DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0134517 A1 (“Usui”) in view of Nguyen.
Usui teaches, for example:
PNG
media_image1.png
432
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Usui teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
1. A wiring structure (see e.g. Figs. 7A or 7B) of a transistor (see discussion below) for driving a display panel (the disclosure does not discuss displays explicitly, but could certainly be used “for” a display; the limitation does not require a display, as it is only in the preamble and the text of the claim body does not require anything further about a display), comprising:
a substrate (e.g. 1);
a device layer (e.g. 2; and/or the top of 1) including a plurality of transistors (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this wiring structure is for transistors, given the teaches of a “semiconductor device”, see e.g. para 6, “LSI”, see e.g. para 3, etc; see also the combination with Nguyen discussed below) and disposed on the substrate;
at least one insulating layer (e.g. one or more of 11, 12, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, and/or 16) disposed on the device layer;
a plurality of metal wirings (e.g. comprising one or more 5 and/or one or more 9) that electrically connect the plurality of transistors and are spaced apart from each other and disposed on the insulating layer;
an air gap (e.g. 321, 722, and/or 723) disposed between spaced apart metal wirings; and
an oxidation prevention layer (e.g. diffusion barrier 6 and/or 16; whichever is interpreted as the oxidation prevention layer would thus not be interpreted as the at least one insulating layer) disposed on the plurality of metal wirings, and
a bonding improvement layer (various disclosed layers may increase bonding to other elements, such as 13 or 13/14) disposed on the oxidation prevention layer (13 or 13/14 are “on” layer 6 in that they are on top of it, and connected to it; 13 or 13/14 are “on” layer 16 in that they are connected to it),
wherein the air gap is disposed on the bonding improvement layer (see e.g. Fig. 7B, wherein e.g. air gap 722 is on at least 13 and/or 14).
A “bonding improvement layer” is not well-known term of art. There is thus no unambiguous definition thereof merely due to this claimed name. In the specification, the layer is not defined. Rather, the layer is only described using examples. For instance, it "may improve bonding between the oxidation prevention layer 260 and the insulating layer 230" (para 91), it “may include nitrides such as TaN, TiN, WN, RuTaN, or phosphides such as CoWP and NiMoP” (para 92), and “the occurrence of cracks and void defects can be prevented by the bonding improvement layer" (para 93). However, the specification (a) does not define that this layer must improve bonding, (b) does not define that this layer must improve bonding between any other specific layers, (c) does not require that the layer be any specific material or type of material, and (d) does not define that this layer must prevent cracks or void defects.
Lacking any definition of the “bonding improvement layer”, it is a somewhat subjective term. The claim does not require anything in particular about this layer in regard to its properties or materials.
Usui teaches a device in Fig. 7B that does not have cracks and that does not have any void “defects” (rather, it has desired air gaps). The disclosed device thus has met some of the disclosed functions of a “bonding improvement layer” and thus it is reasonable to interpret various layers in Fig. 7B as “bonding improvement layers”.
Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that if many of the layers or elements around the interconnections 5 and 9 were not present, bonding the interconnections 9 to another object on the top side would be difficult. However, the layers or elements 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16 fill the space between and around the interconnections 5 and 9 and provide structural integrity. If one were to bond another object to the tops of the interconnections 9, the bonding would be improved by this structural integrity. This is another reason that it is reasonable to interpret various layers in Fig. 7B (e.g. 13, 14, 15, and/or 16) as “bonding improvement layers”.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that if many of the layers or elements around the interconnections 5 and 9 provide a planar upper surface (see e.g. top of Fig. 7A) to which one could bond another object. Because the surface is planar, as opposed to the interconnections merely standing alone, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable that the various layers around 5 and 9 are “bonding improvement layers” in that they would improve the bonding of the device of Fig. 7A to another object if such bonding were desired.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Usui does not explicitly teach that the device layer has a plurality of transistors. Though, noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this wiring structure if for transistors, given the teaches of a “semiconductor device”, see e.g. para 6, “LSI”, see e.g. para 3, etc. Furthermore, Nguyen teaches a plurality of transistors in the device layer (see e.g. para 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Nguyen to the invention of Usui. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of creating an integrated circuit chip (see e.g. para 1) comprising devices such as FETs, bipolar transistors, etc. (see e.g. para 20).
Usui and Nguyen together further teach and/or would have suggested as obvious at the time of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art:
2. The wiring structure according to claim 1, wherein the oxidation prevention layer (6 and/or 16) is disposed on top and side surfaces of the plurality of metal wirings (see e.g. Fig. 7B, where 6 and 6 are on the tops of 5 and 9, respectively; 16 are on side surface of 9, and 6 are on side surfaces of 5) and the at least one insulating layer (see e.g. Fig. 7B, where 6 and 6 are on the tops of 15, on sides of 15, on tops of 11, and on sides of 11).
7. The wiring structure according to claim 1, wherein the at least one insulating layer comprises a first insulating layer (e.g. 11) disposed on the device layer; and a second insulating layer (e.g. 13) and a third insulating layer (e.g. 14) disposed on the oxidation prevention layer.
8. The wiring structure according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of metal wirings comprises: a first metal wiring (e.g. left 321) disposed on the first insulating layer; a second metal wiring (e.g. left 9) disposed on the second insulating layer; and a third metal wiring (e.g. right 9) disposed on the third insulating layer.
9. The wiring structure according to claim 1, wherein a first width of a lower side of the air gap is larger than a second width of an upper side of the air gap (see e.g. Fig. 7A, wherein the bottom of 722 is wider than the space 723).
10. The wiring structure according to claim 1, wherein a first width of a lower side of each of the plurality of metal wirings is smaller than a second width of an upper side of the same one of the plurality of metal wirings (see wherein 9 is “capital T-shaped” with a width in the horizontal direction that is larger at the width in the horizontal direction of the very lowermost part of 9).
Usui teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention:
11. A wiring structure (see e.g. Fig. 7B) of a transistor (see discussion below) for driving a display panel (the disclosure does not discuss displays explicitly, but could certainly be used “for” a display; the limitation does not require a display, as it is only in the preamble and the text of the claim body does not require anything further about a display), comprising:
a substrate (e.g. 1);
a device layer (e.g. 2) including a plurality of transistors (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this wiring structure if for transistors, given the teaches of a “semiconductor device”, see e.g. para 6, “LSI”, see e.g. para 3, etc; see also the combination with Nguyen discussed below) and disposed on the substrate;
a plurality of insulating layers (e.g. a combination of one or more of 11, 12, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16) disposed on the device layer;
a plurality of metal wirings (e.g. 5, 9) that electrically connect the plurality of transistors and are spaced apart from each other and disposed on the insulating layers;
a plurality of air gaps (e.g. 321, 722, 723) disposed between the spaced apart metal wirings;
an oxidation prevention layer (e.g. diffusion barrier 6, 16) disposed on each of the plurality of metal wirings,
a bonding improvement layer (various disclosed layers may increase bonding to other elements, such as 13 or 13/14, which are on layer 6, see e.g. Fig. 7A) disposed on the oxidation prevention layer,
wherein the air gap is disposed on the bonding improvement layer (see e.g. Fig. 7B, wherein e.g. air gap 722 is on at least 14, 13, 13/14, etc.),
wherein the plurality of air gaps comprises a plurality of first through air gaps configured to penetrate at least two of the plurality of insulating layers in a vertical direction (each 9 penetrates at least 13, 14, and 15; each 5 penetrates at least 11 and 12); and a plurality of second air gaps each disposed in at least one of the insulating layers (each 9 is in at least 13, 14, and 15; each 5 is in at least 11 and 12) (see e.g. Fig. 7B).
A “bonding improvement layer” is not well-known term of art. There is thus no unambiguous definition thereof merely due to this claimed name. In the specification, the layer is not defined. Rather, the layer is only described using examples. For instance, it "may improve bonding between the oxidation prevention layer 260 and the insulating layer 230" (para 91), it “may include nitrides such as TaN, TiN, WN, RuTaN, or phosphides such as CoWP and NiMoP” (para 92), and “the occurrence of cracks and void defects can be prevented by the bonding improvement layer" (para 93). However, the specification (a) does not define that this layer must improve bonding, (b) does not define that this layer must improve bonding between any other specific layers, (c) does not require that the layer be any specific material or type of material, and (d) does not define that this layer must prevent cracks or void defects.
Lacking any definition of the “bonding improvement layer”, it is a somewhat subjective term. The claim does not require anything in particular about this layer in regard to its properties or materials.
Usui teaches a device in Fig. 7B that does not have cracks and that does not have any void “defects” (rather, it has desired air gaps). The disclosed device thus has met some of the disclosed functions of a “bonding improvement layer” and thus it is reasonable to interpret various layers in Fig. 7B as “bonding improvement layers”.
Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that if many of the layers or elements around the interconnections 5 and 9 were not present, bonding the interconnections 9 to another object on the top side would be difficult. However, the layers or elements 4, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16 fill the space between and around the interconnections 5 and 9 and provide structural integrity. If one were to bond another object to the tops of the interconnections 9, the bonding would be improved by this structural integrity. This is another reason that it is reasonable to interpret various layers in Fig. 7B (e.g. 13, 14, 15, and/or 16) as “bonding improvement layers”.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that if many of the layers or elements around the interconnections 5 and 9 provide a planar upper surface (see e.g. top of Fig. 7A) to which one could bond another object. Because the surface is planar, as opposed to the interconnections merely standing alone, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable that the various layers around 5 and 9 are “bonding improvement layers” in that they would improve the bonding of the device of Fig. 7A to another object if such bonding were desired.
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Usui does not explicitly teach that the device layer has a plurality of transistors. Though, noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that this wiring structure if for transistors, given the teaches of a “semiconductor device”, see e.g. para 6, “LSI”, see e.g. para 3, etc. Furthermore, Nguyen teaches a plurality of transistors in the device layer (see e.g. para 20-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Nguyen to the invention of Usui. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of creating an integrated circuit chip (see e.g. para 1) comprising devices such as FETs, bipolar transistors, etc. (see e.g. para 20).
17. The wiring structure according to claim 11, wherein a first width of a lower side of each of the plurality of second air gaps is larger than a second width of an upper side of the same one of the plurality of second air gaps (there are complex air gaps such as 722/723, which meet the claimed limitation, see e.g. Fig. 7A).
18. The wiring structure according to claim 11, wherein a first width of a lower side of each of the plurality of metal wirings is smaller than a second width of an upper side of the same one of the plurality of metal wirings (see wherein 9 is “capital T-shaped” with a width in the horizontal direction that is larger at the width in the horizontal direction of the very lowermost part of 9).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Nguyen and US 6171957 B1 (“Maekawa”).
Usui and Nguyen teach and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention claim 1, as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach wherein the oxidation prevention layer comprises a metal layer including one or more of Ru, Co, and Mn, or a metal oxide or a metal nitride based on Ru, Co, or Mn (claim 3) or wherein the oxidation prevention layer comprises: a metal layer including one or more of Ru, Co, and Mn disposed on the at least one insulating layer; and a Ru, Co or Mn-based metal oxide layer or a metal nitride layer disposed on the metal layer (claim 4).
Maekawa teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Usui and Nguyen wherein the oxidation prevention layer comprises a metal layer including one or more of Ru, Co, and Mn, or a metal oxide or a metal nitride based on Ru, Co, or Mn (claim 3) (see e.g. col 3, lines 56-65) and wherein the oxidation prevention layer comprises: a metal layer including one or more of Ru, Co, and Mn disposed on the at least one insulating layer; and a Ru, Co or Mn-based metal oxide layer or a metal nitride layer disposed on the metal layer (claim 4) (see e.g. col 3, lines 56-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Maekawa to the invention of Usui and Nguyen. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of forming well-known materials, such as W, Ta, Mn, etc., or composites such as a nitrides of these materials and the materials themselves (e.g. TiN/Ti, MnN/Mn), to prevent oxidation of the interconnections (see e.g. col 3, lines 56-65).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Nguyen and US 2021/0028115 A1 (“Bao”).
Usui and Nguyen teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention claim 1, as discussed above, but do not explicitly teach wherein the bonding improvement layer comprises one or more materials selected from the group of TaN, TiN, WN, RuTaN, CoWP, and NiMoP.
Bao teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Usui and Nguyen, wherein the bonding improvement layer comprises wherein the bonding improvement layer comprises one or more materials selected from the group of TaN, TiN, WN, RuTaN, CoWP, and NiMoP (see e.g. para 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Bao to the invention of Usui and Nguyen. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using a layer of an adhesion layer made from a material such as TiN to improve bonding between the various interconnections and other elements (see e.g. para 19).
Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Usui in view of Nguyen and US 2020/0044191 A1 (“Kishi”).
Usui and Nguyen together teach and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention of claims 1 and 11, see above. Neither further explicitly teaches or suggests display driver IC comprising the wiring structure according to claim 1 (claim 19) or a display driver IC comprising the wiring structure according to claim 11 (claim 20).
Kishi teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Usui and Nguyen to use the invention of Usui and Nguyen in a display driver (see e.g. para 3, 63, Fig. 1, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Kishi to the invention of Usui and Nguyen. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of using the metallic interconnection structures of Usui and Nguyen in a display in order to allow wirings to carry signals to operate the device (see e.g. para 3, 63, Fig. 1, etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12-16 is/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: the prior art does not explicitly teach, or reasonably suggest as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, an invention having all of the limitations of claim 12, including:
wherein the plurality of insulating layers comprise a first insulating layer disposed on the device layer; and a second insulating layer and a third insulating layer disposed on the oxidation prevention layer,
wherein the plurality of first through air gaps comprises: a first-first through air gap configured to vertically penetrate the first insulating layer and the second insulating layer; and a first-second through air gap configured to penetrate the second insulating layer and the third insulating layer in a vertical direction.
The other claims 13-16 each depend from one of these claims, and each would be allowable for the same reasons as the claim from which it depends.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not explicitly teach “bonding improvement” of the claimed bonding improvement layer. See the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
Conclusion / Finality
Applicant's amendment changed the scope of the claims and 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.
Conclusion / Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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.
/Kevin Parendo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights