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 .
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 (see MPEP § 606.01).
This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
The following title is suggested: “SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE PREVENTING INSULATING LAYER PEELING AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE.”
If Applicant does not agree with the suggested title above, Applicant must provide a new title that clearly reflects the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogumi (US Pub. 2019/0131198).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogumi discloses a semiconductor device comprising: a substrate 11 (page 2, paragraph 25); a first insulating layer 20 provided over the substrate 11 (page 2, paragraph 25; see fig. 1B); a first metal layer (31, 32) (page 2, paragraphs 28 and 29) provided on the first insulating layer 20 (see figs. 1B and 1C); a second metal layer 33 (page 2, paragraphs 28 and 29) provided on the first metal layer (see figs. 1B and 1C); and a second insulating layer 40 (page 2, paragraph 30) covering the first metal layer (31, 32) and the second metal layer 33 (see figs. 1B and 1C), wherein an upper surface of the first metal layer (31, 32) has a first region (top region) that is in contact with the second metal layer 33 (see fig. 1C), and a second region 35 (recess region) that is separated from the second metal layer 33 (see fig. 1C), wherein the second insulating layer 40 is in direct contact with a side surface and the second region 35 of the first metal layer (31, 32) (see fig. 1C) and an upper surface and a side surface of the second metal layer 33 (see fig. 1C), and wherein a width W1b of the first metal layer (31, 32) is greater than or equal to a width W2 of the second metal layer 33 in a direction parallel to the substrate 11 (page 3, paragraph 34; see fig. 1C).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogumi discloses wherein the second metal layer 33 is a gold layer (Au; page 2, paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogumi discloses wherein the first metal layer (31, 33) is a titanium layer, a titanium tungsten alloy layer, a tantalum layer, a chromium layer, a molybdenum layer, or a niobium layer (Ti film; page 2, paragraph 28).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogumi.
Regarding Claim 6, Ogumi discloses wherein the second region 35 has an enclosed shape (area A surrounded by the first conductive member 32 and the second conductive member 33; page 5, paragraph 62; see fig. 3B).
Ogumi fails to disclose explicitly wherein an average value of widths of the second region is 0.10 μm or greater in plan view in a direction perpendicular to the upper surface of the first metal layer.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because determining optimum process conditions would have involved no more than routine experimentation using a limited number of result-effective variables. Accordingly, the claim is prima facie obvious unless the claimed variables produce unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.05; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969)).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define the metal layer having an enclosed shape with a desired average width, thereby reducing edge effects and stress concentration enhancing adhesion between the metal layer and the insulating layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5 and 7 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 2 recites adhesion between the second insulating layer and the first metal layer is higher than adhesion between the second insulating layer and the second metal layer.
Claim 5 recites the second insulating layer is a silicon nitride layer.
Claim 7 recites the side surface of the second metal layer has a curved surface, and wherein the curved surface is curved in a direction in which a center of an osculating circle is located inside the curved surface when viewed from the second metal layer.
These features in combination with the other elements of the base claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 8-12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 8 recites forming a seed layer on the first metal layer; forming a plating layer on the seed layer to obtain a second metal layer including the seed layer and the plating layer; etching the second metal layer such that an upper surface of the first metal layer has a first region that is in contact with the second metal layer and a second region that is separated from the second metal layer.
Claim 9 recites forming an etching mask covering the second metal layer; forming a first metal layer from the third metal layer by etching the third metal layer exposed from the etching mask, an upper surface of the first metal layer having a first region that is in contact with the second metal layer and a second region that is separated from the second metal layer; removing the etching mask.
These features in combination with the other elements of the claim are neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record.
Claims 10-12 variously depend from claim 8 or 9, so they are allowed for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5977. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/CHEUNG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812 February 9, 2026