Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 04, 2026
Application No. 18/543,469

REPLACEMENT FULLY ALIGNED VIA AND METAL LINE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
SHOOK, DANIEL P
Art Unit
2896
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
556 granted / 638 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
14 currently pending
Career history
652
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
44.4%
+4.4% vs TC avg
§102
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§112
15.5%
-24.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 638 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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. Election/Restrictions Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 March 2026. Claim Interpretation Please note that in examining the elected semiconductor interconnect structure, any limitations towards the alignment of the relative structures shall not be given patentable weight as they do not limit the structure itself but rather refer to the process by which it is formed, the alignment step being part of the process and not the product, as any functional interconnect must be ‘aligned’ in some sense. Please see MPEP 2113 for a complete discussion of Product-by-Process Claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 1- 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Edelstein et al. (US 2016/0049364 A1) . Edelstein discloses a semiconductor interconnect structure (Fig 11), comprising: a lower level metal line (104, 105) extending along a first direction (x on annotated Fig); an upper level metal line (118, 120) extending along a second direction (y on annotated Fig) , wherein the upper level metal line includes a first portion and a second portion (¶53, the described metal liner and the metal line) ; and a via (119) formed on top of the lower level metal line and interconnecting the lower level metal line to the upper level metal line, wherein the via is self-aligned to the lower level metal line along the second direction and self-aligned to the upper level metal line along the first direction (¶54) . Also note that self-alignment is a description of the process used to produce the interconnect structure and does not in itself imply any structure. As such the self-alignment, in context of a device claim, does not patentably distinguish the structure as such. Regarding claim 2 , Edelstein discloses that the first direction from which the lower level metal line extends along is perpendicular to the second direction from which the upper level metal line extends along. Regarding claim 3, as the processing used to produces the upper and lower level me t al lines does not impart any given structure onto the claimed interconnect structure, the claimed processing does not patentably distinguish the claimed structure from the disclosure of Edelstein. Regarding claim 4, Edelstein discloses that first portion and the second portion of the upper level metal line are comprised of different conductive metal materials (¶53, copper with a tantalum nitride/tantalum combination liner) . Regarding claim 5, an alternative reading of Edelstein as applied to claim 1 can take the lower half of lines 118 and 120 to be the first portion of the upper metal line and the upper half of the same to be the second portion, thus the first portion and the second portion of the upper level metal line are comprised of the same materials. Regarding claim 6, Edelstein discloses that the first portion of the upper level metal line is comprised of a conductive metal material selected from the group consisting of aluminum (Al), ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), and nickel (Ni); and the second portion of the upper level metal line is comprised of a conductive metal material selected from the group consisting of group consisting of copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), and nickel (Ni) (¶32, per ¶53 the upper level metal lines may be the same materials as the lower level metal lines . Regarding claim 7, Edelstein discloses that a bottom surface of the via is self-aligned to a top surface of the lower level metal line along the second direction (¶54) . Regarding claim 8, Edelstein discloses that a top surface of the via is self-aligned to a bottom surface of the second portion of the upper level metal line along the first direction (¶54) . Regarding claim 9, the bottom surface of the second portion of the upper level metal line overhangs the top surface of the via along the second direction as the upper level metal line extends in the second direction whereas the via does not . 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, 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) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelstein . Claims 10-14 are all directed towards the relative dispositions of the first and second portions of the upper level metal line, corresponding to elements 118 & 120 in Edelstein , having the metal liners per ¶53. It is old and well known in the art that depending on processing conditions and the desired properties of the metal line as a whole, the main metal and metal liner of a metal line have various configurations, such as the metal liner extending to be above, equal with, or below the top level of the main metal, and the metal liner being present solely on sidewalls of the main metal or forming a U-shape covering the bottom of the main metal as well. Therefore, the various configurations of clams 10-14 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of being obvious to try as occurring from the selection of the processing parameters for forming the metal line with predictable results as well-established in the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DANIEL P SHOOK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7890 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Mon-Fri . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8660 . 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. /DANIEL P SHOOK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12615792
SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 9m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2026
Patent 12604605
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, METHOD FOR DRIVING DISPLAY SUBSTRATE, DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
3y 1m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598869
IMAGING DEVICE, DISPLAY APPARATUS, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING DISPLAY APPARATUS
3y 0m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581680
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SONOS MEMORY
2y 7m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575127
TFET WITH OR-AND LOGIC FUNCTION
2y 7m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+8.3%)
2y 0m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 638 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month