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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 23, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-10 and 16-20 remain withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species.
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.
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (US 20220262738 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches an electrical communication structure (Fig 1 integrated circuit chip 1 for use in device, [0021]) comprising: a plurality of metal line levels (Fig 2 wiring layers M1, M2, M3, M4, [0043]); a first metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 314, [0045]) in a first metal line level (Fig 19 wiring structure 314, [0045]) of the plurality of line levels (Fig 2 wiring layers M1, M2, M3, M4, [0043]); a second metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 334a/335a, [0073]) in an upper metal line level (Fig 19 wiring structure 334a/335a, [0073]) of the plurality of line levels (Fig 2 wiring layers M1, M2, M3, M4, [0043]), wherein a base of the second metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 334a/335a, [0073]) is atop a metal etch stop layer (Fig 19 seed material 333a, [0079]) that is aligned with edges of the second metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 334a/335a, [0073]) and wherein the metal etch stop layer (Fig 19 seed material 333a, [0079]) is a diffusion barrier (the seed material 333a is made of the same materials of barrier layer 12 of the instant invention thus it would also function as a diffusion barrier; MPEP 2112.01(I)) and directly contacts (Fig 19 adhesive layer 332 may be omitted, [0078]; once omitted the seed material layer 333a would directly contact the wiring structure 334a above and insulating film 331 below) the second metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 334a/335a, [0073]) and a dielectric layer (Fig 19 insulating film 331, [0075]) below the second metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 334a/335a, [0073]); and a via (Fig 19 via V22, [0077]) extending from the first metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 314, [0045]) to the second metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 334a/335a, [0073]) through the plurality of line levels (Fig 2 wiring layers M1, M2, M3, M4, [0043]), wherein the via (Fig 19 via V22, [0077]) is not in electrical communication with an intermediate metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 324/325, [0057]) within the plurality of line levels (Fig 2 wiring layers M1, M2, M3, M4, [0043]) between the first metal line level (Fig 19 wiring structure 314, [0045]) and the upper metal line level (Fig 19 wiring structure 334a/335a, [0073]), the via (Fig 19 via V22, [0077]) having a via metal fill (Fig 19 unlabeled metal in via V22, [0130]) that is in direct contact (See annotated figure) with a metal line fill (Fig 19 metal for wiring structure 314, [0102]) of the first metal line (Fig 19 wiring structure 314, [0045]).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a metal nitride diffusion barrier (Fig 19 seed layer 333a, [0079]) on sidewalls of the via (Fig 19 via V22, [0077]), wherein the metal nitride diffusion barrier (Fig 19 seed layer 333a, [0079]) is not present at the interface (See annotated figure of claim 11) of a via metal fill (Fig 19 unlabeled metal in via V22, [0130]) and the metal line fill (Fig 19 metal for wiring structure 314, [0102]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (US 20220262738 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Kuo et. al. (US 20190006230 A1), hereinafter Kuo.
Regarding claim 12, Lee fails to teach the via has an aspect ratio of 13 or greater.
However, Kuo teaches a via that has an aspect ratio of 10 or greater ([0029]). Further, Kuo teaches the need for fabricating interconnects with low resistance and high reliability ([0026]). The aspect ratio of the via is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the aspect ratio of the via as Kuo has identified the aspect ratio as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at an aspect ratio of 13 or greater, in order to achieve the desired balance between the via dimensions and resistance provided by the via, as taught by Kuo. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed aspect ratio is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed aspect ratio).
Regarding claim 13, Lee fails to teach the via has a width at an interface with the first metal line ranging from 5 nm to 50nm.
However, Kuo teaches a via has widths ranging from 1 nm to 50nm ([0029]). Although not shown, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the width at an interface with the underlayer conductor 101 of Kuo would need to be less than that of width a; which was already disclosed as being in the range of 1 nm to 50 nm ([0029]). Further, Kuo teaches the need for fabricating interconnects with low resistance and high reliability, the width would have a role in the aspect ratio for low resistance and high reliability ([0026]). The width at an interface with the first metal line is therefore a result-effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to vary, through routine optimization, the width at an interface with the first metal line as Kuo has identified the width at an interface with the first metal line as a result-effective variable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at a width at an interface with the first metal line ranging from 5 nm to 50nm, in order to achieve the desired balance between the layout dimensions and the resistance provided, as taught by Kuo. MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, the applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed width at an interface with the first metal line is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e., that the invention would not work without the specific claimed width).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (US 20220262738 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Ren et. al. (US 20200350206 A1), hereinafter Ren.
Lee fails to teach the metal etch stop layer has a composition selected from the group consisting of tantalum (Ta), tantalum nitride (TaN), tantalum (Ta)/tantalum nitride (TaN), tantalum(Ta)/ruthenium (Ru), tantalum(Ta)/cobalt (Co), tantalum (Ta)/tantalum nitride (TaN)/ruthenium(Ru), tantalum (Ta)/tantalum nitride (TaN)/cobalt (Co) and combinations thereof.
However, Ren teach a metal etch stop layer (Fig 1 etch stop layer 106, [0043]) has a composition selected from the group consisting of tantalum (Ta), tantalum nitride (TaN), tantalum (Ta)/tantalum nitride (TaN), tantalum(Ta)/ruthenium (Ru), tantalum(Ta)/cobalt (Co), tantalum (Ta)/tantalum nitride (TaN)/ruthenium(Ru), tantalum (Ta)/tantalum nitride (TaN)/cobalt (Co) and combinations thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the metal etch stop layer of Lee by replacing the material with the materials of Ren. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification depending on material costs at the time of manufacture.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see 35 USC §102 section starting on page 9, filed October 23, 2025, with
respect to the amendment to claim 1 not being taught, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As disclosed in the rejection for claim 1, Lee teaches an embodiment wherein the adhesive layer 332 is not required. Once removed the amended limitation is met with the same mapping as the non-final office action, filed July 23, 2026.
Applicant's arguments, see 35 USC §103 section starting on page 11, filed October 23, 2025, with
respect to the amendment to Kuo not remedying what Lee lacks, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments, see 35 USC §103 section starting on page 12, filed October 23, 2025, with respect to the amendment to Ren not remedying what Lee lacks, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amanapu et. al. (US 20200111736 A1) teaches a skip via structure with a barrier liner, containing a mix of materials from Lee and the instant invention. Further, there are cap layers which can be perform the same function as etch stop layers.
Motoyama et. al. (US 20200126854 A1) teaches openings in barrier layers for vias to reduce the resistance of the vias.
Murray et. al. (US 20210183699 A1) teaches openings at the bottom of barrier layers of vias to reduce the resistance of the vias. Further, the barrier layers contain a mix of materials from Lee and the instant invention.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN L LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm (ET).
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, STEVEN GAUTHIER can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/ALVIN L LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights