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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 11/04/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/04/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the line" in line 6. It is unclear if this is a new line or if it is referring to the previously introduce metallization line? For the purpose of expediting prosecution, the Office is going to interpret the claim as intending to refer back to the metallization line.
Note: all dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (PG Pub 2020/0411402) and Zhao et al. (PG Pub 2015/0380310; hereinafter Zhao).
PNG
media_image1.png
232
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, refer to the Examiner’s mark-up of 11a of Fig. 3 provided above, Huang teaches an integrated circuit (IC) device package, comprising:
a substrate (annotated “sub” in Fig. 3 above) comprising a dielectric material 11b; and
one or more metallization lines (annotated “metal-1” and “metal-2”) extending over the dielectric material, wherein the metallization lines comprise Cu (para [0025]; “copper”).
Huang does not explicitly teach the material composition of the metallization lines as comprising both Cu and N.
PNG
media_image2.png
340
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhao teaches, refer to Fig. 3h-provided above, Zhao teaches a “Conductive layer 178 can be one or more layers of Al, Cu, Sn, Ni, Au, Ag, Ti, W, titanium tungsten (TiW), titanium copper (TiCu), titanium tungsten copper (TiWCu), tantalum nitrogen copper (TaNCu); which are equivalently recognized conductive material compositions.
According to MPEP 2144.06 (II), "In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art" In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958); wherein an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). (see also Smith v. Hayashi, 209 USPQ 754 (Bd. of Pat. Inter. 1980 and 209 USPQ at 759.).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to substitute the copper metallization (“metal-1” and “metal-2”) for another conductive material (i.e. TaNCu) material, as taught by Zhao, to achieve the same desired electrical properties.
Regarding claim 4, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Zhao, Huang teaches the metallization lines (“metal-1” and “metal-2”) comprise a surface layer (annotated “surface” in Fig. 3) of predominantly Cu and N (see claim 1) and a bulk (annotated “bulk” in Fig. 3) under the surface layer (the top surface being the bottom of metal-1), the bulk comprising predominantly Cu and having less N than the surface layer (all copper).
Regarding claim 10, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Zhao, Huang teaches one or more metallization vias in direct contact with the metallization lines, wherein the surface layer is substantially absent from a sidewall of the metallization vias.
Regarding claim 11, refer to the figures provided above, in the combination of Huang and Zhao, Huang teaches the bulk (“bulk”) has a thickness of at least 3 µm (para [0025]).
Prior Art
3. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Bruce et al. (US Patent No. 10,727,114) teaches an interconnect structure.
b. Lin et al. (US Patent No. 10,446,489) teaches an interconnect structure.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 2-3, 6-9 and 12-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 2, the metallization lines comprise predominantly Cu and wherein the N has a first concentration proximal to a sidewall surface of the lines that is higher than a second concentration within an interior of the metallization line, distal from the sidewall surface. Claim 3 would be allowable, because it depends on allowable claim 2.
Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 6, the surface layer has a thickness of 2 nm - 1 µm. Claim 7 would be allowable, because it depends on allowable claim 6.
Claim 8 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 8, t one or more metallization vias in direct contact with the metallization lines, wherein the metallization vias also comprise the surface layer of predominantly Cu and N. Claim 9 would be allowable, because it depends on allowable claim 8.
Claim 12 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 12, the one or more metallization lines comprise a first metallization line; the first metallization line comprises a surface layer of predominantly Cu and N and a bulk under the surface layer, the bulk comprising predominantly Cu and having less N than the surface layer; the substrate further comprises a second metallization line under the dielectric material; and the surface layer is absent from the second metallization line. Claims 13-14 would be allowable, because they depend on allowable claim 12.
Claim 15 contains allowable subject matter, because the prior art of record, either singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other elements in claim 15, a first integrated circuit (IC) die; a second IC die; and an integrated circuit (IC) device package, comprising: a metallization line interconnecting the first IC die to the second IC die, wherein the metallization line comprises predominantly Cu, and a first amount of N proximal to a sidewall surface of the line that is greater than a second amount of N within an interior of the metallization line, distal from the sidewall surface. Claim 16 would be allowable, because it depends on allowable claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina A Sylvia whose telephone number is (571)272-7474. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm (M-F).
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached on 571-272-2063. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTINA A SYLVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/MARLON T FLETCHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817