal line ({136}; Fig. 1A; [0030]) of the second type, wherein the topvia ({110}; Fig. 1A; [0028, 0030, 0045]) comprises the second type of ruthenium.
Regarding claim 18, Hsieh teaches a semiconductor structure (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1A+; [0001+], and as cited below), comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
387
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a metal level (see Fig. 1A; [0025-0030]) on top of a supporting structure ({148}; Fig. 1A; [0028-0030]), the metal level (see Fig. 1A; [0025-0030]) including a first metal line ({102, 134, 140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]) of a first type and a second metal line ({136}; Fig. 1A; [0030]) of a second type,
wherein the first metal line ({102, 134, 140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]) of the first type has a first section ({140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) and a second section ({104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) on top of the first section ({140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A), the first section ({140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A; see [0045], where 140 comprises of other suitable metals and alloys, where other metals such as ruthenium are detailed in [0045]) comprises a first type of ruthenium (see below for “having a first impurity level”) and the second section ({104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A; see [0045]; 102 comprises of 104, 106; see [0045], for ruthenium) comprises a second type of ruthenium (see below for “having a second impurity level, the first impurity level is lower than the second impurity level”), wherein the second metal line ({136}; Fig. 1A; [0030]; see [0045]) of the second type comprises the first type of ruthenium and is devoid of the second type of ruthenium.
As noted above, Hsieh does not expressly disclose “the first section comprises a first type of ruthenium having a first impurity level and the second section comprises a second type of ruthenium having a second impurity level, the first impurity level is lower than the second impurity level”.
However, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “the first section comprises a first type of ruthenium having a first impurity level and the second section comprises a second type of ruthenium having a second impurity level, the first impurity level is lower than the second impurity level” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen compositions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen compositions are critical. (.In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
Regarding claim 19, Hsieh teaches all of the features of claim 18 .
Hsieh further comprising a topvia (top portion of {104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]) directly on top of the first metal line ({102, 134, 140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]) of the first type, wherein the topvia (top portion of {104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]) comprises the second type of ruthenium (see [0045]; 102 comprises of 104, 106; see [0045], for ruthenium).
Regarding claim 20, Hsieh teaches all of the features of claim 18 .
Hsieh further teaches wherein the first section ({140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) has a first width (width of {140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A), the second section ({104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) has a second width (width of top surface of {104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) at a top surface and a third width (width of bottom section of {134}; Fig. 1A; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) at a bottom surface, and the first width (width of {140}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) and the second width (width of top surface of {104}; Fig. 1A; [0025, 0030, 0045]; see Annotated Fig. 1A) are larger than the third width (width of bottom section of {134}; Fig. 1A; [0027]; see Annotated Fig. 1A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights