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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
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 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 2016/0272500, hereinafter “Sato”, previously cited) in view of Matsumoto et al. (“Structure and stability of n- and p-type intercalated multilayer graphene using Cs-C2H4, FeCl3 and MoCl5”, Materials Today Communications, 20 (2019) 100532, hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches in Fig. 4B (shown below) and related text a semiconductor structure comprising:
a substrate (11, Fig. 4B and ¶[0031]);
a dielectric layer (32, Fig. 4B and ¶[0059]) disposed on the substrate, and having an inner lateral surface that is perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 4B); and
a graphene conductive structure (33 (31a), Fig. 4B and ¶[0062]) that is formed in the dielectric layer and that has at least one graphene layer extending in a direction parallel to the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Fig. 4B and ¶[0056]), wherein the graphene conductive structure is doped with an intercalating material made of FeCl3, K, Rb, Cs, Li, HNO3, SbCl5, SbF5, Br2, AlCl3, NiCl2, AsF5, and AuCl3 (¶[0062]), and wherein the intercalating material is intercalated into the graphene conductive structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
455
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Sato does not explicitly teach that graphene conductive structure is doped with an intercalating material made of tetraethylenepentamine, diethylenetriamine, o-phenylenediamine, 1,2,4-triazole, phenol, catechol, trifluorobenzene, hexafluorobenzene, AuCl5, Cs-C2H4, ZnMg, or combinations thereof, using, for example, Cs-C2H4, as an intercalating material is nonetheless well-known in the art as evidenced by Matsumoto, in order to lower electrical resistivity of graphene (e.g. Abstract and ¶[0004]). Specifically, Matsumoto teaches that Cs-C2H4 can be used as an intercalating material, similarly to FeCl3, disclosed by Satao, in order to lower electrical resistivity of graphene (e.g. Abstract and ¶[0004]).
Therefore, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cs-C2H4 as an intercalating material, as doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material for its intended purpose, such as creating graphene with desired properties/characteristics.
Regarding claim 27, Sato teaches in Fig. 4B (shown above) and related text a semiconductor structure comprising:
a substrate (11, Fig. 4B and ¶[0031]);
a dielectric layer (32, Fig. 4B and ¶[0059]) disposed on the substrate, and having an inner lateral surface that is perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 4B); and
a graphene conductive structure (33 (31a), Fig. 4B and ¶[0062]) that is formed in the dielectric layer, that is surrounded by the inner lateral surfaces, and that has a plurality of graphene layer extending in a direction parallel to the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Fig. 4B and ¶[0056]), wherein the graphene conductive structure is doped with an intercalating material made of FeCl3, K, Rb, Cs, Li, HNO3, SbCl5, SbF5, Br2, AlCl3, NiCl2, AsF5, and AuCl3 (¶[0062]), and wherein the intercalating material is intercalated among the plurality of graphene layers.
While Sato does not explicitly teach that graphene conductive structure is doped with an intercalating material made of tetraethylenepentamine, diethylenetriamine, o-phenylenediamine, 1,2,4-triazole, tetraethylene glycol, phenol, catechol, trifluorobenzene, hexafluorobenzene, AuCl5, Cs-C2H4, ZnMg, or combinations thereof, using, for example, Cs-C2H4, as an intercalating material is nonetheless well-known in the art as evidenced by Matsumoto, in order to lower electrical resistivity of graphene (e.g. Abstract and ¶[0004]). Specifically, Matsumoto teaches that Cs-C2H4 can be used as an intercalating material, similarly to FeCl3, disclosed by Satao, in order to lower electrical resistivity of graphene (e.g. Abstract and ¶[0004]).
Therefore, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results and, as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cs-C2H4 as an intercalating material, as doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known material for its intended purpose, such as creating a graphene with desired properties/characteristics.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2015/0270225, hereinafter “Yang”, previously cited) in view Matsumoto et al. (“Structure and stability of n- and p-type intercalated multilayer graphene using Cs-C2H4, FeCl3 and MoCl5”, Materials Today Communications, 20 (2019) 100532, hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches in Figs. 1-2 and 5 (Figs. 1 and 5 shown below) and related text a semiconductor structure comprising:
a substrate (100, Fig. 1 and ¶[0019]);
a dielectric layer (i.e. topmost layer 105, Fig. 1 and ¶[0019]) disposed on the substrate, and having an inner lateral surface that is perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 1); and
a graphene conductive structure (102, Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0024]) that is formed in the dielectric layer and that has at least one graphene layer extending in a direction parallel to the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Fig. 5 and ¶¶[0019]-[0024]).
PNG
media_image2.png
495
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
320
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yang, however, does not explicitly teach that graphene conductive structure is doped with an intercalating material made of tetraethylenepentamine, diethylenetriamine, o-phenylenediamine, 1,2,4-triazole, phenol, catechol, trifluorobenzene, hexafluorobenzene, AuCl5, Cs-C2H4, ZnMg, or combinations thereof, wherein the intercalating material is intercalated into the graphene conductive structure. Nonetheless, doping graphene with, for example, with Cs-C2H4, is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Matsumoto, in order to lower electrical resistivity of graphene (e.g. Abstract and ¶[0004]). Where it is noted that intercalating material disclosed by Matsumoto would involve intercalating into the graphene conductive structure.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope graphene conductive structure disclosed by Yang, with one of the doping materials disclosed by Matsumoto in order to form graphene structure with desired properties/characteristics.
Regarding claim 2 (1), the combined teaching of Yang and Matsumoto further discloses a metal layer (Yang, 109, Fig. 1 and ¶[0024]) that is connected between the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Yang, i.e. topmost layer 105, Fig. 1) and the graphene conductive structure (Yang, 102, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 27, Yang teaches in Figs. 1-2 and 5 (Figs. 1 and 5 shown above) and related text, a semiconductor structure comprising:
a substrate (100, Fig. 1 and ¶[0019]);
a dielectric layer (i.e. topmost layer 105, Fig. 1 and ¶[0019]) disposed on the substrate, and having an inner lateral surface that is perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 1); and
a graphene conductive structure (102, Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0024]) that is formed in the dielectric layer, that is surrounded by the inner lateral surface, and that has a plurality of graphene layers extending in a direction parallel to the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Fig. 5 and ¶¶[0019]-[0024]).
Yang, however, does not explicitly teach that graphene conductive structure is doped with an intercalating material made of tetraethylenepentamine, diethylenetriamine, o-phenylenediamine, 1,2,4-triazole, tetraethylene glycol, phenol, catechol, trifluorobenzene, hexafluorobenzene, AuCl5, Cs-C2H4, ZnMg, or combinations thereof, wherein the intercalating material is intercalated into the graphene conductive structure. Nonetheless, doping graphene with, for example, with Cs-C2H4, is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Matsumoto, in order to lower electrical resistivity of graphene (e.g. Abstract and ¶[0004]). Where it is noted that intercalating material disclosed by Matsumoto would involve intercalating into the graphene conductive structure.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope graphene conductive structure disclosed by Yang, with one of the doping materials disclosed by Matsumoto in order to form graphene structure with desired properties/characteristics.
Regarding claim 28 (27), the combined teaching of Yang and Matsumoto further discloses a metal layer (Yang, 109, Fig. 1 and ¶[0024]) that is disposed between the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer and the graphene conductive structure, the graphene layers being disposed on the metal layer in a layer-by-layer manner (Yang, Figs. 1 and 5, where Fig. 5 shows graphene layers being disposed on the metal layer in a layer-by-layer manner, alternatively it is noted that the way in which graphene layer is disposed on the metal layer renders the claim a product-by-process claim which is treated according to MPEP § 2113, which states that “[e]ven through product-by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Since Yang teaches all the structure, the claimed method does not distinguish from the prior art).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang and Matsumoto as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0235959, hereinafter “Lee”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12 (2), the combined teaching of Yang and Matsumoto was discussed above in the rejection of claim 2 and further includes wherein the metal layer is made of Co, Ni, Fe, or Cu (Yang, ¶[0024]). While Yang and Matsumoto do not explicitly teach that the metal layer is made of Rh, Pd, Re, Ag, Ir, Pt, Au, Ti, Hf, Ta, W, or combinations thereof, using, for example, Ti for the metal layer is well-known in the art in order to aid formation of the graphene film. Specifically, Lee teaches that Ti (claimed) and Co, Ni, Fe or Cu (disclosed by Yang) are equivalent and known metal materials in the art used as catalysts in graphene formation in order to form graphene film (Lee, ¶[0095]). Therefore, because Ti and Co, Ni, Fe and Cu were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Ti for one of the catalysts disclosed by Yang in order to form graphene film.
Claim(s) 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2010/0319971, hereinafter “Lin”, previously cited) in view of Matsumoto et al. (“Structure and stability of n- and p-type intercalated multilayer graphene using Cs-C2H4, FeCl3 and MoCl5”, Materials Today Communications, 20 (2019) 100532, hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 13, Lin teaches in Figs. 1A-1G (Fig. 1G shown below) and related text, a semiconductor structure comprising:
a first dielectric layer (18’, Fig. 1B and ¶[0169]);
a conductive layer (26, Fig. 1G and ¶[0022]) that is formed in the first dielectric layer, the conductive layer including a combination of metal and graphene (¶¶[0171]-[0172]);
a second dielectric layer (22’, Fig. 1F and ¶[0169]) disposed on the first dielectric layer (Fig. 1F); and
a graphene conductive structure (26, Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0176]-[0024]) that is formed in the second dielectric layer (Fig. 1G), that has at least one graphene layer extending in a direction perpendicular to the first dielectric layer (Fig. 1G, graphene conductive structure disclosed by Lin includes a layer that is extending in a direction perpendicular to the first dielectric layer, or alternatively, since the graphene conductive structure formed by Lin is formed on a same liner material as disclosed by the applicant (¶[0024] of the application as published) at least one graphene layer would extend in a direction perpendicular to the first dielectric layer), and that is electrically connected to the conductive layer (Fig. 1G).
PNG
media_image4.png
222
580
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Lin, however, does not explicitly teach that graphene conductive structure is doped with an intercalating material made of tetraethylenepentamine, diethylenetriamine, o-phenylenediamine, 1,2,4-triazole, phenol, catechol, trifluorobenzene, hexafluorobenzene, AuCl5, Cs-C2H4, ZnMg, or combinations thereof, wherein the intercalating material is intercalated into the graphene conductive structure. Nonetheless, doping graphene with, for example, with Cs-C2H4, is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Matsumoto, in order to lower electrical resistivity of graphene (e.g. Abstract and ¶[0004]). Where it is noted that intercalating material disclosed by Matsumoto would involve intercalating into the graphene conductive structure.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope graphene conductive structure disclosed by Lin, with one of the doping materials disclosed by Matsumoto in order to form graphene structure with desired properties/characteristics.
Regarding claim 21 (13), the combined teaching of Lin and Matsumoto further discloses a metal layer (Lin, Fig. 1G and ¶[0171]) that is disposed in the second dielectric layer (Lin, Fig. 1G) and that surrounds the graphene conductive structure (Lin, Fig. 1G and ¶[0171]).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Matsumoto as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Wann et al. (US 2013/0015581, hereinafter “Wann”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 33 (21), the combined teaching of Lin and Matsumoto was discussed above in the rejection of claim 21 and an upper etch stop layer (Lin, 30, Fig. 1H and ¶[0174]) disposed on the second dielectric layer (Lin, 22’, Fig. 1F and ¶[0169]) opposite an upper surface of the first dielectric layer, wherein the metal layer interfaces upper surface of the first dielectric layer (Lin, 18’, Fig. 1H), the second dielectric layer (Lin, 22’, Fig. 1H), and the upper etch stop layer (Lin, 30, Fig. 1H).
Lin and Matsumoto, however, do not explicitly teach that a lower etch stop layer is disposed between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer (i.e. is disposed on an upper surface of the first dielectric layer) and, as a result, that the upper etch stop layer is disposed on the second dielectric layer opposite to the lower etch stop layer and the metal layer interfaces the lower etch stop layer.
Wann, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 9, and related text that a lower etch stop layer (68, Fig. 9 and ¶[0029]) can be formed between a first dielectric layer (60, Fig. 9 and ¶[0015]) and a second dielectric layer (66, Fig. 9 and ¶[0028]), similar to those disclosed by Lin and Matsumoto, so that that a metal layer (260, Fig. 9 and ¶[0056]) interfaces the lower etch stop layer (Wann, 68, Fig. 9) in order to meet specific manufacturing requirements for etching the second dielectric layer (¶[0029]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to dispose the lower etch stop layer disclosed by Wann, between the first dielectric layer and the second dielectric layer disclosed by Lin and Matsumoto in order to meet specific manufacturing requirements for etching the second dielectric layer.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2015/0270225, hereinafter “Yang”, previously cited, under different interpretation form that used above) in view of Molokanova (US 2017/0143762, hereinafter “Molokanova”) with Duncan et al. (US 2013/0214875, hereinafter “Duncan”), used as evidentiary reference for showing that using phenol functional groups is considered doping.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches in Figs. 4 and 5 (Fig. 4 shown below) and related text a semiconductor structure comprising:
a substrate (100, Fig. 4 and ¶[0019]);
a dielectric layer (i.e. topmost layer 105A, Fig. 4 and ¶[0032]) disposed on the substrate, and having an inner lateral surface that is perpendicular to the substrate (Fig. 4); and
a conductive structure (101, Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0019]-[0024]) that is formed in the dielectric layer and that has at least one layer extending in a direction parallel to the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Fig. 5 and ¶¶[0019]-[0034]).
PNG
media_image5.png
456
483
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yang, however, does not explicitly teach that that the conductive structure is a graphene conductive structure doped with an intercalating material made of tetraethylenepentamine, diethylenetriamine, o-phenylenediamine, 1,2,4-triazole, phenol, catechol, trifluorobenzene, hexafluorobenzene, AuCl5, Cs-C2H4, ZnMg, or combinations thereof, wherein the intercalating material is intercalated into the graphene conductive structure.
Molokanova, teaches that carbon nanotubes, disclosed by Yang as a material of the conductive structure and graphene doped with phenol groups, as claimed, are known equivalent conductive materials (¶¶[0014]-[0015], where it is noted that Duncan teaches in paragraph [0042] that use of phenol functional groups is considered doping). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute graphene intercalated with phenol groups for the carbon nanotube as these materials were art-recognized equivalents, and doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing a material based on its suitability for its intended use.
Regarding claim 2 (1), the combined teaching of Yang and Molokanova further discloses a metal layer (Yang, 110, Fig. 1 and ¶[0030]) that is connected between the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Yang, 105A, Fig. 4) and the graphene conductive structure (Yang, 101, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 31 (2), the combined teaching of Yang and Molokanova further discloses
a contact feature (Yang, 103, Fig. 4 and ¶[0019]) which is disposed below the graphene conductive structure (Yang, 101, Fig. 4) and which has a width greater than that of the graphene conductive structure (Yang, Fig. 4); and
an etch stop layer (Yang, 107, Fig. 4 and ¶[0021]) disposed between the contact feature (Yang, 103, Fig. 4) and the dielectric layer (Yang, 105A, Fig. 4), wherein the metal layer (Yang, 110, Fig. 4) interfaces the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Yang, 105A, Fig. 4), the etch stop layer (Yang, 107, Fig. 4), the graphene conductive structure (Yang, 101, Fig. 4), and the contact feature (Yang, 103, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 32 (31), the combined teaching of Yang and Molokanova further discloses
wherein the contact feature interfaces the metal layer (Yang, 110, Fig. 4), the graphene conductive structure (Yang, 101, Fig. 4), and the etch stop layer (Yang, 107, Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 12-13, 21-22 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barth et al. (US 2016/0225694, hereinafter “Barth”, previously cited) in view of Matsumoto et al. (“Structure and stability of n- and p-type intercalated multilayer graphene using Cs-C2H4, FeCl3 and MoCl5”, Materials Today Communications, 20 (2019) 100532, hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding claim 1, Barth teaches in Figs. 1, 2A-2B and 8 (shown below) and related text a semiconductor structure comprising: a substrate (103, Fig. 1, 203, Fig. 2A, 803, Fig. 8 and ¶¶[0023] and [0029]); a dielectric layer (111, Fig. 1, 211, Fig. 2A and ¶¶[0023] and [0029]) disposed on the substrate, and having an inner lateral surface that is perpendicular to the substrate (Figs. 1 and 2A); and a graphene conductive structure (123, Fig. 1, 235, Fig. 2, 835, Fig. 8 and ¶¶[0026]-[0027] and [0042]-[0044]) that is formed in the dielectric layer and that has at least one graphene layer extending in a direction parallel to the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Figs. 1, 2A and 8, i.e. at least one graphene layer disclosed in embodiments of Figs. 1 and 2A is extending in a direction parallel to the inner surface of the dielectric layer; additionally and/or alternatively, since Barth uses the same deposition process (e.g. PECVD), as that disclosed by the applicant, including the same nucleation layer (e.g. Ni, Cu, Pd, Ru) and precursor material e.g. CH4) in order to form graphene conductive structure, the graphene conductive structure disclosed by Barth would have the claimed characteristics).
PNG
media_image6.png
426
505
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
457
636
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
401
553
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
376
457
media_image9.png
Greyscale
While Barth teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 8 that graphene conductive structures having at least one graphene layer extending in a direction parallel to the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer may be doped with an intercalating material (¶¶[0042]-[0044]) in order to enhance conductivity of the interconnect structure (¶¶[0016] and [0043]), Barth does not explicitly teach that the graphene conductive structure is doped with an intercalating material made tetraethylenepentamine, diethylenetriamine, o-phenylenediamine, 1,2,4-triazole, phenol, catechol, trifluorobenzene, hexafluorobenzene, AuCl5, Cs-C2H4, ZnMg, or combinations thereof, wherein the intercalating material is intercalated into the graphene conductive structure. Nonetheless, doping graphene with, for example, with Cs-C2H4, is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Matsumoto, in order to lower electrical resistivity of graphene (e.g. Abstract and ¶[0004]). Where it is noted that intercalating material disclosed by Matsumoto would involve intercalating into the graphene conductive structure.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope graphene conductive structure disclosed by Barth, with Cs-C2H4 disclosed by Matsumoto, as doing so would amount to nothing other than using a known material for its intended purpose of reducing resistivity of the interconnect structure.
Regarding claim 2 (1), the combined teaching of Barth and Matsumoto further discloses a metal layer (Barth, 815, Fig. 8 and ¶[0042]) that is connected between the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer (Barth, Figs. 1 and 8 and ¶[0042]) and the graphene conductive structure (Barth, 835, Figs. 1 and 8).
Regarding claim 5 (1), the combined teaching of Barth and Matsumoto further discloses a conductive feature (Barth, 833, Fig. 8 and ¶[0042]) that is surrounded by the graphene conductive structure (Barth, 835 Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12 (2), the combined teaching of Barth and Matsumoto discloses wherein the metal layer is made of Ru, Rh, Pd, Re, Ag, Ir, Pt, Au, Ti, Hf, Ta, W, or combinations thereof (e.g. Pd, Barth, ¶¶[0042]-[0043]).
Regarding claim 13, Barth teaches in Figs. 1, 2A-2B and 8 (Figs. 1, 2A-2B and 8 shown above) and related text, a semiconductor structure comprising:
a first dielectric layer (115, Fig. 1, 215, Fig. 2A and ¶¶[0024] and [0029]);
a conductive layer (121, 123, Fig. 1, 233, 235, Fig. 2A, 813, 815, 835, 833 and ¶¶[0021], [0025], [0028] and [0042]-[0044]) that is formed in the first dielectric layer, the conductive layer including a combination of metal and graphene (¶¶[0021], [0025], [0028] and [0042]-[0044]);
a second dielectric layer (111, FIG. 1, 211, Fig. 2A and ¶¶[0023] and [0029]) disposed on the first dielectric layer (Figs. 1 and 2A); and
a graphene conductive structure (123, Fig. 1, 235, Fig. 2, 835, Fig. 8 and ¶¶[0026]-[0027] and [0042]-[0044]) that is formed in the second dielectric layer and that has at least one graphene layer extending in a direction perpendicular to the first dielectric layer the dielectric layer (Figs. 1, 2A and 8, i.e. the at least one graphene layer disclosed in embodiments of Figs. 1 and 2A is extending in a direction perpendicular to the first dielectric layer; additionally and/or alternatively, since Barth uses the same deposition process (e.g. PECVD), as that disclosed by the applicant, including the same nucleation layer (e.g. Ni, Cu, Pd, Ru) and precursor material (e.g. CH4) in order to form graphene conductive structure, the graphene conductive structure disclosed by Barth would have the claimed characteristics), and that is electrically connected to the conductive layer (Figs. 1, 2A and 8).
While Barth teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 8 that graphene conductive structures having at least one graphene layer extending in a direction parallel to the inner lateral surface of the dielectric layer may be doped with an intercalating material (¶¶[0042]-[0044]) in order to enhance conductivity of the interconnect structure (¶¶[0016] and [0043]), Barth does not explicitly teach that the graphene conductive structure is doped with an intercalating material made tetraethylenepentamine, diethylenetriamine, o-phenylenediamine, 1,2,4-triazole, phenol, catechol, trifluorobenzene, hexafluorobenzene, AuCl5, Cs-C2H4, ZnMg, or combinations thereof, wherein the intercalating material is intercalated into the graphene conductive structure. Nonetheless, doping graphene with, for example, with Cs-C2H4, is well-known in the art, as evidenced by Matsumoto, in order to lower electrical resistivity of graphene (e.g. Abstract and ¶[0004]). Where it is noted that intercalating material disclosed by Matsumoto would involve intercalating into the graphene conductive structure.
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claimed elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dope graphene conductive structure disclosed by Barth, with Cs-C2H4 disclosed by Matsumoto, as doing so would amount to nothing other than using a known material for its intended purpose of reducing resistivity of the interconnect structure.
Regarding claim 21 (13), the combined teaching of Barth and Matsumoto further discloses a metal layer (Barth, 815, Fig. 8 and ¶[0042]) that is disposed in the second dielectric layer (Barth, 111, Fig. 1 and 211, Fig. 2A) and that surrounds the graphene conductive structure (Barth, 835, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 22 (21), the combined teaching of Barth and Matsumoto further discloses a conductive feature (Barth, 833, Fig. 8 and ¶[0042]) that is disposed in the second dielectric layer and that is surrounded by the graphene conductive structure (Barth, 835 Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 31 (2), the combined teaching of Barth and Matsumoto further discloses a contact feature (Barth, 117, Fig. 1, 217, Fig. 2A) which is disposed below the graphene conductive structure (Barth, Figs. 2A-2B and 8) and which has a width greater than that of the graphene conductive structure (Barth, Figs. 1, 2A-2B and 8).
Regarding claim 32 (31), the combined teaching of Barth and Matsumoto further discloses a contact feature (Barth, 117, Fig. 1, 217, Fig. 2A) which is disposed below and connected to the graphene conductive structure and the metal layer (Barth, Figs. 1, 2A-2B and 8).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13 and 27 have been considered but are either moot, because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, or not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 11 of the response filed on February 12, 2026 that in paragraphs [0014] and [0040] of Molokanova, “the graphene-related material disclosed in Molokanova includes graphene-related materials functionalized with such functional groups such as phenol groups, rather than intercalated by tetraethylene glycol (a compound, not a functional group)”. The examiner respectfully disagree.
To begin with, contrary to the applicant’s argument, as currently amended claim 1 no longer requires that Yang and Molokanova disclose that graphene be intercalated by tetraethylene glycol. Additionally, as discussed above, use of phenol functional groups in graphene materials is considered doping. Accordingly, the cited prior art is considered as disclosing all elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893