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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received on 3/2/2026. Claims 1, 3, 6-13, and 16-25 are pending in this application. Claim 15 is canceled. Claims 1, 3, 6, 10-12, 16, and 18-22 are amended. Claims 23-25 are new.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 21-22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain 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.
Claim 21 has been amended to recite limitation “doping the first barrier film with a metal dopant comprising ruthenium (Ru) by exposing the first barrier film to a ruthenium-containing precursor during a flash chemical vapor deposition process to form a doped first barrier film; forming a second barrier film on the doped first barrier film by atomic layer deposition; doping the second barrier film with a metal dopant selected from the group consisting of osmium (Os), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iridium (Ir) to form a doped second barrier film” in lines 7-14. However, the originally filed specification does not reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the presently claimed multilayer barrier structure including a first barrier film specifically doped with Ru and a second barrier film separately doped with a different metal dopant selected from Os, Pd, Pt, and Ir, as now claimed.
Specifically, the specification consistently describes embodiments in which metal dopants are generally selected from the group consisting of Ru, Os, Pd, Pt, and Ir, without describing or distinguishing separate dopant assignments for different barrier film layers.
Paragraphs [0006-0007, 0023, 0028, 0043-0045, 0051, 0061, 0084] generally describe a barrier film comprising a metal dopant selected from the group consisting of Ru, Os, Pd, Pt, and Ir, without identifying different dopants for respective first and second barrier films.
Paragraph [0055] describes forming a first barrier film, doping the first barrier film with a metal dopant, and forming a second barrier film on the doped first barrier film, but does not describe doping the second barrier film with a different metal dopant, or otherwise distinguishing dopant species between the first and second barrier films.
Paragraph [0055] further describes that “the second barrier film comprises the same material as the barrier film 214”, which is inconsistent with the presently claimed arrangement requiring different dopant compositions for the first and second barrier films.
Paragraph [0032] separately describes embodiments in which Os may be formed by ALD and Ru may be formed by CVD, but does not describe a multilayer structure in which a first barrier film is specifically doped with Ru and a second barrier film is separately doped with Os, Pd, Pt, and/or Ir.
Accordingly, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the presently claimed arrangement requiring
(i) a first barrier film specifically doped with Ru, and
(ii) a second barrier film separately doped with a different metal dopant selected from Os, Pd, Pt, and Ir.
Therefore, the newly added limitation lacks adequate written description support.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected for being dependent on claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla et al. (US 2014/0127896; hereinafter ‘Bonilla’) in view of Lakshmanan et al. (US 2013/0140698; hereinafter ‘Lakshmanan’).
Regarding claim 1, Bonilla teaches a microelectronic device [0029] comprising:
a dielectric layer (12 and 14, FIG. 1, [0026]; hereinafter ‘DL’) on a substrate (10), the dielectric layer (DL) comprising at least one feature defining a gap (16, FIG. 2, [0025]);
a barrier film (18, FIG. 3, [0042]) comprising an alloy of tantalum and a metal dopant (IrTaN) selected from the group consisting of ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iridium (Ir) on the dielectric layer (DL) (a metal dopant is Ir),
a metal liner film (a plating seed layer, [0045]) on the barrier film (18); and
a gap (16) fill metal (22 is copper or copper alloy, FIG. 5, [0046]) on the metal liner film (18).
Bonilla does not teach the microelectronic device comprising the barrier film comprising a composite region including regions of undoped tantalum nitride (TaN).
Lakshmanan teaches a microelectronic device (200, FIG. 2, [0034]) comprising a barrier film comprising a composite region including regions of undoped TaN (a barrier layer 230 formed by initially depositing a TaN film and subsequently doping portions of the TaN film with a dopant metal precursor, wherein portions of the TaN film remain as undoped TaN regions, [0035-0038]).
As taught by Lakshmanan, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Bonilla to obtain and achieve the microelectronic device comprising the barrier film comprising a composite region including regions of undoped TaN as claimed, because maintaining undoped TaN regions within the barrier film would preserve desirable TaN barrier properties while allowing doped tantalum alloy regions to improve copper diffusion resistance and interconnect reliability [0030, 0043].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Lakshmanan in combination with Bonilla due to above reason.
Regarding claim 3, Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1, wherein the metal dopant is selected from the group consisting of osmium (Os), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iridium (Ir) (Bonilla :a metal dopant is Ir, [0042]).
Regarding claim 9, Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1, Bonilla does not teach the microelectronic device wherein the barrier film has a thickness in a range of from 8 Å to 10 Å.
Lakshmanan teaches the microelectronic device wherein the barrier film has a thickness in a range of from 8 Å to 10 Å (the barrier layer has a thickness of 10 Å, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Lakshmanan to obtain and achieve the microelectronic device wherein the barrier film has a thickness in a range of from 8 Å to 10 Å as claimed, because it has been held that where the criticality of the claimed range is not shown and the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla (US 2014/0127896) in view of Lakshmanan (US 2013/0140698), and further in view of Farrar (US 2005/0032352).
Regarding claim 6, Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan teaches the microelectronic device of claim 1, does not teach the microelectronic device wherein when the metal dopant comprises osmium (Os).
Farrar teaches a microelectronic device [0009, 0019] wherein when the metal dopant comprises Os (the metal dopant of the barrier layer is osmium, [0030]).
As taught by Farrar, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan to obtain and achieve the microelectronic device wherein when the metal dopant comprises Os as claimed, because this modification leverages the unique properties of refractory metals like Os, particularly its high thermal and chemical stability, to ensure reliable diffusion barrier performance [0030]. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Farrar in combination with Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan due to above reason.
Regarding claim 7, Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan and Farrar teaches the microelectronic device of claim 6, Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan does not teach the microelectronic device wherein each of the barrier film and the metal liner film comprises the alloy of tantalum and the metal dopant comprising osmium (Os).
Farrar teaches the microelectronic device wherein each of the barrier film (114, FIG. 1D, [0030]) and the metal liner film (116, FIG. 1E, [0031]) comprise the alloy of tantalum and the metal dopant comprising Os (Ta and Os are employed in both 114 and 116, [0030-0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Farrar to obtain and achieve the microelectronic device wherein each of the barrier film and the metal liner film comprises the alloy of tantalum and the metal dopant comprising Os as claimed, because this modification leverages the unique properties of refractory metals like Os, particularly their high thermal and chemical stability, to ensure strong adhesion and reliable diffusion barrier performance [0030]. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla (US 2014/0127896) in view of Lakshmanan (US 2013/0140698) and Farrar (US 2005/0032352), and further in view of Clevenger et al. (US 2018/0061702: hereinafter ‘Clevenger’).
Regarding claim 8, Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan and Farrar teaches the microelectronic device of claim 7, but does not teach the microelectronic device wherein the metal liner film comprising the alloy of tantalum and the metal dopant comprising osmium (Os) improves nucleation of copper compared with a liner film comprising tantalum that does not include osmium (Os).
Clevenger teaches a microelectronic device [0001] wherein the metal liner film (seed layer, [0058]) comprising the alloy of tantalum and the metal dopant comprising Os improves nucleation of copper compared with a liner film comprising tantalum that does not include Os (seed layer including Ta and Os further improves the adhesion/surface properties, [0058]).
As taught by Clevenger, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan and Farrar to obtain and achieve the microelectronic device wherein the metal liner film comprising the alloy of tantalum and the metal dopant comprising Os improves nucleation of copper compared with a liner film comprising tantalum that does not include Os as claimed, because Os enhances surface properties, increases adhesion, and provides better electromigration resistance during the copper deposition process [0058].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Clevenger in combination with Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan and Farrar due to above reason.
Claims 10, 16-17, 19-20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmanan (US 2013/0140698) in view of Marsh et al. (US 2003/0154880: hereinafter ‘Marsh’).
Regarding claim 10, Lakshmanan teaches a method for forming a microelectronic device [0037], the method comprising:
forming a dielectric layer (110, FIG. 1A, [0021]) on a substrate (105), the dielectric layer (110) comprising at least one feature defining a gap (160);
forming a first barrier film (a first TaN monolayer of 130, FIG. 1B , FIG. 3, [0023, 0038-0039]; hereinafter ‘TaNm1’) on the dielectric layer (110);
doping the first barrier film (TaNm1) with a metal dopant (a metal dopant for 130, [0023]) selected from the group consisting of ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iridium (Ir) (the dopants comprise Ru) by exposing the first barrier film (TaNm1) to a ruthenium-containing precursor, an osmium-containing precursor, a palladium-containing precursor, a platinum-containing precursor, or an iridium-containing precursor (Ru-containing compound, [0039]) during a
forming a second barrier film (a second TaN monolayer of 130; hereinafter ‘TaNm2’) on the doped first barrier film (TaN1) by atomic layer deposition (PEALD process, [0038]) to form a doped multilayer barrier film (130 comprising alternating TaN and dopant layers, [0039]), wherein the first barrier film and the second barrier film are the same (TaNm1 and TaNm2 are the TaN monolayer, [0039]);
depositing a metal liner film (a seeding layer, [0027-0028]; hereinafter ‘SL’) on the doped multilayer barrier film (130); and
depositing a conductive gap fill metal (140, FIG. 1B, [0027]) on the metal liner film (SL).
Lakshmanan does not teach that the chemical vapor deposition process for doping the first barrier film is a flash chemical vapor deposition process
Marsh teaches a method for forming a microelectronic device [0005] comprising doping the first barrier film during a flash chemical vapor deposition process (flash vaporization CVD techniques utilizing precursor exposure for semiconductor dopant applications, [0025, 0039]).
As taught by Marsh, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lakshmanan to obtain and achieve the method for forming a microelectronic device comprising doping the first barrier film during a flash chemical vapor deposition process as claimed, because flash vaporization-based CVD techniques are particularly suitable for precursor vapor deposition processes [0025], improve deposition rates for thermally unstable precursor compounds and facilitate precursor delivery control [0029], while providing conformal deposition suitable for diffusion barrier and semiconductor dopant applications [0039].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Marsh in combination with Lakshmanan due to above reason.
Regarding claim 16, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach the method, wherein forming each of the first barrier film and the second barrier film independently comprises flowing a tantalum-containing precursor (Lakshmanan: TaNm1 is deposited, followed by deposition of a first dopant layer, and TaNm2 is deposited, [0039]).
Regarding claim 17, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the tantalum-containing precursor comprises pentakis(dimethylamino)tantalum(V) (PDMAT) (Lakshmanan: Ta-containing precursor is PDMAT, [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh teaches the method of claim 16, wherein each of the first barrier film and the second barrier film independently comprises tantalum nitride (TaN) (Lakshmanan: TaNm1 is formed in a first deposition process, followed by deposition of a first dopant layer, and TaNm2 is formed in a separate deposition process, [0039]).
Regarding claim 20, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh teaches the method of claim 19, wherein each of the first barrier film and the second barrier film independently comprises substantially no oxygen atoms or carbon atoms (Lakshmanan: TaNm1 and TaNm2 are TaN layers, which includes substantially no oxygen atoms or carbon atoms, [0039]).
Regarding claim 24, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the doped first barrier film comprises a composite region including regions of undoped tantalum nitride (TaN) and regions of the metal dopant and tantalum (Lakshmanan: TaN1 comprising alternating TaN layers and dopant layers, thereby forming regions including TaN and regions including tantalum and the metal dopant, [0039]).
Claims 11, 18, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmanan (US 2013/0140698) in view of Marsh (US 2003/0154880), and further in view of Farrar (US 2005/0032352).
Regarding claim 11, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach the method wherein the metal dopant is selected from the group consisting of osmium (Os), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iridium (Ir).
Farrar teaches a method [0007] wherein the metal dopant is selected from the group consisting of Os, Pd, Pt, and Ir (the metal dopant of the barrier layer is osmium, [0030]).
As taught by Farrar, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lakshmanan in view of Marsh to obtain and achieve the method wherein the metal dopant is selected from the group consisting of Os, Pd, Pt, and Ir as claimed, because this modification leverages the unique properties of refractory metals like Os, particularly its high thermal and chemical stability, to ensure reliable diffusion barrier performance [0030]. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Farrar in combination with Lakshmanan in view of Marsh due to above reason.
Regarding claim 18, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach the method wherein the metal dopant comprises osmium (Os).
Farrar teaches a method [0007] wherein the metal dopant comprises Os (the metal dopant of the barrier layer is osmium, [0030]).
As taught by Farrar, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lakshmanan in view of Marsh to obtain and achieve the method wherein the metal dopant comprises Os as claimed, because this modification leverages the unique properties of refractory metals like Os, particularly its high thermal and chemical stability, to ensure reliable diffusion barrier performance [0030]. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Farrar in combination with Lakshmanan in view of Marsh due to above reason.
Regarding claim 21, Lakshmanan teaches a method for forming a microelectronic device [0037], the method comprising:
forming a dielectric layer (110, FIG. 1A, [0021]) on a substrate (105), the dielectric layer (110) comprising at least one feature defining a gap (160);
forming a first barrier film (a first TaN monolayer of 130, FIG. 1B , FIG. 3, [0023, 0038-0039]; hereinafter ‘TaNm1’) on the dielectric layer (110) by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (ALD process, [0038]);
doping the first barrier film (TaNm1) with a metal dopant (a first metal dopant for 130, [0010, 0023]) comprising ruthenium (Ru) (the dopants comprise Ru) by exposing the first barrier film (TaNm1) to a ruthenium-containing precursor (Ru-containing compound, [0039]) during a
forming a second barrier film on the doped first barrier film (a second TaN monolayer of 130; hereinafter ‘TaNm2’) by atomic layer deposition (ALD process, [0038]);
doping the second barrier film (TaNm2) with a metal dopant (a second metal dopant for 130, where the second layer further comprises one or more second dopants different from the first dopant, [0010-0011, 0035]) to form a doped second barrier film (a second doped TaN film; hereinafter ‘TaN2’), the doped first barrier film (TaN1) and the doped second barrier film (TaN2) collectively defining a doped multilayer barrier film (130 comprising alternating TaN and dopant layers, [0039]) having a combined thickness in a range of from about 8 Å to about 10 Å (130 has a thickness of 10 Å, [0058]);
depositing a metal liner film (a seeding layer, [0027-0028]; hereinafter ‘SL’) on the doped multilayer barrier film (130); and
depositing a conductive gap fill metal (140, FIG. 1B, [0027]) on the metal liner film (SL).
Lakshmanan does not teach that the chemical vapor deposition process for doping the first barrier film is a flash chemical vapor deposition process.
Marsh teaches a method for forming a microelectronic device [0005] comprising doping the first barrier film during a flash chemical vapor deposition process (flash vaporization CVD techniques utilizing precursor exposure for semiconductor dopant applications, [0025, 0039]).
As taught by Marsh, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lakshmanan to obtain and achieve the method for forming a microelectronic device comprising doping the first barrier film during a flash chemical vapor deposition process as claimed, because flash vaporization-based CVD techniques are particularly suitable for precursor vapor deposition processes [0025], improve deposition rates for thermally unstable precursor compounds and facilitate precursor delivery control [0029], while providing conformal deposition suitable for diffusion barrier and semiconductor dopant applications [0039].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Marsh in combination with Lakshmanan due to above reason.
Lakshmanan in view of Marsh does not explicitly teach selecting the second metal dopant from the group consisting of osmium (Os), palladium (Pd), platinum (Pt), and iridium (Ir).
Farrar teaches a method [0007] comprising a metal dopant selected from the group consisting of Os, Pd, Pt, and Ir (the metal dopant of the barrier layer is osmium, [0030]).
As taught by Farrar, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lakshmanan in view of Marsh to obtain and achieve the method comprising doping the second barrier film with a metal dopant selected from the group consisting of Os, Pd, Pt, and Ir as claimed, because this modification leverages the unique properties of refractory metals like Os, particularly its high thermal and chemical stability, to ensure reliable diffusion barrier performance [0030]. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Farrar in combination with Lakshmanan in view of Marsh due to above reason.
Regarding claim 25, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh and Farrar teaches the method of claim 21, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh does not teach the method, wherein the metal dopant of the doped second barrier film is osmium (Os).
Farrar teaches the method, wherein the metal dopant of the doped second barrier film is Os (the metal dopant of the barrier layer is osmium, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ and modify the teachings of Farrar to obtain and achieve the method, wherein the metal dopant of the doped second barrier film is Os as claimed, because this modification leverages the unique properties of refractory metals like Os, particularly its high thermal and chemical stability, to ensure reliable diffusion barrier performance [0030]. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmanan (US 2013/0140698) in view of Marsh (US 2003/0154880), further in view of Ham et al. (Energies 2009, 2, 873-899; hereinafter ‘Ham’).
Regarding claim 12, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach that the metal dopant is added to prevent formation of a stable nitride in the doped first barrier film.
Ham teaches that the 4d and 5d transition metals of Groups 8-10, including Ru, Os, Rh, Ir, Pd, and Pt, do not form stable nitrides under conventional deposition conditions (3. Transition Metal nitrides).
As taught by Ham, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lakshmanan in view of Marsh to obtain and achieve the method wherein the metal dopant is added to prevent formation of a stable nitride in the doped first barrier film as claimed, because Ru, Os, Rh, Ir, Pd, and Pt are inherently non-nitride-forming materials and are widely used as a dopant in the barrier film in the art. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Ham in combination with Lakshmanan in view of Marsh due to above reason.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmanan (US 2013/0140698) in view of Marsh (US 2003/0154880), further in view of Bonilla (US 2014/0127896).
Regarding claim 13, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach the method, wherein the metal dopant has a density that is greater than a density of an undoped barrier film comprising tantalum nitride (TaN).
Bonilla teaches a method [0022] comprising doping a barrier film with a metal dopant (doping a barrier film with a metal dopant Ir, [0042]).
Although, Bonilla does not explicitly teach that the metal dopant has a density that is greater than a density of an undoped barrier film comprising tantalum nitride (TaN).
However, standard material property references, such as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, report that elemental Ir has a density of about 22.56 g/cm3 (CRC Handbook, Iridium, p. 4-67), whereas TaN films typically exhibit densities on the order of about 13.7 g/cm3 (CRC Handbook, Tantalum Nitride, p. 4-93).
As taught by Bonilla, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lakshmanan in view of Marsh to obtain and achieve the method, wherein the metal dopant has a density that is greater than a density of an undoped barrier film comprising TaN as claimed, because Ir and TaN are well-known materials in the semiconductor processing field and are widely used as a metal dopant and a barrier material, respectively. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Bonilla in combination with Lakshmanan in view of Marsh due to above reason.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmanan (US 2013/0140698) in view of Marsh (US 2003/0154880) and Farrar (US 2005/0032352), and further in view of Paranjpe et al (US 2002/0102838; hereinafter ‘Paranjpe’).
Regarding claim 22, Lakshmanan in view of Marsh and Farrar teaches the method of claim 21, but does not teach the method, wherein the metal dopant of the doped second barrier film is palladium (Pd) or platinum (Pt).
Paranjpe teaches a method [0017], wherein the metal dopant of the doped second barrier film is Pd or Pt (one or more dopants selected from the group of Pd and Pt to doped barrier layer, [0035]).
As taught by Paranjpe, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Lakshmanan in view of Marsh and Farrar to obtain and achieve the method wherein the metal dopant of the doped second barrier film is Pd or Pt as claimed, because Pd- and Pt-doped barrier layers improve adhesion and barrier properties for semiconductor interconnect structures [0035]. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Paranjpe in combination with Lakshmanan in view of Marsh and Farrar due to above reason.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonilla (US 2014/0127896) in view of Lakshmanan (US 2013/0140698), and further in view of Paranjpe (US 2002/0102838).
Regarding claim 23, Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan teaches the microelectronic device of claim 3, but does not teach the microelectronic device, wherein the metal dopant is palladium (Pd) or platinum (Pt).
Paranjpe teaches a microelectronic device [0034], wherein the metal dopant is Pd or Pt (one or more dopants selected from the group of Pd and Pt to doped barrier layer, [0035]).
As taught by Paranjpe, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize and modify the above teaching into Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan to obtain and achieve the microelectronic device, wherein the metal dopant is Pd or Pt as claimed, because Pd- and Pt-doped barrier layers improve adhesion and barrier properties for semiconductor interconnect structures [0035]. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching as taught by Paranjpe in combination with Bonilla in view of Lakshmanan due to above reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. Response to arguments on newly added limitations are responded to in the above rejection.
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 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 JIYOUNG OH whose telephone number is (703)756-5687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM-5PM EST.
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, EVA MONTALVO can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JIYOUNG OH/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/DUY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 5/18/26
Prosecution Insights