DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the communications dated 07/10/2026.
Claims 1-16, and 21-24 are pending in this application.
Claims 2, and 13 have been withdrawn.
Claims 17-20 have been cancelled.
Remarks
2. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection. See details below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 / § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over SHIH et al. (US 2022/0130736) in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0318342).
Regarding claim 1, SHIH discloses a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a metal line 250 over a first substrate 220 or 220 & 240 (see Fig. 1, Fig. 30; note that the structure in Fig. 1 of SHIH can be flipped upside-down);
a second substrate 322 or 322 & 340 over the metal line 250; and
a through-via 300 (Fig. 26) or 500 (Fig. 1) penetrating through the second substrate and landing on the metal line 250,
wherein the through-via includes a top portion (having height H2 & H3, Fig. 1) with a first top width 504,CD2 over a bottom portion (extending from the top portion to the metal line 250) with a second top width 502,CD1 that is smaller than the first top width, wherein the top portion (having thickness H2 + H3) has a smaller thickness than the bottom portion (having thickness H1 + thickness of layer 340 + thickness of layer 400), and the top portion includes a first bulk portion (having height H2, and critical dimension 504,CD2) over a first footing feature (having height H3, and critical dimension 506, CD3),
wherein the first bulk portion has first sidewalls, the first footing feature has second sidewalls, and the second sidewalls slant inwards from the first sidewalls to narrow the through-via 300 from the first top width 504,CD2 of the top portion to the second top width 502,CD1 of the bottom portion.
SHIH fails to disclose:
wherein the through-via includes a copper fill having at least 85% (111) crystal orientation.
Han discloses:
a through silicon vias (TSV) includes a copper fill having at least 85% (111) crystal orientation. See paras. 0004-0006, 0008-0009.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of SHIH so that the though-via of SHIH would include a copper fill, as that taught by Han, in order to improve properties including mechanical strength, ductility, electromigration resistivity, and hardness of the through-via conductor. See para. 0005 of Han.
Regarding claim 4, SHIH/Han discloses the semiconductor structure of claim 1, comprising all claimed limitations, as discussed above, except for wherein the first top width of the top portion ranges between 1.4 µm to 10 µm, and the second top width of the bottom portion ranges between 0.6 µm to 8 µm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of SHIH/Han so that the first top width of the top portion and the second top width of the bottom portion being in any suitable widths, including in the with ranges as claimed, since it would have been obvious that changing the width of a component would involve only routine skills in the art. It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed element, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP §2144.04). It would have been obvious that a mere change in dimensions/widths of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
It is to be expected that a change in dimensions or widths would be an unpatentable modification.
Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely degree from the results of the prior art...such ranges are termed "critical ranges and the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
The instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions/sizes or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aided to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. (.In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).)
The claimed limitation regarding to the width of the through-via do/does not bear any critical point that would establish patentability and is/are not sufficient to patentable distinguish over the prior art, therefore being considered as unpatentable limitation(s) because it would have involve only a mere change in size/thickness of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding claim 10, SHIH/Han discloses the semiconductor structure of claim 1, wherein the copper fill of the through-via has at least 97% (111) crystal orientation. See paras. 0004, 0057 of Han.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 3, 5, and 6-9 are allowable.
Claims 3, 5, and 6-9 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, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed semiconductor structure (in addition to the other limitations in the claim) comprising:
Claim 3:
wherein a first portion of the through-via has a first texture direction, a second portion of the through-via has a second texture direction, and the first texture direction is different from the second texture direction.
Claim 5:
wherein the top portion has a top height that ranges between 0.5 µm to 2.5 µm, and the first footing feature has a first foot height that ranges between 0.1 µm to 1 µm.
Claims 6-9:
wherein the bottom portion includes a second bulk portion over a second footing feature,
wherein the second bulk portion has third sidewalls, the second footing feature has fourth sidewalls, and the fourth sidewalls slant inwards from the third sidewalls to narrow the through-via from a first bottom width of the second bulk portion to a second bottom width of the second footing feature.
Allowance / Reasons for Allowance
6. Claims 11-12, 14-16, and 21-24 are allowed.
The followings are examiner’s statements of reasons for allowance:
Claims 11-12, and 14-16:
None of the references of record teaches or suggests the claimed semiconductor structure (in combination set forth in the claim) comprising:
wherein the through-via includes a wider top portion over a narrower bottom portion,
the bottom portion includes a second bulk portion over a second footing feature, the second bulk portion has third sidewalls, the second footing feature has fourth sidewalls, and the fourth sidewalls slant inwards from the third sidewalls to narrow the through-via from a third width to a fourth width.
Claims 21-24:
None of the references of record teaches or suggests the claimed semiconductor structure (in combination set forth in the claim) comprising:
a through-via includes ... a narrower bottom portion,
the bottom portion includes a second bulk portion over a second footing feature, the second bulk portion has third sidewalls, the second footing feature has fourth sidewalls, and the fourth sidewalls slant inwards from the third sidewalls to narrow the through-via from a third width to a fourth width,
wherein a first portion of the through-via has a first texture direction, a second portion of the through-via has a second texture direction, and the first texture direction is different from the second texture direction.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dao H. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-1791. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Loke, can be reached on (571)272-1657. The fax numbers for all communication(s) is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571)272-1633.
/Dao H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
September 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights