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
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (claims 1-11 and 21) in the reply filed on June 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office has failed to demonstrate that a serious search or examination burden would be placed upon the Office if the species election was not required. This is not found persuasive because the Office established a clear examination burden in view of these species (e.g. different methods of making the metal layers; the species require a different field of search, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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(s) 1-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ararao (2013/0330878) in view of Luan (2021/0395077).
Re claims 1-3, Ararao discloses (Figs. 1A-1B) forming a first metal layer (135) of a seal structure (135/136) over a micro-electromechanical system (MEMS) structure and over a channel (130) formed through the MEMS structure (110) to an integrated circuit (101~ IC) of a semiconductor structure ([0035]), wherein the first metal layer is formed at a first temperature ([0039]); forming a second metal layer (136) over the first metal layer (135), wherein the second metal layer is formed at a second temperature less than the first temperature([0040]).
Ararao does not specifically discloses performing a first cooling process to cool the semiconductor structure.
However, cooling metal structures is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to cool the metal (seal) structure of Ararao to prevent structural warpage, relieve residual thermal stress and protect sensitive moving parts from heat degradation. Argon is known to be a standard inert gas used for convective cooling, purging, and creating safe, non-oxidizing atmospheres.
Re claims 4, 8 and 10, Ararao does not disclose wherein: forming the first metal layer comprises performing a first sputter process with a first sputter power, forming the second metal layer comprises performing a second sputter process with a second sputter power, and the first sputter power is less than the second sputter power.
Luan discloses depositing a first and second conductive layer by sputtering [0075]. Luan does not specifically disclose the sputtering powers.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited sputtering power through routine experimentation to achieve a desired deposition rate of each metal layer.
In addition, the selection of sputtering power, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed sputtering power or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen sputtering power or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen sputtering power is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 5, Ararao discloses wherein the first metal layer has a resistivity between about 2.00E-08 Ω*m to about 4.00E-08
Ω
*
m (copper~ 1.68E-8 Ω*m).
Re claim 6, Ararao discloses wherein the second metal layer has a resistivity between about 1.00E-07 Ω*m to about 1.00E-06
Ω
*
m (tin~ 1.15E-7 Ω*m).
Re claims 7 and 9, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add a third metal layer, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Re claim 11, cooling metal structures is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to cool the metal (seal) structure of Ararao to prevent structural warpage, relieve residual thermal stress and protect sensitive moving parts from heat degradation.
Re claim 21, Ararao discloses forming an oxide layer (133) over a polysilicon layer (101) defining the channel ([0038]), wherein forming the first metal layer (135) comprises forming the first metal layer (135) over the oxide layer (133) such that:
a first portion of the first metal layer (135) overlying the oxide layer (133) has a first height, a second portion of the first metal layer (135) overlying the polysilicon layer (101) has a second height greater than the first height; and a third portion of the first metal layer (135) overlying the channel (130) has a third height greater than the second height (Fig. 1B annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2013/0330878 A1 disclose a similar method of making a seal structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 July 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights