DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on August 18, 2023 has been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
As to claims 9-12, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the first conductive line” and “the second conductive line”. The Examiner instead assumes “the first metal line” and “the second metal line”.
As to claims 16-19, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the first conductive line” and “the second conductive line”. The Examiner instead assumes “the first metal via” and “the second metal via”.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0381396 A1), hereafter “Chen”.
PNG
media_image1.png
611
789
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen, Annotated FIG. 15
As to claim 1, Chen teaches:
A first conductive line 56 and a second conductive line 56. See Chen, FIG. 1, FIG. 15. Also refer to Annotated FIG. 15 above.
A first metal pillar 62 extending vertically from a top surface of the first conductive line and a second metal pillar 62+86 extending vertically from a top surface of the second conductive line. Also refer to Annotated FIG. 15 above.
A conductive link 104 electrically connecting a top surface of the first metal pillar with a top surface of the second metal pillar. Id. at FIG. 14, FIG. 15. Also refer to Annotated FIG. 15 above.
Wherein both the first conductive line and the second conductive line are a different material than both the first metal pillar and the second metal pillar. Chen teaches the first and second conductive lines 56 comprise aluminum. Id. at ¶ [0021]. Chen teaches the first and second metal pillars 62 comprise copper. Id. at ¶¶ [0025].
Wherein both the first metal pillar and the second metal pillar are a different metal than the conductive link. Chen teaches the first and second metal pillars 62 comprise copper. Id. at ¶¶ [0025]. Chen teaches the conductive link 104 comprises titanium or tungsten. Id. at ¶ [0050].
As to claim 2, Chen teaches both the first and second conductive lines 56 comprise aluminum. Id. at ¶ [0021]. Chen teaches the conductive link 104 comprises titanium or tungsten. Id. at ¶ [0050]. These are different materials.
As to claim 7, Chen teaches each sidewall of the first metal pillar 62 contacts a passivation layer 58 and a dielectric layer 64, which comprise silicon oxide and polymer, respectively. Id. at FIG. 7, FIG. 15. Therefore, opposite sidewalls directly contact different dielectric materials.
As to claim 8, Chen teaches:
A first metal line 56 and a second metal line 56. Id. at FIG. 1, FIG. 15. Also refer to Annotated FIG. 15 above.
A first metal pillar 62 extending vertically from a top surface of the first metal line and a second metal pillar 62+86 extending vertically from a top surface of the second metal line. Also refer to Annotated FIG. 15 above.
A conductive link 104 electrically connecting a top surface of the first metal pillar with a top surface of the second metal pillar. Id. at FIG. 14, FIG. 15. Also refer to Annotated FIG. 15 above.
Wherein both the first metal line and the second metal line are a different metal than both the first metal pillar and the second metal pillar. Chen teaches the first and second metal lines 56 comprise aluminum. Id. at ¶ [0021]. Chen teaches the first and second metal pillars 62 comprise copper. Id. at ¶¶ [0025].
Wherein both the first metal pillar and the second metal pillar are a different metal than the conductive link. Chen teaches the first and second metal pillars 62 comprise copper. Id. at ¶¶ [0025]. Chen teaches the conductive link 104 comprises titanium or tungsten. Id. at ¶ [0050].
Wherein the conductive link directly contacts a sidewall of the first metal pillar and a sidewall of the second metal pillar. Chen teaches the conductive link 104 directly contacts top sidewalls of the first metal pillar and second metal pillar.
As to claim 9, Chen teaches both the first and second metal lines 56 comprise aluminum. Id. at ¶ [0021]. Chen teaches the conductive link 104 comprises titanium or tungsten. Id. at ¶ [0050]. These are different materials.
As to claim 14, Chen teaches each sidewall of the first metal pillar 62 contacts a passivation layer 58 and a dielectric layer 64, which comprise silicon oxide and polymer, respectively. Id. at FIG. 7, FIG. 15. Therefore, opposite sidewalls directly contact different dielectric materials.
As to claim 15, Chen teaches:
A first metal via 56 and a second metal via 56. Id. at FIG. 1, FIG. 15. Also refer to Annotated FIG. 15 above.
A first metal pillar 62 extending vertically from a top surface of the first metal via and a second metal pillar 62+86 extending vertically from a top surface of the second metal via. Also refer to Annotated FIG. 15 above.
Wherein both the first metal via and the second metal via are a different metal than both the first metal pillar and the second metal pillar. Chen teaches the first and second metal lines 56 comprise aluminum. Id. at ¶ [0021]. Chen teaches the first and second metal pillars 62 comprise copper. Id. at ¶¶ [0025].
A conductive link 104 electrically connecting the first metal pillar to the second metal pillar. Id. at FIG. 14, FIG. 15. Also refer to Annotated FIG. 15 above.
Wherein both the first metal pillar and the second metal pillar are a different metal than the conductive link. Chen teaches the first and second metal pillars 62 comprise copper. Id. at ¶¶ [0025]. Chen teaches the conductive link 104 comprises titanium or tungsten. Id. at ¶ [0050].
Wherein the conductive link comprises a first cross-sectional dimension and a second cross-sectional dimension, wherein the first cross-sectional dimension is smaller than the second cross-sectional dimension, and wherein the first cross-sectional dimension is approximately located at a mid-point between the first metal pillar and the second metal pillar. Refer to Chen, Annotated FIG. 15 Inset, below. The first cross-sectional dimension comprises only a thickness of 104 whereas the second cross-sectional dimension comprises a thickness of 104, a thickness of a via structure thereon top, and a thickness of 108.
PNG
media_image2.png
410
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen, Annotated FIG. 15 Inset
As to claim 16, Chen teaches both the first and second metal vias 56 comprise aluminum. Id. at ¶ [0021]. Chen teaches the conductive link 104 comprises titanium or tungsten. Id. at ¶ [0050]. These are different materials.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-6, 10-13, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to claim 1.
As to claim 3, Chen does not teach inter alia a lateral width of each of the conductive lines is at least 80% greater than a lateral width of each of the metal pillars.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 4, Chen does not teach inter alia a lateral distance between the conductive lines substantially equal to a lateral distance between the metal pillars.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 5, Chen does not teach inter alia a lateral distance between the conductive lines less than a lateral distance between the metal pillars.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 6, Chen does not teach inter alia the metal pillars are made from a metal having a higher electrical resistivity than that of the conductive link.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a corresponding material of a particular electrical resistivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 10, Chen does not teach inter alia a lateral width of each of the metal lines is at least 80% greater than a lateral width of each of the metal pillars.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 11, Chen does not teach inter alia a lateral distance between the metal lines substantially equal to a lateral distance between the metal pillars.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 12, Chen does not teach inter alia a lateral distance between the metal lines less than a lateral distance between the metal pillars.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 13, Chen does not teach inter alia the metal pillars are made from a metal having a higher electrical resistivity than that of the conductive link.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a corresponding material of a particular electrical resistivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 17, Chen does not teach inter alia a lateral width of each of the metal vias is at least 80% greater than a lateral width of each of the metal pillars.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 18, Chen does not teach inter alia a lateral distance between the metal vias substantially equal to a lateral distance between the metal pillars.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 19, Chen does not teach inter alia a lateral distance between the metal vias less than a lateral distance between the metal pillars.
On the other hand, shape, size, and dimension differences are considered obvious design choices and are not patentable unless unobvious or unexpected results are obtained from these changes. It appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. Note In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
As to claim 20, Chen does not teach inter alia the metal pillars are made from a metal having a higher electrical resistivity than that of the conductive link.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a corresponding material of a particular electrical resistivity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights