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 .
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) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2020/0020578) in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2019/0355663) and Cheng et al. (US 10964792).
With regard to claim 16, Chang teaches, in Figs 4 and 9-12, forming a first opening (42 and 44, [0017], see Figure 4) in a dielectric layer (40 and 38, [0016-0017], see Figure 4) disposed over an epitaxy source/drain region (36, [0014-0017], see Figure 4); forming a metal liner (58, [0025], see Figure 9) in the first opening by a first process (ALD/CVD, [0012, 0025]); forming a metal fill (66, [0031], see Figure 11) to fill the first opening by a second process (different from the first process, selected from CVD, ALD, or PVD, [0012, 0033]) different from the first process, recessing the metal liner ([0008, 0027], see Figure 10) and the metal fill ([0034], see Figure 12).
However, Chang does not explicitly teach wherein a seam is formed in the metal fill. Nonetheless, with regard to a seam formed in the metal fill the skilled artisan would know too
that process window optimization, contact profile, and opening widths can result in the formation of seams ([0008,0028]).
The specific claimed seam, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the "optimum" seam disclosed by Chang that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired contact resistance, process window optimization, and opening width, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as the seamed metal fill is used, as already suggested by Chang.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the seam stated and since this seam is in common use/occurrence in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Chang.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed seam or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Chang does not explicitly teach that recessing the metal liner and the metal fill forms a second opening; and forming a metal cap to fill the second opening with a third process different from the second process; wherein the metal cap comprises a same material as the metal fill, and the metal cap interfaces with the metal fill.
Nishikawa teaches, in Figs 13 and 15, that recessing a metal liner (822 akin to 58 of Chang, [0098, 0120], see Figure 13) and a metal fill (824 akin to 66 of Chang, [0098-0100, 0120], see Figure 13) forms a second opening (185A, [0120-0121], sec Figure 13); and forming a metal cap (83 and 84, [0124-0127] see Figure 15) to fill the second opening with a third process different from the second process (different from the second process, selected from PVD or CVD, [0124-0127]); wherein the metal cap comprises a same material as the metal fill ([0099], [0106]), and the metal cap interfaces with the metal fill (83 interfaces with 824) to block the "diffusion of hydrogen between the three-dimensional array of memory devices and the peripheral devices without disrupting the electrical continuity of the interconnect structures" ([0077]) and circumvent increases in leakage current during the off-state ([0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine Chang's method with the formation of a second opening and metal cap of Nishikawa to block the diffusion of hydrogen between the three-dimensional array of memory devices and the peripheral devices without disrupting the electrical continuity of the interconnect structures and circumvent increases in leakage current during the off-state.
Chang/Nishikawa do not explicitly teach wherein the metal cap is seamless.
Cheng teaches, in Fig 2, wherein the metal cap (247A akin to 83/84 of Nishikawa, col. 21 lines 23-47) is seamless (col. 3 lines 30-51, col. 10 line 65- col. 11 line 45) to "reduce the contact resistance interconnect structures and S/D contacts structures, gate structures and high R structures from about 10% to about 30%, thus resulting in higher drive currents in the semiconductor devices with improved device performance (col. 21 lines 23-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine Chang/Nishikawa's method with the seamless metal cap of Cheng to reduce the contact resistance interconnect structures and S/D contacts structures, gate structures and high R structures from about 10% to about 30%, thus resulting in higher drive currents in the semiconductor devices with improved device performance.
With regard to claim 17, Chang teaches, in Fig 9, forming a nitride layer (50, [0019]) on a sidewall (not numbered but clearly shown in Figure 9) of the first opening, wherein the metal liner is formed on the nitride layer.
With regard to claim 18, Chang/Nishikawa teach, in Fig 10 of Chang, recessing the nitride layer ([0027-0028] of Chang), wherein the metal cap (83, 84 of Nishikawa) is formed on the nitride layer (the metal cap would necessarily be formed on the nitride layer).
With regard to claim 19, Chang/Nishikawa/Cheng teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 16.
Chang further teaches wherein the second process is a chemical vapor deposition process or an atomic layer deposition process ([0012, 0033]).
Nishikawa further teaches the third process is a physical vapor deposition process ([0124-0126]).
However, Chang/Nishikawa/Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the first process is a physical vapor deposition process.
Cheng further teaches a physical deposition process, a chemical vapor deposition process, and an atomic layer deposition process are equivalent deposition processes for various materials known in the art ([0012]).
Therefore, because the deposition processes were art-recognized equivalents at the time of filing and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a physical deposition process for a chemical vapor deposition process since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regard to claim 20, Chang/Nishikawa/Cheng teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 16.
However, Chang/Nishikawa/Cheng does not explicitly teach wherein the second opening has a depth ranging from about 3 nm to about 8 nm.
Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the depth of the second opening would impact the reliability of contact with the source/drain region and contact profile leading to issues during contact fill.
The specific claimed depth, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the "optimum" depth disclosed by Cheng (246t, "about 2 nm - about 4 nm", col. 11 lines 1-27), that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired contact profile, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the depth is used, as already suggested by Cheng.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the depth stated and since these depths are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Cheng.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed depth or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 21, 22, and 25-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2020/0020578) in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2019/0355663).
With regard to claim 21, Chang teaches, in Figs 4, 7, and 9-12, forming a first opening (42, [0017], see Figure 4) in a dielectric layer (40 and 38, [0016-0017], see Figure 4) to expose an epitaxy source/drain region (36, [0014-0017], see Figure 4); forming a silicide region (55, [0023], see Figure 7) on the epitaxy source/drain region; depositing a metal liner (58, [0025], see Figure 9) over the silicide region by a first process (ALD/CVD, [0012, 0025]); depositing a metal fill (66, [0031], see Figure 11) to fill the first opening by a second process (different from the first process, selected from CVD, ALD, or PVD, [0012, 0033]) different from the first process; recessing the metal liner ([0008, 0027], see Figure 10) and the metal fill ([0034], see Figure 12).
However, Chang does not explicitly teach that recessing the metal liner and the metal fill forms a second opening; and forming a metal cap to fill the second opening with a third process different from the second process; wherein the metal cap comprises a same material as the metal fill, and the metal cap interfaces with the metal fill.
Nishikawa teaches, in Figs 13 and 15, that recessing a metal liner (822 akin to 58 of Chang, [0098, 0120], see Figure 13) and a metal fill (824 akin to 66 of Chang, [0098-0100, 0120], see Figure 13) forms a second opening (185A, [0120-0121], see Figure 13); and forming a metal cap (83 and 84, [0124-0127], see Figure 15) to fill the second opening with a third process different from the second process (different from the second process, selected from PVD or CVD, [0124-0127]); wherein the metal cap comprises a same material as the metal fill ([0099], [0106]), and the metal cap interfaces with the metal fill (83 interfaces with 824) to block the "diffusion of hydrogen between the three-dimensional array of memory devices and the peripheral devices without disrupting the electrical continuity of the interconnect structures" ([0077]) and circumvent increases in leakage current during the off-state ([0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine Chang's method with the formation of a second opening and metal cap of Nishikawa to block the diffusion of hydrogen between the three-dimensional array of memory devices and the peripheral devices without disrupting the electrical continuity of the interconnect structures and circumvent increases in leakage current during the off-state.
With regard to claim 22, Chang/Nishikawa teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 21.
Chang further teaches wherein the second process is an atomic layer deposition process or a chemical vapor deposition process ([0012, 0033]).
Nishikawa further teaches the third process a second physical vapor deposition process. ([0124-0126]).
However, Chang/Nishikawa does not explicitly teach wherein the first process is a first physical vapor deposition process.
Chang further teaches a physical vapor deposition process, an atomic layer deposition process, and a chemical vapor deposition process are equivalent deposition processes for various materials known in the art ([0012]).
Therefore, because the deposition processes were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a physical deposition process for a chemical vapor deposition process since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regard to claim 25, Nishikawa teaches, wherein the metal liner comprises tungsten, platinum, tantalum, titanium, copper, cobalt, ruthenium, rhodium, iridium, or molybdenum (tungsten, [0098]).
With regard to claim 26, Nishikawa teaches wherein the metal fill (tungsten, [0099-0100]) and the metal cap (tungsten, [0125-0127]) include a same material as the metal liner (tungsten, [0098]).
With regard to claim 27, Nishikawa teaches wherein the metal liner, the metal fill, and the metal cap comprise tungsten ([0098-0100, 0125-0127]).
With regard to claim 28, Chang/Nishikawa teaches wherein a grain size of the metal liner is substantially the same as a grain size of the metal cap. With respect to the grain size: Chang teaches a method of forming the metal liner by a first process (equivalent substitution of PVD for CVD, [0012, 0025] of Chang, see discussion above with regard to claim 22 above) and Nishikawa shows a method of forming the metal cap by a third process (PVD, [0012, 0124-0127] of Nishikawa, see discussion above with regard to claim 22 above). Applicant discloses in the specification paragraph [0044], that a grain size of a metal liner is the same as the grain size of a metal cap, because both the metal cap and the metal liner are formed by the same process "PVD". Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that Chang/Nishikawa's method would have the same grain size that the applicant is claiming since the same method was used as recited in applicant's specification paragraph [0044] both the metal cap and the metal liner are formed by the same process "PVD".
With regard to claim 29, Chang teaches wherein a grain size of the metal fill is different from the grain size of the metal liner. With respect to the grain size: Chang teaches a method of forming the metal fill by a second process (CVD, [0012, 0033]) and forming the metal liner by a first process (equivalent substitution of PVD for CVD, [0012, 0025] of Chang, sec discussion above with regard to claim 22 above). Applicant discloses in the specification paragraph [0041], that because the metal liner and the metal fill are formed by different processes, the grain size of a metal liner is different from the grain size of the metal fill. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that Chang's method would have the same grain size that the applicant is claiming since the same method was used as recited in applicant's specification paragraphs [0041] the metal liner and the metal fill are formed by different processes.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2020/0020578), Nishikawa et al. (US 2019/0355663), and Chou et al. (US 2019/0148223).
With regard to claim 23, Chang/Nishikawa teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 22.
However, Chang/Nishikawa does not explicitly teach wherein he first physical vapor deposition process is a DC self-ionized physical vapor deposition process or an RF/DC physical vapor deposition process.
Chou teaches wherein the first physical vapor deposition process is a DC self-ionized physical vapor deposition process or an RF/DC physical vapor deposition process ([0021, 0041]) to "independently control the deposition and reflow process of the deposited metal" ([0021]) and "improve gap fill" ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine Chang/Nishikawa's method with a DC self-ionized physical vapor deposition process or an RF/DC physical vapor deposition process of Chou to independently control the deposition and reflow process of the deposited metal and improve gap fill.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2020/0020578), Nishikawa et al. (US 2019/0355663), and Cheng et al. (US 10964792).
With regard to claim 24, Chang/Nishikawa teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 22.
However, Chang/Nishikawa docs not explicitly teach wherein the metal fill comprises a scam and that the metal cap is seamless.
Nonetheless, with regard to wherein the metal fill comprises a seam the skilled artisan would know too that process window optimization, contact profile, and opening widths can result in the formation of seams (Chang, [0008,0028]).
The specific claimed seam, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the "optimum" seam disclosed by Chang that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired contact resistance, process window optimization, and opening width, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the seamed metal fill is used, as already suggested by Chang.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the seam stated and since this seam is in common use/occurrence in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Chang.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed seam or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, Chang/Nishikawa does not explicitly teach that the metal cap is seamless.
Cheng teaches, in Fig 2, wherein the metal cap (247A akin to 83/84 of Nishikawa, col. 21 lines 23-47) is seamless (col. 3 lines 30-51, col. 10 lines 65-67, col. 11 lines 1-42) to "reduce the contact resistance interconnect structures and S/D contacts structures, gate structures and high R structures from about 10% to about 30%, thus resulting in higher drive currents in the semiconductor devices with improved device performance (col. 21 lines23-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine Chang/Nishikawa's method with the seamless metal cap of Cheng to reduce the contact resistance interconnect structures and S/D contacts structures, gate structures and high R structures from about 10% to about 30%, thus resulting in higher drive currents in the semiconductor devices with improved device performance.
Claim(s) 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2020/0020578) in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2019/0355663) and Kim et al. (US 2018/0061843).
With regard to claim 30, Chang teaches, in Figs 4, 7, and 10-12, forming a first opening (42, [0017], see Figure 4) in a dielectric layer (40 and 38, [0016-0017], see Figure 4) to expose an epitaxy source/drain region (36, [0014-0017], see Figure 4); forming a silicide region (55, [0023], see Figure 7) on the epitaxy source/drain region; depositing a metal liner (58, [0025], see Figure 9) over the silicide region; depositing a metal fill (66, [0031], see Figure 11) to fill the first opening; removing a portion of the metal liner, and the metal fill, not numbered but clearly shown in Figures 10 and 12).
However, Chang does not explicitly teach that removing a portion of the metal liner, the metal fill, and the dielectric layer forms a second opening in the dielectric layer, wherein the dielectric layer comprises a sidewall having a first portion exposed in the second opening and a second portion located below the first portion, the first portion is curved and the second portion is straight; and forming a metal cap to fill the second opening.
Nishikawa teaches, in Figs 13-15, that removing a portion of a metal liner (822 akin to 58 of Chang, [0098, 0120]), a metal fill (824 akin to 66 of Chang, [0098-0100, 0120]), and a dielectric layer (674, [0090, 0120]) forms a second opening (portion of 185A which is later filled with metal cap 83, [0120-0121], see Figure 14) in the dielectric layer, wherein the dielectric layer comprises a sidewall having a first portion (portion facing 674) exposed in the second opening and a second portion (portion facing 664) located below the first portion, the second portion is straight (see figures); and forming a metal cap (83 and 84, [0124-0127], see Figure 15) to fill the second opening to block the "diffusion of hydrogen between the three-dimensional array of memory devices and the peripheral devices without disrupting the electrical continuity of the interconnect structures" ([0077]) and circumvent increases in leakage current during the off-state ([0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine Chang's method with the formation of a second opening, metal cap, and dielectric layer sidewall of Nishikawa to block the diffusion of hydrogen between the three-dimensional array of memory devices and the peripheral devices without disrupting the electrical continuity of the interconnect structures and circumvent increases in leakage current during the off-state.
Chang/Nishikawa do not explicitly teach that the first portion is curved.
Kim teaches, in Fig 1, that the first portion is curved to, “allow for a greater upper width between spacer structures, thereby allowing the interlayer insulation pattern to readily fill the gap therebetween, eliminating voids and preventing over-etching,” ([0152]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the method of Chang/Nishikawa with the curved first portion of Kim to allow for a greater upper width between spacer structures, thereby allowing the interlayer insulation pattern to readily fill the gap therebetween, eliminating voids an preventing over-etching.
With regard to claim 31, Nishikawa teaches, in Fig 13, wherein the sidewall of the dielectric layer further comprises a third portion (horizontal portion between the metal fill and the metal cap) connecting the first and second portions.
With regard to claim 32, Nishikawa teaches, in Fig 13, that the third portion has a taper angle different from the taper angles of the first and second portions of the dielectric layer (see figure).
With regard to claim 33, Nishikawa teaches, in Fig 13, that the third portion is parallel to a top surface of the dielectric layer (see figure).
With regard to claim 34, Nishikawa teaches, in Figs 10 and 14, that the second opening is shallower than the first opening (81A akin to 42 of Chang, see Figure 10 and 14).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2020/0020578) in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2019/0355663), Kim et al. (US 2018/0061843) and Cheng et al. (US 10964792).
With regard to claim 35, Chang/Nishikawa/Kim teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 34.
However, Chang/Nishikawa/Kim docs not explicitly teach wherein the metal fill comprises a scam and that the metal cap is seamless.
Nonetheless, with regard to wherein the metal fill comprises a seam the skilled artisan would know too that process window optimization, contact profile, and opening widths can result in the formation of seams (Chang, [0008,0028]).
The specific claimed seam, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the "optimum" seam disclosed by Chang that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired contact resistance, process window optimization, and opening width, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the seamed metal fill is used, as already suggested by Chang.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the seam stated and since this seam is in common use/occurrence in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Chang.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed seam or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, Chang/Nishikawa/Kim does not explicitly teach that the metal cap is seamless.
Cheng teaches, in Fig 2, wherein the metal cap (247A akin to 83/84 of Nishikawa, col. 21 lines 23-47) is seamless (col. 3 lines 30-51, col. 10 lines 65-67, col. 11 lines 1-42) to "reduce the contact resistance interconnect structures and S/D contacts structures, gate structures and high R structures from about 10% to about 30%, thus resulting in higher drive currents in the semiconductor devices with improved device performance (col. 21 lines23-47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine Chang/Nishikawa/Kim's method with the seamless metal cap of Cheng to reduce the contact resistance interconnect structures and S/D contacts structures, gate structures and high R structures from about 10% to about 30%, thus resulting in higher drive currents in the semiconductor devices with improved device performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue:
claim 16 now recites that "the metal cap comprises a same material as the metal fill, and the metal cap interfaces with the metal fill." In contrast, the titanium diffusion barrier 83 does not comprise the same material as the lower metal fill portion 824. According to paragraph [0099] of Nishikawa, a metal (lower metal fill portion 824) such as tungsten, copper, or aluminum can be deposited in the contact via cavities 81A, 81G. The titanium diffusion barrier 83 is made of titanium, which is different from the material of the lower metal fill portion 824. Second, the upper metallic via 84 (allegedly corresponding to the claimed metal cap) does not interface with the metal fill portion 824 (allegedly corresponding to the claimed metal fill), but instead interfaces with the titanium diffusion barrier 83, which does not include the same material as the upper metallic via 84. Therefore, Nishikawa fails to disclose a metal cap that comprises the same material as the metal fill and interfaces with the metal fill, as expressly required by claim 16.
The Examiner responds:
This argument is predicated on considering elements 83 and 84 separately. Regardless of whether these elements taken individually meets the claimed limitation, the rejection set forth above clearly considers theses elements taken together as forming the claimed metal cap. Taken together, these elements meet the claim limitation. Claims 21 and 30 are argued similarly in the remarks provided on 5/27/2025 and are similarly rejected.
All other arguments have been fully addressed in prior Office Actions or in the rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights