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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I which corresponds to claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 6/2/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions or Species. New claims 21-31 are added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/13/2024 and 2/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 21-23, 26-28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et.al. (US- 20220310527A1, hereinafter Huang), and further in view of Mebarki et. al. (US- 20170294348A1, hereinafter Mebarki)
Regarding Claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
500
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Huang teaches in Fig.9 and in related text A redistribution structure, comprising: a metal line (#115); a first dielectric layer (#113) disposed over the metal line; a first etch stop layer (ESL) (#117) disposed over the first dielectric layer (#113); a second dielectric layer (#121) disposed over the first ESL (#117); and a conductive via (#123/#119) extending through the second dielectric layer (#121), the first ESL (#117) and the first dielectric layer (#113) to contact the metal line (#115/#119), ([0062-0064])
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein a lower portion of the second dielectric layer extends downward through the first ESL and the first dielectric layer and partially into the metal line.
Mebarki teaches in Fig.2G wherein a lower portion of the second dielectric layer (#212) extends downward through the first ESL (#202) and the first dielectric layer (#204) and partially into the metal line (#208). ([0024-0025])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang with the teachings of Mebarki as identified above, so a via is formed in and aligned by that dielectric-filled recessed landing region, in order to improve via alignment tolerance, reduce the risk of shorting or mislanding during via formation, and provide diffusion-barrier and reliability benefits at the via-to-metal interface.
Regarding Claim 7.
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 1,
Huang further teaches wherein the metal line (#115) is disposed over a passivation layer (#105), wherein the passivation layer comprises silicon nitride ([0020] the first ILD #105 may be made of,… silicon nitride,)
Huang modified by Mebarki does not explicitly disclose wherein the passivation layer comprises a thickness between about 1 μm and about 2 μm.
However, these limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the claimed thickness would have been obvious, for its benefit of optimizing the performance of the device.
Regarding Claim 8.
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 1,
Huang modified by Mebarki does not explicitly disclose wherein the lower portion comprises a width between about 10 μm and about 20 μm.
However, these limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the claimed width would have been obvious, for its benefit of optimizing the performance of the device.
Regarding Claim 9.
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 1,
Huang further teaches wherein the metal line comprises copper (Cu). ([0023])
Regarding Claim 21.
Huang teaches in Fig.9 A redistribution structure, comprising: a passivation layer (#105); a metal line (#115) disposed over the passivation layer (#105); a first dielectric layer (#113) disposed over the metal line (#115); a first etch stop layer (ESL) (#117) disposed over the first dielectric layer (#113); a second dielectric layer (#121) disposed over the first ESL (#117); and a conductive via (#123/#119) coupled to the metal line (#115), ([0062-0064])
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second dielectric layer extends through the first ESL and the first dielectric layer to contact the metal line.
Mebarki teaches in Fig.2G wherein the second dielectric layer (#212) extends through the first ESL(#202) and the first dielectric layer (#204) to contact the metal line (#208). ([0024-0025])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang with the teachings of Mebarki as identified above, so a via is formed in and aligned by that dielectric-filled recessed landing region, in order to improve via alignment tolerance, reduce the risk of shorting or mislanding during via formation, and provide diffusion-barrier and reliability benefits at the via-to-metal interface.
Regarding Claim 22
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 21,
Mebarki teaches wherein a bottommost surface of the second dielectric layer is below a topmost surface of the metal line. (Mabarki [0005] etching the first metal layer to form a recess within the first metal layer; depositing a second dielectric layer to fill the recess) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Mebarki with the teachings of Mebarki as identified above, in order to use the recess to guide deposition and formation of the second dielectric and the via, thereby improving manufacturability and reliability of the via-to-metal-interface.
Regarding Claim 23.
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 21,
Huang further teaches in Fig.9 and in related text further comprising: a second ESL extending over a top surface of the second dielectric layer (See Fig.9, ESL layer on top of #121), wherein the conductive via (#123/#119) interfaces with the second ESL and the first ESL.
Regarding Claim 26.
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 21,
Huang further teaches wherein the passivation layer (#105) comprises silicon nitride. (Huang [0020] , the first ILD 105 may be made of, for example, … silicon nitride)
Regarding Claim 27.
Huang teaches in Fig.9 A redistribution structure, comprising: a metal line (#115); a first dielectric layer (#113) disposed over the metal line; a first etch stop layer (ESL) (#117) disposed over the first dielectric layer (#113); a second dielectric layer (#121) disposed over the first ESL (#117); and a conductive via (#119/#123) extending through the first dielectric layer (#113) to contact the metal line (#115), ([0062-0064])
Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second dielectric layer interfaces with the first ESL, the first dielectric layer, and the metal line.
Mebarki teaches in Fig.2G wherein the second dielectric layer (#212) interfaces with the first ESL (#202), the first dielectric layer (#204), and the metal line (#208). ([0024-0025]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang with the teachings of Mebarki as identified above, so a via is formed in and aligned by that dielectric-filled recessed landing region, in order to improve via alignment tolerance, reduce the risk of shorting or mislanding during via formation, and provide diffusion-barrier and reliability benefits at the via-to-metal interface.
Regarding Claim 28.
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 27,
Mebarki further teaches wherein a bottommost portion of the second dielectric layer is embedded in the metal line. (Mabarki [0005] etching the first metal layer to form a recess within the first metal layer; depositing a second dielectric layer to fill the recess)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Mebarki with the teachings of Mebarki as identified above, in order to use the recess to guide deposition and formation of the second dielectric and the via, thereby improving manufacturability and reliability of the via-to-metal-interface.
Regarding Claim 30.
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 27,
Huang further teaches in Fig.9 further comprising: a second ESL (ESL layer on top of #121), wherein the second dielectric layer (#121) interfaces with the second ESL.
Regarding Claim 31
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 30,
Huang further teaches wherein the conductive via (#119/#123 passing through ESL layers)) extends through the second ESL.
Claims 2, 5 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et.al. (US- 20220310527A1, hereinafter Huang), in view of Mebarki et. al. (US- 20170294348A1, hereinafter Mebarki), and further in view of Hsiao et.al. (US- 20220328614A1, hereinafter Hsiao)
Regarding Claim 2.
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 1,
Hsiao teaches in Fig.1C further comprising: a dielectric liner (#128) sandwiched between the first dielectric layer (#130) and surfaces of the metal line (#122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang and Mebarki with the teachings of Hsiao as identified above, in order to provide better insulation between the metal line and the dielectric layer
Regarding Claim 5.
Huang modified by Mebarki and Hsiao teaches The redistribution structure of claim 2,
Hsiao teaches in Fig.1C wherein the dielectric liner (#128) is disposed over and in contact with sidewalls of the metal line (#122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Mebarki and Hsiao with the teachings of Hsiao as identified above, in order to provide better insulation between the metal line and the dielectric layer
Regarding Claim 29.
Huang modified by Mebarki teaches The redistribution structure of claim 27,
Hsiao further teaches in Fig.1I further comprising: a liner (#146) extending along a top surface of the metal line (#142), wherein the conductive via (#152) extends through the liner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Mebarki and Hsiao with the teachings of Hsiao as identified above, in order to isolate and protect the top surface of the metal line during subsequent contact/via formation, thereby reducing shorting risk and improving process robustness, while still permitting the via to extend through the liner to contact the metal line.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et.al. (US- 20220310527A1, hereinafter Huang), in view of Mebarki et. al. (US- 20170294348A1, hereinafter Mebarki), further in view of Hsiao et.al. (US- 20220328614A1, hereinafter Hsiao), and further in view of Lee et.al. (US-20150364425-A1, hereinafter Lee)
Regarding Claim 4.
Huang modified by Mebarki and Hsiao teaches The redistribution structure of claim 2,
Lee teaches wherein the dielectric liner (#136 liner layer) comprises silicon nitride ([0028, Suitable materials for insulating liner layer #136 include, but are not limited to, … silicon nitride) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Huang, Mebarki and Hsiao with the teachings of Lee as identified above, as this is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Huang modified by Mebarki, Hsiao and Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the dielectric liner comprises a thickness between about 100 nm and about 200 nm. However, these limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art), and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). In the present case, the selection of the claimed thickness would have been obvious, for its benefit of optimizing the performance of the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,6 and 24-25 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein the lower portion of the second dielectric layer also extends through the dielectric liner. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, wherein the lower portion of the second dielectric layer is in direct contact with sidewalls of the first ESL, the first dielectric layer, and the dielectric liner. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 24 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art, either singly or in combination, fails to anticipate or render obvious, the device, where further comprising: a dielectric liner disposed over the passivation layer and surrounding the metal line, wherein the conductive via extends through the dielectric liner. These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claim 25 contain allowable subject matter because they depend from claim 24.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA W KAO whose telephone number is (703)756-4797. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Pacific Time.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/SOPHIA W KAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights