The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 09/410,898, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The applicants own expert, Robin Cheung, discloses
Adhesion of a metallo-organic CVD (MOCVD) deposited Cu seed layer to underlying barrier layer is rather poor, and may not be adequate for use in devices when chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) processing follows Cu plating. In addition, when an MOCVD Cu layer is deposited directly over a barrier layer containing a refractory metal, further problems arise. In particular, the morphology, uniformity, and electrical resistivity of the MOCVD Cu layer may not be adequate for use in devices. It is believed that these problems are due to the high affinity of the refractory metal in the barrier layer to oxygen and/or carbon atoms. Specifically, during tile initial stages of MOCVD Cu deposition, the refractory metal of the barrier layer spontaneously reacts with carbon or oxygen containing species (from the organic part of the metallo-organic compound) to form an oxide, carbide, or a mixed oxide-carbide interfacial layer between itself and the depositing Cu. Such all intermediate layer adversely impairs the adhesion of the MOCVD Cu layer. Cu (as well as other noble metals) does not adhere well to oxide or carbide layers, and requires a clean metal-to-metal bond in order to adhere well to another metal. Similarly, the oxide, carbide, and/or oxide-carbide interracial layer impairs proper nucleation of the MOCVD Cu on the refractory metal barrier layer. This adversely affects the morphology, uniformity, and resistivity of the deposited MOCVD Cu seed layer. In accordance with one embodiment of tile present invention, at least an initial stage of CVD Cu deposition is carried out utilizing high purity, inorganic Cu compounds (precursors), such as, for example and without limitation, chlorides or fluorides, which do not contain oxygen or carbon atoms. The resulting clean metal-to-metal interface between a barrier layer containing a refractory metal and the depositing copper ensures good adhesion, morphology, uniformity, and low electrical resistivity of the CVD Cu layer. In a further embodiment, the entire CVD Cu layer can be deposited using the inorganic precursors. In a still further embodiment, only the initial stage of the CVD Cu is carried out using inorganic precursors, switching later to an MOCVD Cu deposition process, to form the rest of the CVD Cu layer.
in Application serial 09/563,733, as evidence for enablement (see affidavit filed 9/25/13 page 5). However, the recited section (above) is not disclosed in 09/410,898. Without the recited section (above), a POSITA would not understand that the specification discloses replacing the prior art MOCVD precursors with inorganic precursors (which do not contain carbon or oxygen atoms). The POSITA would further not understand from the specification that the prior art MOCVD precursors cause a deleterious oxide, or carbide, or oxide-carbide intermediate layer which impairs adhesion and nucleation.
Affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 9/25/13 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-17, 31-37 based upon 112 1st rejection as set forth in the last Office action because: the conclusions reached in the affidavit are based on opinions of the expert and not facts.
As evidence, in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed 9/25/13 the expert discloses
In response to the matter of ¶7 above, in my opinion based on my experience in the field of PVD and CVD barrier and seed layers for ECD (electrochemical deposition, or electrofilling) copper interconnects, the specification of the Cohen Application provides sufficient guidance and direction to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art (a "POSITA"), coupled with information already known to the POSITA, to deposit a CVD seed layer that is continuous on the sidewalls and bottom of openings, and has a thickness between 50-400A over the field, without undue experimentation.
The examiner understands that the specification needs to disclose the novel method of forming the barrier layers, not just say that a POSITA would know how to form seed layer that has a thickness of between 50-400 angstroms over the field. “It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of the invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.” Genentech, 108 F.3d 1361 42 USPQ 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, see, e.g., Chiron Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1254, 70 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Nascent technology, however, must be enabled with a ‘specific and useful teaching.’ The law requires an enabling disclosure for nascent technology because a person of ordinary skill in the art has little or no knowledge independent from the patentee’s instruction. Thus, the public’s end of the bargain struck by the patent system is a full enabling disclosure of the claimed technology.” Lastly the examiner notes MPEP 2164.03 clearly discloses “[I]n the field of chemistry generally, there may be times when the well-known unpredictability of chemical reactions will alone be enough to create a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of a particular broad statement put forward as enabling support for a claim.” In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24, 169 USPQ 367, 369-70 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore with regard to paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed 9/25/13, the expert points out that the disclosure on p 16 line 9 - p 17 line 6 discloses replacing MOCVD with inorganic precursors (which do not contain carbon or oxygen) in order to avoid a deleterious oxide or carbide formations which would impair adhesion. However, the examiner does not find this argument convincing. Excluding inorganic precursors with carbon and oxygen, does make the CVD of copper at 50 angstroms over the field enabled by one of ordinary skill in the art. What precursors are included in "inorganic precursors(which do not contain carbon and oxygen)”? Are all possible precursors(which do not contain carbon and oxygen) included? Lastly, the expert attests “As such, the specification provides sufficient information to the POSITA, combined with the POSITA's prior knowledge of other optimized CVD parameters, to enable the POSITA to practice the inventions of claims 1-17 and 31-37”. However the examiner notes, again, “It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of the invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.” Genentech, 108 F.3d 1361 42 USPQ 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The rest of the experts arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1-17, 31-37 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of enablement fails to outweigh the evidence of non-enablement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/27/13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner has addressed the affidavit testimony above.
The applicant alleges the examiner improperly relied upon affidavit testimony to support the non-enablement argument. As evidence the applicant's representative alleges “in the enablement context, the POSITA is presumed to have read and understood the specification and claims, while in the obviousness context, the POSITA is specifically presumed to have not read the specification and claims.” (page 20). The examiner finds the argument unpersuasive. First, how would the examiner know what is obvious without reading claims? How could one fully understand the claims without reading the specification? (Furthermore it is understood that the claims are inherently a part of the specification). Second, where does the MPEP say “in the obviousness context, the POSITA is specifically presumed to have not read the specification and claims”?
The applicant alleges that the disclosure on pg.16 line 9 through pg. 17 line coupled with a POSITA’s knowledge would enable one of ordinary skill in the art. However the examiner notes, again, “It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of the invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.” Genentech, 108 F.3d 1361 42 USPQ 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
The applicant notes that the applicant is not require to provide working examples. However, the examiner notes MPEP 2164.02 which discloses "Lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art.” and as noted above the examiner considers this a unpredictable art (due to the unpredictability of the chemical reactions).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-17, 31-37 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically the applicant fails to detail the specific deposition parameters for depositing by CVD a continuous seed layer in an opening and over field wherein the seed layer has a thickness of 50-250 angstroms over the field. (The examiner notes that applicant discloses it is well known deposit seed layers by CVD having a thickness of 300 angstroms over the field [ US Patent 6,610,151 col. 3 lines 56-59].
The applicant filed an affidavit, by Robin Cheung, on 7/18/11 attesting that “the minimum thickness of a continuous CVD Cu layer is a critical variable, and involves more than routine skill" (paragraph 12 last two lines) (bolding and underline added by examiner). The examiner notes the specification fails to detail the specific conditions (i.e. temperature, pressure, substrate bias, sputtering gas pressure, sputtering gas flow rate, cathodic power, and plasma power density) for the deposition of a seed layer that is continuous on the sidewalls and has a thickness of 50- 250 angstroms over the field.
The examiner understands that the specification would require undue experimentation (see MPEP 2164.01(a)). As evidence the inventor has not provided any direction with respect to the deposition conditions such as temperature, pressure, substrate bias, sputtering gas pressure, sputtering gas flow rate, cathodic power, and plasma power density in order to achieve a seed layer that is continuous on the sidewalls and has a thickness of 50- 250 angstroms over the field. Also, the inventor has not provided any working examples to the deposition conditions such as temperature, pressure, substrate bias, sputtering gas pressure, sputtering gas flow rate, cathodic power, and plasma power density. In addition, the affidavit, filed 7/18/11, discloses that the invention required more than routine skill, which the examiner understands to mean that the quantity of experimentation would be undue, because of the large amount and experimentation would be needed to develop the expertise (to develop beyond one of ordinary skill) and to discover how to deposit a seed layer that is continuous on the sidewalls and has a thickness of 50- 400 angstroms over the field. Furthermore, there are a large number of variables such as temperature, pressure, substrate bias, sputtering gas pressure, sputtering gas flow rate, cathodic power, and plasma power density etc. which would create a very large amount of experimentation. (The examiner notes that there are at least thirteen variables listed in the specification.) Moreover, point 16, in affidavit filed 1/19/12 (on page 12, the expert attests “the first deposited seed layer having a thickness of between 50-300 angstroms on the field, could be continuous on the sidewall and bottom of the openings –was unexpected and unpredictable” (applicant’s underline) (last four lines of point 16). MPEP 2164.03 discloses “The amount of guidance or direction needed to enable the invention is inversely related to the amount of knowledge in the state of the art as well as the predictability in the art. In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970)”. Furthermore, see, e.g., Chiron Corp. v. Genentech Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1254, 70 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Nascent technology, however, must be enabled with a ‘specific and useful teaching.’ The law requires an enabling disclosure for nascent technology because a person of ordinary skill in the art has little or no knowledge independent from the patentee’s instruction. Thus, the public’s end of the bargain struck by the patent system is a full enabling disclosure of the claimed technology.” Lastly the examiner notes MPEP 2164.03 clearly discloses “[I]n the field of chemistry generally, there may be times when the well-known unpredictability of chemical reactions will alone be enough to create a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of a particular broad statement put forward as enabling support for a claim.” In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24, 169 USPQ 367, 369-70 (CCPA 1971).
Once again, the examiner notes there is no specific direction from the specification with regards to the variables that control the deposition in order to provide a seed layer that is continuous on the sidewalls and has a thickness of 50- 250 angstroms over the field . Lastly, the affidavit filed 7/18/11, disclose that the claimed subject matter involved more than routine skill in the art with respect to other references that were state of the art at the time the invention was filed.
Therefore, when one considers that the subject matter was "beyond ordinary skill", has a large number of variables, the deposition parameters are not disclosed in the specification and the results were “unpredictable”, the examiner finds that the specification fails to disclose an enabling disclosure of how to make the critical variable (i.e. a seed layer that is continuous on the sidewalls and has a thickness of 50- 250 angstroms over the field).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
number='10'Claims 1-17 and 31-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,136,707. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the current application claim the same subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 31, 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition variables/parameters and Shacham-Diamand (US 6,065,424)..
Regarding claim 1, Brown et al. disclose depositing a continuous first seed layer over the sidewalls and bottom of the at least one opening using a first set of deposition parameters [abstract]; and depositing a second seed layer over the first seed layer using a second set of deposition parameters [abstract], wherein: (i) the second set of deposition parameters includes at least one deposition parameter which is different from any of the parameters in the first set of deposition parameters, or the second set of deposition parameters includes at least one deposition parameter whose value is different in the first and second sets of deposition parameters [abstract], (iii) the first and second seed layers being sufficiently thick over the field to enable uniform electroplating across the substrate, and (iv) after depositing the seed layers, there is sufficient room for electroplating [col. 6 lines 30-35] inside the at least one opening. Regarding number='11'claim 2, Brown et al. disclose (i) the second seed layer comprises a physical vapor deposited (PVD) seed layer [col. 4 line 54], and (ii) at least one of the seed layers comprises a material selected from a group consisting of Cu [col. 6 line 44. Regarding claim 31, Brown et al. disclose a metallic interconnect. Regarding claim 34, Brown et al. disclose a metallic interconnect. Regarding claim 35, Brown et al. disclose a second seed layer by a conformal deposition technique [col. 5 lines 4-7].
Brown fails to disclose a CVD first seed layer. Brown also fails to disclose the thickness of the continuous seed layer is from about 50 angstroms to not more than 400 angstroms over the field.
Brown disclose the claimed invention except for the thickness of the continuous seed layer is from about 50 angstroms to not more than 400 angstroms over the field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form a thickness of the continuous seed layer from about 50 angstroms to not more than 400 angstroms over the field, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Furthermore the applicant’s own specification disclose that it is well known to vary deposition parameters [see US Patent 6,610,151 col. 12 lines 61-65 and col. 13 lines 15-35]. Furthermore, the specification lists well known process (deposition) parameters, such as duration of deposition [see US Patent 6,610,151 col. 12 lines 20-30].
Shacham-Diamand discloses that a continuous seed layer could be made by either PVD or CVD [col. 5 lines 20-30]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the continuous number='12'PVD seed film of Brown could be replaced by the continuous CVD seed film disclosed by Shacham-Diamand, because both CVD and PVD are conventional techniques for forming seed layers as disclosed by Shacham-Diamand [col. 5 lines 20-30].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Brown with the applicant’s admission of changing deposition variables/parameters and Shacham-Diamand because varying the deposition parameters will allow one to make the seed layers either more or less conformal.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition variables/parameters and Shacham-Diamand as applied to claim 2 above.
Brown disclose the second seed layer has no substantial overhangs, sealing or pinching off (figs 3 and 4).
Brown et al. fails to disclose the thickness of the first seed layer is from about 50 angstroms to 300 angstroms.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thickness of the continuous seed layer is from about 50 angstroms to 300 angstroms, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore controlling the thickness of the continuous seed layer will allow to control the resistance over the field (background of 6,610,151 col. 3 lines 50-55).
number='13'Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition variables/parameters and Shacham-Diamand as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Liu (US 6,037,258) (hereinafter Liu ‘58) .
Brown et al. disclose the invention supra.
Brown fails to explicitly diclose the first and second seed layers have no substantial overhangs sealing or pinching off at the top corners of the at least one opening.
However Liu ’58 diclose the first and second seed layers have no substantial overhangs sealing or pinching off at the top corners of the at least one opening. Liu ’58 even goes so far as to say layer 6 "completely filling dual damascene opening 3" (first two lines of column 5).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Liu and Brown, because prevent overhangs would allow one to complete fill the trench and avoid voids in the interconnect.
Brown and Liu and Shacham-Diamand disclose the claimed invention except for, the thickness of the first seed layer over the field is from about 50 angstroms to not more than 100 angstroms, and the thickness of the second seed layer over the field is from about 100 angstroms to about 3,000 angstroms.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, the thickness of the first seed layer over the field is from about 50 angstroms to about 100 angstroms, and the thickness of the second seed layer over the field is from about 100 angstroms to about 3,000 angstroms, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore one would want to shrink the openings of the number='14'interconnect in order to put more interconnects on the substrate. Also one would want to further reduce the thicknesses of the seed layers as the openings of the interconnects shrink. In addition controlling the thickness of the seed layers will allow to control the resistance of the seed layer over the field (background of 6,610,151 col. 3 lines 50-55).
Claims 6, 7, 32, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition variables/parameters and Shacham-Diamand.
Brown et al. disclose depositing a continuous first seed layer over the sidewalls and bottom of the at least one opening using a first set of deposition parameters [abstract]; and depositing a second seed layer over the first seed layer using a second set of deposition parameters [abstract], wherein: (i) the second set of deposition parameters includes at least one deposition parameter which is different from any of the parameters in the first set of deposition parameters, or the second set of deposition parameters includes at least one deposition parameter whose value is different in the first and second sets of deposition parameters [abstract], (iii) the first and second seed layers being sufficiently thick over the field to enable uniform electroplating across the substrate, and (iv) after depositing the seed layers, there is sufficient room for electroplating [col. 6 lines 30-35] inside the at least one opening. Regarding claims 36 and 37, Brown et al. disclose a second seed layer by a conformal deposition technique [col. 5 lines 4-7] and a metallic interconnect.
Brown et al. fail to disclose depositing the first seed layer by CVD and changing the deposition parameters.
number='15'Furthermore the applicant’s own specification disclose that it is well known to vary deposition parameters [see US Patent 6,610,151 col. 12 lines 61-65 and col. 13 lines 15-35]. Furthermore, the specification lists well known process (deposition) parameters, such as duration of deposition [see US Patent 6,610,151 col. 12 lines 20-30].
Shacham-Diamand discloses that a first seed layer could be made by either PVD or CVD[col. 5 lines 20-30]. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first PVD seed film of Liu could be replaced by the CVD seed film disclosed by Shacham-Diamand, because both CVD and PVD are conventional techniques for forming seed layers as disclosed by Shacham-Diamand [col. 5 lines 20-30].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Liu and Shacham-Diamand because forming a continuous seed layer via CVD is conventional, and CVD is known to form a conformal deposition with uniform thickness[as disclosed in the background of US 6,610,151 col. 2] which helps produce reproducible results.
Claims 8, 9 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition variables/parameters and Shacham-Diamand (US 6,065,424) as applied to claim 7 above.
Brown et al., and Shacham-Diamand disclose the invention supra.
Brown et al., and Shacham-Diamand fail to disclose the thickness of the CVD first seed layer is from about 50 angstroms to 250 angstroms over the field.
number='16'It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thickness of the CVD first seed layer is from about 50 angstroms to 200 angstroms, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore controlling the thickness of the continuous seed layer will allow to control the resistance over the field (background of 6,610,151 col. 3 lines 50-55).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition variables/parameters and Shacham-Diamand (US 6,065,424) as applied to claim 9 above.
Brown disclose the first and second seed layers have no substantial overhangs sealing or pinching off at the top corners of the at least one opening (figs 3 and 4).
Brown et al. and Shacham-Diamand discloses the invention supra.
Brown and Shacham-Diamand disclose the claimed invention except for, the thickness of the first seed layer over the field is from about 50 angstroms to not more than 100 angstroms, and the thickness of the second seed layer over the field is from about 100 angstroms to about 3,000 angstroms.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, the thickness of the first seed layer over the field is from about 50 angstroms to about 100 angstroms, and the thickness of the second seed layer over the field is from about 100 angstroms to about 3,000 angstroms, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore one would want to shrink the openings of the interconnect in order to put more interconnects on the substrate. Also one would want to further number='17'reduce the thicknesses of the seed layers as the openings of the interconnects shrink. In addition controlling the thickness of the seed layers will allow to control the resistance of the seed layer over the field (background of 6,610,151 col. 3 lines 50-55).
Brown et al., Shacham-Diamand and Liu ‘58 disclose the claimed invention except for, the thickness of the continuous seed layer over the field is from about 50 angstroms to about 100 angstroms, and the thickness of the PVD seed layer over the field is from about 100 angstroms to about 3,000 angstroms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the thickness of the continuous seed layer over the field is from about 50 angstroms to about 100 angstroms, and the thickness of the PVD seed layer over the field is from about 100 angstroms to about 3,000 angstroms., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In Re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Furthermore one would want to shrink the openings of the interconnect in order to put more interconnects on the substrate. Also one would want to further reduce the thicknesses of the seed layers as the openings of the interconnects shrink. In addition controlling the thickness of the seed layers will allow to control the resistance of the seed layer over the field (background of 6,610,151 col. 3 lines 50-55).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition number='18'variables/parameter and Shacham-Diamand (US 6,065,424) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Gandikota (US 6,627,542).
Brown et al. discloses the invention supra.
Brown et al. fail to disclose depositing the additional seed layer over the second seed layer and depositing the continuous seed layer by CVD.
Gandikota discloses forming a conformal CVD seed layer (422) over a PVD seed/adhesion layer (421) [col. 7].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Brown Shacham-Diamand and Gandikota, because the PVD seed/adhesion layer will help adhesion between the CVD layer and the barrier layer [Gandikota col. 6 line 66-col. 7 line 3]
Claims 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition variables/parameters and Shacham-Diamand (US 6,065,424) as applied claim 7 and further in view of Hoinkis (US 6,146,517).
Brown et al. and Shacham-Diamand discloses the invention supra. Shacham-Diamand discloses that a continuous seed layer could be made by either PVD or CVD[col. 5 lines 20-30]. Furthermore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the continuous PVD seed film of Brown could be replaced by the CVD seed film disclosed by Shacham-Diamand, because both CVD and PVD are conventional techniques for forming seed layers as disclosed by Shacham-Diamand [col. 5 lines 20-30].
number='19'Brown et al., and Shacham-Diamand fail to disclose depositing at least one additional seed layer prior to the continuous seed layer.
However Hoinkis discloses forming a PVD seed layer prior to the continuous seed layer in order to aid the nucleating of the CVD copper seed film [col. 2].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Brown et al. Shacham-Diamand and Hoinkis because the deposition of the seed layer prior to the continuous seed layer in order to aid the nucleating of the CVD copper seed film [Hoinkis col 2 lines 29-31].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition variables/parameters and Hoinkis (US 6,146,517) and Shacham-Diamand (US 6,065,424) as applied to claim 13 and further in view of Gandikota (US 6,627,542).
Brown et al. Hoinkis and Shacham-Diamand disclose the invention supra. (Brown Hoinkis and Shacham-Diamand disclose a first conformal CVD seed layer with a second PVD seed layer formed on the first conformal seed layer).
Brown et al. Hoinkis and Shacham-Diamand fail to disclose the depositing an additional seed layer after the second seed layer using a conformal technique.
However Gandikota discloses forming a conformal CVD seed layer (422) over/after a conformal PVD seed/adhesion layer (421) [col. 7] before forming .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Brown et al. Hoinkis and Shacham-Diamand number='20'and Gandikota, because the PVD seed/adhesion layer will help adhesion between the CVD layer and the barrier layer [Gandikota col. 6 line 66-col. 7 line 3].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 6,187,670) in view of the applicant’s admission of well known deposition variables/parameters and Shacham-Diamand and further in view of Gandikota (US 6,627,542) as applied to claim 11.
Brown et al. Shacham-Diamand and Gandikota disclose the invention supra. (Brown and Shacham-Diamand disclose a conformal CVD seed layer with a second PVD seed layer formed on the first seed layer).
Brown et al. and Gandikota fail to disclose the depositing an additional seed layer after the conformal seed layer(s) using a conformal technique.
Shacham-Diamand discloses that a continuous seed layer could be made by either PVD or CVD [col. 5 lines 20-30]. However one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first continuous PVD seed film of Brown could be replaced by the CVD seed film disclosed by Shacham-Diamand, because both CVD and PVD are conventional techniques for forming seed layers as disclosed by Shacham-Diamand [col. 5 lines 20-30].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Brown Gandikota and Shacham-Diamand, because the PVD seed/adhesion layer will help adhesion between the CVD layer beneath the PVD layer [Gandikota col. 6 line 66-col. 7 line 3].
Conclusion
number='21'Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on 10 am-6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kim Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-2402. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
number='22'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.
/BRADLEY K SMITH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
Prosecution Insights