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
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/20/2026. Applicant has elected Group II, corresponding to claims 9-19. Because the applicant also indicated that claims 16-20 were withdrawn and because the examiner already outlined the numbers of the groupings, the examiner believes this to be a typographical error. For the purposes of examination, the examiner presumes that the intent of the applicant was to elect one of the two groups outlined by the examiner (and in this case Group II corresponds to claims 1-15). Thus, the examiner has moved examination forward by examining claims 1-15.
Invention Group I, corresponding to claims 15-20, is withdrawn from further consideration.
Specification
The specification submitted 3/27/2024 has been accepted by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 6: wherein a first portion of the dual damascene pad extending through the first layer of dielectric material has a width greater than three microns and a second portion of the dual damascene pad extending through the second layer of dielectric material has a width less than 3 microns.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“three microns” and “3 microns” are both used, and the examiner suggested consistently with the spelling of numerals in the claims
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted up to this point have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 14, the applicant recites “wherein airgaps are located between adjacent pairs of the plurality of lines” however claim 9 already recited “airgaps located above and corresponding to the plurality of lines” and it is unclear, based on the specification, if these are the same feature or not.
For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner presumes these “airgaps” are the same feature.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen-973 (US # 20210398973).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen-973 teaches a semiconductor device comprising:
a front side (100a, see Fig. 1H) at which circuitry (features 104 and 108b) is disposed, the circuitry including a pad (108b) and a plurality of lines (108);
a first layer (116a) of dielectric material ([0019]) disposed at the front side at least partially over the pad and the plurality of lines (shown);
a second layer (116b) of dielectric material ([0021]) disposed at the front side at least partially over the first layer of dielectric material;
a dual damascene pad (122, 124, 126) extending through the first layer of dielectric material and the second layer of dielectric material to the pad (shown); and
a dummy pad (120) disposed in the second layer of dielectric material above the plurality of lines and spaced from the dual damascene pad (shown), the dummy pad electrically isolated from the circuitry disposed at the front side (shown; see also [0028] describes electrical isolation).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen-973 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising a third layer (118) of dielectric material ([0020]) disposed between the first layer of dielectric material and the second layer of dielectric material (shown).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen-973 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 2, wherein:
the first layer of dielectric material comprises a first dielectric material ([0019]);
the second layer of dielectric material comprises a second dielectric material ([0021]);
the third layer of dielectric material comprises a third dielectric material ([0020]); and
the third dielectric material is different from the first dielectric material and the second dielectric material ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen-973 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising a third layer (110) of dielectric material ([0016, 19]) disposed at least partially between the circuitry and the first layer of dielectric material (between 106 and 116a).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen-973 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising:
a probe pad (112) disposed at the front side; and
an additional dummy pad (Fig. 1H shows two, left and right) disposed in the second layer of dielectric material (116b) above the probe pad and spaced from the dual damascene pad and the dummy pad (shown),
wherein the first layer of dielectric material is disposed at the front side at least partially over the probe pad (116a is over the feature 112).
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 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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-973 (US # 20210398973).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen-973 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, wherein a first portion (124) of the dual damascene pad extending through the first layer of dielectric material has a width
Although Chen-973 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the first and second dielectric portions width greater or lesser than three microns as specified in the claim: the first portion has a width greater than three microns and the second portion has a width less than 3 microns. The examiner notes that the applicant has not disclosure about the critical function or effect that is potentially attached to this dimensional relationship.
Nonetheless Chen-973 teaches that the resistance of the metal feature 126 is lower than the resistance of the via plus 124 because the height H2 and the width 126w of metal feature 126 are greater than the height H3 and width 124w of the via plus 124., that the conductivity of the first bonding metal layer 122 improves as the volume of the first bonding metal layer 122 increases, that the thermal dissipation of the first bonding metal layer 122 improves in the same way, and that the first bonding metal layer 122 serves a dual-role (conductor and heat dissipator). The width of each portion of the first bonding metal layer 122 is thus a variable recognized in the prior art as affecting electrical resistance and thermal dissipation.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the relative widths of Chen-973’s features to obviously try on opposite sides of three microns so as to optimize a known set of parameters. Specifically, the modification suggested would be to employ a device comprising the first and second dielectric portions with widths greater or lesser than three microns as specified in the claim: the first portion has a width greater than three microns and the second portion has a width less than 3 microns. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller. See also MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 4, 9-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-973 (US # 20210398973) in view of Lee-335 (US # 20160118335).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen-973 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 3, wherein: the first dielectric material or the second dielectric material comprises silicon oxide ([0019, 21]);
Although Chen-973 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the device wherein the third dielectric material comprises silicon carbon nitride.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Lee-335 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a device wherein the third dielectric material comprises silicon carbon nitride ([0013, 18, 34] teaches silicon carbo-nitride).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the third dielectric material of Chen-973 with the silicon carbon nitride suggested by Lee-335 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Lee-335 would be to employ a device wherein the third dielectric material comprises silicon carbon nitride. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use SiNC since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen-973 teaches essentially the same claim scope as claim 1.
Although Chen-973 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the device including the first layer of dielectric material including airgaps located above and corresponding to the plurality of lines.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Lee-335 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a device including an interlayer of dielectric material (67) including airgaps (68) located above and corresponding to a plurality of lines (56B and 56C; see Fig. 12).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the dielectric of Chen-973 with the air gaps suggested by Lee-335 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Lee-335 would be to employ a device including the first layer of dielectric material including airgaps located above and corresponding to the plurality of lines. The rationale for this obvious modification is that air gap reduces parasitic capacitances.
Claims 10, 13, and 15 are rejected for essentially the same reasons as claims 2, 5, 7, and 8, respectively.
Regarding Claim 12, Chen-973 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 9, wherein the first layer of dielectric material is thicker than 2 microns ([0019]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee-335, as applied to claim 9, teaches the semiconductor device, wherein airgaps are located between adjacent pairs of the plurality of lines (air gap 68 and lines 56B and 56C).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-973 (US # 20210398973) in view of Chen-888 (US # 20150279888).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen-973 teaches the semiconductor device of claim 1, further comprising: an additional dual damascene pad and an additional dummy pad (122 on the right and 120; see Fig. 1H),
Although Chen-973 discloses much of the claimed invention, it does not explicitly teach the device wherein the dual damascene pad, the dummy pad, the additional dual damascene pad, and the additional dummy pad are arranged with a same pitch.
Nonetheless the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention renders such non-explicit feature differences obvious, as explained below.
For example, Chen-888 is in the same or analogous field, and it teaches a device wherein a dual damascene pad ([0031] describes formation), a dummy pad, an additional dual damascene pad, and an additional dummy pad are arranged with a same pitch (pads 224A, 224B; and vias 232; see Fig. 6-7 and see corresponding text at [0031-34]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that modifying the pad pitches of Chen-973 with the pad pitches suggested by Chen-888 would be obvious. Specifically, the modification suggested by Chen-888 would be to employ a device wherein the dual damascene pad, the dummy pad, the additional dual damascene pad, and the additional dummy pad are arranged with a same pitch. The rationale for this obvious modification is that the pad pitch uniformity provide reduction in pattern-loading and dishing effects, provides enhanced planarity ([0045]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen-973 (US # 20210398973) in view of Lee-335 (US # 20160118335) and further in view of Chen-888 (US # 20150279888).
Regarding Claim 11, is rejected for essentially the same reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9475. The examiner can normally be reached normally working Monday to Friday between 9 am and 6 pm Eastern Time.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached on (408) 918-7532. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights