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 .
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 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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file, as electronically retrieved 11/28/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2024 and 03/01/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-12, 14, 16-18, 20-22 and 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama et al. (PG Pub 2021/0384280; hereinafter Akiyama) and Tien et al. (PG Pub 2020/0365451; hereinafter Tien).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
1212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 6 provided above, Akiyama teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a first wiring layer (annotated “wire layer-1”) including a first wiring pattern (annotated “pat-1”);
a second wiring layer (annotated “wire layer-2”) arranged between the first wiring layer and a surface (top surface) of a substrate 401 and including a second wiring pattern (annotated “pat-2”) and a third wiring pattern (annotated “pat-3”);
a first plug (annotated “plug-1”) connecting the first wiring pattern and the second wiring pattern (see Fig. 6);
a capacitive element 206 including a first electrode 481 arranged between the first wiring layer and the second wiring layer and a second electrode 482 arranged at a position farther apart from the substrate than the first electrode (see Fig. 6); and
a second plug (annotated “plug-2”) connecting the first electrode and the third wiring pattern (see Fig. 6), wherein an angle (annotated “Ɵ2”) between a side surface of the second plug and an upper surface of the third wiring pattern is 90° (see Fig. 6).
Although, Akiyama teaches the angle between a side surface of the second plug and an upper surface of the third wiring pattern is 90°, he does not teach the angle between a side surface of the second plug and an upper surface of the third wiring pattern is not more than 75°.
PNG
media_image2.png
530
526
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1M-provided above, Tien teaches an interconnect structure comprising: an angle Ɵ2 between a side surface of a second plug 126v and an upper surface of a third wiring pattern 105 is in a range from about 40 degrees to about 90 degrees (para [0045]); which overlaps the claimed range of “not more than 75 degrees (i.e. 0° to 75°).
According to MPEP § 2144.05 a prima facie case of Obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." Further support for overlapping ranges can be found in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and support for ranges that lie completely inside the claimed range can be found in In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the upper surface of the third wiring pattern range from about 40 degrees to about 90 degrees, as taught by Tien, to “avoid top rounding, overlay shift and enlarged critical dimension (CD) issues” (para [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches the third wiring pattern (pat-3) contains copper (para [0049]), and the second plug (plug-2) contains tungsten (para [0049]).
Para [0049]; “wiring patterns and the vias in the wiring layer 402, tungsten, molybdenum, titanium, aluminum, neodymium, chromium, cobalt, copper, or gold, a stacked layer, a compound, or an alloy thereof, or a compound or an alloy with silicon or a metal such as copper can be used.”
Regarding claim 5, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches an aspect ratio between a height of the second plug (plug-2) and a surface of the second plug (top of) in contact with the first electrode 481 is not more than 1 (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches letting θ be an angle (Ɵ2) between a side surface of the second plug (plg-2) and an upper surface of the third wiring pattern (pat-3) and H be a height of the second plug (vertical distance), a relationship given by (500/H) sin2θ ≤ 2.50 is satisfied (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches an angle Ɵ1 between a side surface of the first plug (plug-1) and an upper surface of the second wiring pattern (pat-2) is equal to an angle Ɵ2 between the side surface of the second plug (plug-2) and the upper surface of the third wiring pattern (pat-3). Akiyama des not explicitly teach the angle Ɵ1 between a side surface of the first plug and an upper surface of the second wiring pattern “is larger than an angle Ɵ2 between the side surface of the second plug and the upper surface of the third wiring pattern.”
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the first and second plug with respect to the respective wiring pattern, as taught by Sakate, as a mere a routine expedient capable of producing the same desired electrical communication.
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144(IV), where the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 8, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches the second electrode 482 is arranged in the first wiring layer (wire layer-1) (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches the second electrode 482 is arranged between the first wiring layer (wire layer-1) and the first electrode 481, the first wiring layer further includes a fourth wiring pattern (annotated “pat-4”), and the semiconductor device further comprises a third plug (annotated “plug-3”) that connects the fourth wiring pattern and the second electrode (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches the fourth wiring pattern (pat-4) and the third plug (plug-3) have a dual damascene structure (see Fig. 6; taken to mean sequentially stacked), and contain copper (para [0049]).
Regarding claim 11, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches an angle (Ɵ3) between a side surface of the third plug (plug-3) and an upper surface of the second electrode 482 is equal to an angle (Ɵ2) between a side surface of the second plug (plug-2) and an upper surface of the third wiring pattern (pat-3) (see Fig. 6).
Akiyama does not teach the angle between a side surface of the third plug and an upper surface of the second electrode is larger than an angle between a side surface of the second plug and an upper surface of the third wiring pattern.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it a mere routine expedient to change the shape of the second plug and the third plug, such that the angles between their respective sidewall and their respective wiring patterns are equal to, greater than or less than the other angle.
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144(IV), where the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 12, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of Fig. 6 provided above, Akiyama teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a first wiring layer (annotated “wire layer-1”) including a first wiring pattern (annotated “pat-1”) and a fourth wiring pattern (annotated “pat-4”);
a second wiring layer (annotated “wire layer-2”) arranged between the first wiring layer and a surface (top surface) of a substrate 401 and including a second wiring pattern (annotated “pat-2”);
a first plug (annotated “plug-1”) connecting the first wiring pattern and the second wiring pattern (see Fig. 6);
a capacitive element 206 including a second electrode 482 arranged between the first wiring layer and the second wiring layer (see Fig. 6) and a first electrode 481 arranged between the second electrode and the substrate (see Fig. 6); and
a third plug (annotated “plug-3”) connecting the fourth wiring pattern and the second electrode (see Fig. 6),
wherein an angle Ɵ3 between a side surface of the third plug and an upper surface of the second electrode is 90° (see Fig. 6).
Although, Akiyama teaches the angle between a side surface of the third plug and an upper surface of the second electrode is 90°, he does not teach the angle between a side surface of the third plug and an upper surface of the second electrode is not more than 75°.
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1M-provided above, Tien teaches an interconnect structure comprising: an angle Ɵ3 between a side surface of a third plug 126v and an upper surface of a an electrode 105 is in a range from about 40 degrees to about 90 degrees (para [0045]); which overlaps the claimed range of “not more than 75 degrees (i.e. 0° to 75°).
According to MPEP § 2144.05 a prima facie case of Obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." Further support for overlapping ranges can be found in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and support for ranges that lie completely inside the claimed range can be found in In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the upper surface of the third wiring pattern range from about 40 degrees to about 90 degrees, as taught by Tien, to “avoid top rounding, overlay shift and enlarged critical dimension (CD) issues” (para [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches the second electrode 482 contains copper (para [0049]), and the third plug (plug-3) contains tungsten (para [0049]).
Regarding claim 16, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches an aspect ratio between a height of the third plug (plug-3) and a surface of the third plug in contact with the fourth wiring pattern(pat-4) is not more than 1 (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches letting θ3 be an angle between a side surface of the third plug (plug-3) and an upper surface of the second electrode 482 and H be a height of the third plug, a relationship given by (500/H) sin2θ ≤ 2.50 is satisfied (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches an angle θ1 between a side surface of the first plug (plug-1) and an upper surface of the second wiring pattern (pat-2) is larger than an angle between a side surface of the third plug and an upper surface of the second electrode.
Regarding claim 20, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches the first electrode 481 is arranged between the second electrode 482 and the second wiring layer (wire layer-2), the second wiring layer further includes a third wiring pattern (annotated “pat-3”), and the semiconductor device further comprises a second plug (annotated “plug-2”) that connects the first electrode and the third wiring pattern (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 21, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches an angle Ɵ1 between a side surface of the second plug (plug-2) and an upper surface of the third wiring pattern (pat-3) is equal to an angle Ɵ3 between the side surface of the third plug (plug-3) and the upper surface of the second electrode 482. Akiyama des not explicitly teach the angle between a side surface of the second plug and an upper surface of the third wiring pattern is larger than an angle between a side surface of the third plug and an upper surface of the second electrode.
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the second and third plug with respect to the respective wiring pattern, as taught by Sakate, as a mere a routine expedient capable of producing the same desired electrical communication.
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144(IV), where the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 22, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches the second electrode 482 is arranged between the first wiring layer (wire-1) and the first electrode 481 (see Fig. 6), the first wiring layer further includes a fourth wiring pattern (“pat-4”), the semiconductor device further comprises a third plug (plug-3) that connects the fourth wiring pattern and the second electrode (see Fig. 6), and an angle Ɵ3 between a side surface of the third plug and an upper surface of the second wiring pattern is 90°(para [0045]); which overlaps the claimed range of “not more than 75 degrees (i.e. 0° to 75°) not more than 75° (para [0044]).
According to MPEP § 2144.05 a prima facie case of Obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." Further support for overlapping ranges can be found in In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and support for ranges that lie completely inside the claimed range can be found in In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to not exceed 75°, as taught by Tien, to “avoid top rounding, overlay shift and enlarged critical dimension (CD) issues” (para [0044]).
Regarding claim 24, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches a pixel (not indexed; para [0014]) including a light emitting element 200 is further arranged (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 25, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches the pixel (not indexed; para [0014]) further includes a driving transistor 201 configured to supply a current according to a luminance signal to the light emitting element, and the capacitive element 205/206 is arranged in the pixel to hold the luminance signal written in the driving transistor.
The recited “configured to supply a current according to a luminance signal to the light emitting element, and the capacitive element 205/206 is arranged in the pixel to hold the luminance signal written in the driving transistor” (i.e., function) does not structurally distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus see In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 838 (CCPA 1959) (apparatus claims must distinguish in terms of structure rather than function). The only structural limitation that appears to be required for the prior art apparatus to be capable of performing the aforementioned function is having the pixel include a transistor and a capacitor, which Akiyama clearly shows or in other words, the prior art appears to inherently possess the capability of performing the recited functions. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210 (CCPA 1971) to emphasize that “where the Patent [and Trademark] Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on.").
Regarding claim 26, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches an image forming device comprising a photosensitive member, an exposure light source configured to expose the photosensitive member, a developing unit configured to apply a developing agent to the exposed photosensitive member, and a transfer device configured to transfer an image developed by the developing unit to a print medium, wherein the exposure light source includes the semiconductor device according to claim 24 (para [0100-0108]).
Regarding claim 27, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches a display device (not indexed; para [0085]) comprising the semiconductor device according to claim 24 (para [0085]), and an active element (transistor; para [0086]) connected to the semiconductor device (para [0085-0087]).
Regarding claim 28, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches a photoelectric conversion device (para [0087]) comprising an optical unit including a plurality of lenses, an image sensor configured to receive light having passed through the optical unit, and a display unit configured to display an image, wherein the display unit displays an image captured by the image sensor, and includes the semiconductor device according to claim 24 (para [0087-0091]).
Regarding claim 29, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches electronic apparatus (para [0088]) comprising a housing provided with a display unit, and a communication unit provided in the housing and configured to perform external communication, wherein the display unit includes the semiconductor device according to claim 24 (para [0088-0091]).
Regarding claim 30, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches an illumination device 1400 comprising a light source 1402, and at least one of a light diffusion unit and an optical film 1404, wherein the light source includes the semiconductor device according to claim 24 (see claim 24 and Fig. 20).
Regarding claim 31, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches moving body (not indexed; see Fig. 21) comprising a body, and a lighting unit provided in the body, wherein the lighting unit includes the semiconductor device according to claim 24 (para [0097-0100]).
Regarding claim 32, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches a wearable device (not indexed; para [0100]) comprising a display device configured to display an image, wherein the display device includes the semiconductor device according to claim 24 (para [0100-0110]).
Claim(s) 2, 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Tien, as applied to claim 1, claim 12 and claim 22 respectively above, and further in view of Sakata (PG Pub 2019/0172775).
Regarding claim 2, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches a width (horizontal distance) of the second plug (“plug-2”) in a direction parallel to the surface of the substrate (401-top) is constant as a distance (along the height of the second plug) between the width of the second plug and the surface of the substrate increases (see Fig. 6).
Akiyama does not explicitly teach the width of the second plug in the direction parallel to the surface of the substrate increases as the distance between the width of the second plug and the surface of the substrate increases.
PNG
media_image3.png
160
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1e-provided above, Sakata teaches an electronic device comprising: a width (horizontal distance) of s second plug 301 in a direction parallel to a surface (top) of a substrate 101 increases as the distance between the width of the second plug and the surface of the substrate increases.
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the second plug, as taught by Sakate, to increase as a distance between the width of the second plug and the surface of the substrate increases since a change in the shape of the via is merely a routine expedient capable of producing the same desired electrical communication.
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144(IV), where the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 13, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches a width (horizontal distance) of the third plug (“plug-3”) in a direction parallel to the surface of the substrate (401-top) is constant as a distance (along the height of the second plug) between the width of the third plug and the surface of the substrate increases (see Fig. 6).
Akiyama does not explicitly teach the width of the third plug in the direction parallel to the surface of the substrate increases as the distance between the width of the third plug and the surface of the substrate increases.
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1e-provided above, Sakata teaches an electronic device comprising: a width (horizontal distance) of a third plug 301 in a direction parallel to a surface (top) of a substrate 101 increases as the distance between the width of the third plug and the surface of the substrate increases.
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the third plug, as taught by Sakate, to increase as a distance between the width of the thrid plug and the surface of the substrate increases since a change in the shape of the via is merely a routine expedient capable of producing the same desired electrical communication.
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144(IV), where the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
Regarding claim 23, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches a width (horizontal distance) of the second plug (“plug-2”) in a direction parallel to the surface of the substrate (401-top) is constant as a distance between the width of the second plug and the surface of the substrate increases, and a width (horizontal distance) of the third plug (“plug-3”) in a direction parallel to the surface of the substrate is constant as a distance (along the height of the second plug) between the width of the third plug and the surface of the substrate increases (see Fig. 6).
Akiyama does not explicitly teach the width of the second plug in the direction parallel to the surface of the substrate increases as the distance between the width of the second plug and the surface of the substrate increases, and the width of the third plug in the direction parallel to the surface of the substrate increases as the distance between the width of the third plug and the surface of the substrate increases.
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1e-provided above, Sakata teaches an electronic device comprising: a width (horizontal distance) of a plug 301 in a direction parallel to a surface (top) of a substrate 101 increases as the distance between the width of the plug and the surface of the substrate increases.
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the second and third plug, as taught by Sakate, to increase as a distance between the width of the plug and the surface of the substrate increases since a change in the shape of the plug is merely a routine expedient capable of producing the same desired electrical communication.
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144(IV), where the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below.” See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). See Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent”); and In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) (“It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
3. Claim(s) 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama and Tien, as applied to claim 1 and claim 12 respectively above, and further in view of Peng et al. (PG Pub 2021/0249262; hereinafter Peng)
Regarding claim 4, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches a height of the second plug (plug-2), Akiyama does not explicitly teach the height is not more than 200 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1 provided above, Peng teaches a semiconductor device comprising: a height of a plug V1 is not more than 200 nm (claim 9).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the height of the second plug be no greater than 200 nm, as taught by Peng, for the purpose of choosing a suitable height for electrical communication.
Regarding claim 15, refer to the figures cited above, in the combination of Akiyama and Tien, Akiyama teaches a height of the third plug (plug-3), Akiyama does not explicitly teach the height is not more than 200 nm.
In the same field of endeavor, refer to Fig. 1 provided above, Peng teaches a semiconductor device comprising: a height of a plug V1 is not more than 200 nm (claim 9).
In light of such teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the height of the third plug be no greater than 200 nm, as taught by Peng, for the purpose of choosing a suitable height for electrical communication.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 19 is 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 19 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 19, the first electrode is arranged in the second wiring layer.
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.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights