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 01/20/2026.
Claims 1-16, and 21-24 are pending in this application.
Applicant made a provisional election without traverse to prosecute the
invention of Group I, claims 1-16, is acknowledged.
Within Group I, Applicant further made an election with traverse of Specie I. The traverse (see Applicant’s Remarks, pages 13-14) has been fully considered but is not found persuasive.
As set forth in the Restriction Requirement, inventions of Species I and Species II are distinct as one is directed to inventions in which the copper fill has first and second different texture directions, while the other is directed to inventions in which the copper fill has substantially the same texture direction. That is, the inventions of the two Species are patentably distinct, and separate searches are required for each Species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, and 3 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected group there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 17-20 have been cancelled.
Applicant has the right to file a divisional application covering the subject matter of the non-elected claims.
Acknowledges
2. Receipt is acknowledged of the following items from the Applicant.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 12/09/2024. The references cited on the PTOL 1449 form have been considered.
Applicant is requested to cite any relevant prior art if being aware on form PTO-1449 in accordance with the guidelines set for in M.P.E.P. 609.
Specification
3. The specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of possible minor errors. However, the applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo (US 2011/0089571) in view of Han et al. (US 2024/0318342).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuo discloses a semiconductor structure, comprising:
a metal line 24 over a first substrate 50 (see fig. 1, fig. 13), or a first substrate 100 (fig. 16);
a second substrate 12 (fig. 1) over the metal line 24; and
a through-via 13/27 penetrating through the second substrate 12 and landing on the metal line 24, wherein the through-via includes a conductive metal 27 (para. 0055),
wherein the through-via 27 includes a top portion (laterally surrounded by substrate 12 and above insulating layer 20) with a first top width (at level above inclined portion 15, see fig. 1, fig. 8) over a bottom portion (laterally surrounded by and within insulating layer 20) with a second top width (at level of the upper surface of the insulating layer 20) that is smaller than the first top width, and the top portion includes a first bulk portion (above inclined portion 15) over a first footing feature (at inclined portion 15),
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 from the first top width of the top portion to the second top width of the bottom portion.
Matsuo 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 Matsuo so that the though-via of Matsuo 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, Matsuo/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 Matsuo/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 aid 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, Matsuo/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.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 3, and 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
7. Claims 11-16, and 21-24 are allowed.
The followings are examiner’s statements of reasons for allowance:
Claims 11-16:
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
8. A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 3 (three) months and 0 (zero) day from the day of this letter. Failure to respond within the period for response will cause the application to become abandoned (see M.P.E.P 710.02(b)).
A shortened time for reply may be extended up to the maximum six-month period (35 U.S.C. 133). An extension of time fee is normally required to be paid if the reply period is extended. The amount of the fee is dependent upon the length of the extension. Extensions of time are generally not available after an application has been allowed.
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 March 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights