DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 09/15/2025.
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 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.
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 22, which depends from Claim 11, recites that the second ILD layer comprises a porous carbon-doped silicon oxide layer. However, Claim 11 recites that the second ILD layer comprises a fluorine-doped oxide layer. The claimed scope of the subject matter that includes the second ILD layer comprising both a porous carbon-doped silicon oxide layer and a fluorine-doped oxide layer was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 6, 8, 11-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chattopadhyay (US 8,173,537), in view of Ridgeway (US 2020/0354386), in view of Kumar (US 2004/0087133), in view of Cheng (US 2005/0124151).
Regarding claim 1, Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) discloses a device, comprising:
a substrate e.g., semiconductor layer (not shown) (col. 5, lines 37-40);
a carbon-doped oxide layer 103 disposed on the substrate e.g., semiconductor layer (not shown) (col. 5, lines 44-53; col. 11, lines 46-48); and
a plurality of interconnects e.g., vias and metal lines disposed in the carbon-doped oxide layer 103 (col. 5, lines 53-55),
a fluorine-doped ILD layer 111, 115 disposed on the carbon-doped oxide layer 103 (col. 8, lines 8-9; col. 9, lines 39-40).
Although Chattopadhyay shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Chattopadhyay fails to expressly teach a porous carbon-doped oxide layer, wherein the porous carbon-doped oxide layer has a hardness of at least about 3 GPa and a dielectric constant of about 3.3; and that the fluorine-doped ILD layer has a dielectric constant different from the dielectric constant of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer, and wherein the fluorine-doped ILD layer has a hardness less than the hardness of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer.
Ridgeway teaches a porous carbon-doped oxide layer, e.g., porous dielectric film SivOwCxHyFz, where z=0 atomic percent, wherein the porous carbon-doped oxide layer has a hardness of at least about 3 GPa and a dielectric constant of about 3.2 for the purpose of utilizing a porous dielectric film with increased carbon content thereby preventing pattern collapse of fine features and integration issues when depositing subsequent layers (Para 0005, Para 0008, Para 0010).
Although Ridgeway fails to specify that the dielectric constant is about 3.3, Ridgeway does teach that the dielectric constant is about 3.2. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In this case, the dielectric constant differs by 0.1. Therefore, the properties of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer would have the same properties of the claimed invention. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon-doped oxide layer of Chattopadhyay to be a porous carbon-doped oxide layer having a hardness of at least about 3 GPa and a dielectric constant of about 3.2 (3.3) as described by Ridgeway for the purpose of utilizing a porous dielectric film with increased carbon content thereby preventing pattern collapse of fine features and integration issues when depositing subsequent layers (Para 0005).
Kumar (see, e.g., FIG. 1(c)) teaches a fluorine-doped ILD layer 6 having a dielectric constant of 2.4 to 4, and a hardness of 1 GPa to 6 GPa (Para 0046). Cheng, on the other hand, teaches that increasing the hardness of a low-k dielectric is associated with a lower leakage current and a higher breakdown voltage (Para 0003).
The combination of Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway/Kumar/Cheng teaches that the fluorine-doped ILD layer 111, 115 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Kumar) has a dielectric constant e.g., 4 (as taught by Kumar) different from the dielectric constant e.g., 3.2 (as taught by Ridgeway) of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Ridgeway), and wherein the fluorine-doped ILD layer 111, 115 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Kumar) has a hardness e.g., 6 GPa (as taught by Kumar) less than the hardness e.g., 7 GPa of the porous carbon-doped ILD layer 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Ridgeway) (Chattopadhyay: col. 5, lines 44-53; col. 8, lines 8-9; col. 9, lines 39-40; Ridgeway: Para 0010; Kumar: Para 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluorine-doped layer of Chattopadhyay to have the mechanical properties of the fluorine-doped layer as described by Kumar for the purpose of providing low-k dielectric layer that enables a lower leakage current and a higher breakdown voltage in a metal interconnect (Cheng: Para 0003).
Regarding claim 2, Ridgeway teaches the device of claim 1, wherein that a refractive index of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer is at least about 1.42 for light having a wavelength of 633 nm (Para 0010).
Examiner Note: The porous carbon-doped oxide layer of Ridgeway is of the same material as disclosed by applicant (see, e.g., Para 0025 of the disclosure as originally filed), which would result in the claimed properties of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 3, Ridgeway teaches the device of claim 1, wherein that a density of the porous carbon-doped oxide is at least about 1.6 g/cm3 (Para 0010).
Examiner Note: The porous carbon-doped oxide layer of Ridgeway is of the same material as disclosed by applicant (see, e.g., Para 0025 of the disclosure as originally filed), which would result in the claimed properties of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 4, Ridgeway teaches the device of claim 1, wherein that the porous carbon-doped oxide layer comprises a porous carbon-doped silicon oxide layer (Para 0010).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) / Ridgeway teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising an etch stop layer 109 (as taught by Chattopadhyay) disposed between the porous carbon-doped oxide layer 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Ridgeway) and the fluorine-doped ILD layer 111, 115 (Chattopadhyay: col. 6, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 8, Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) teaches the device of claim 1, wherein that the fluorine-doped ILD layer 111, 115 comprises a fluorine-doped oxide layer (col. 8, lines 8-9; col. 9, lines 39-40).
Regarding claim 11, Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) discloses a semiconductor device comprising:
semiconductor substrate e.g., semiconductor layer (not shown) (col. 5, lines 37-40);
a first interlayer dielectric (ILD) layer 103 disposed on the semiconductor substrate e.g., semiconductor layer (not shown), the first ILD layer 103 comprising a porous carbon-doped oxide layer (col. 5, lines 44-53; col. 11, lines 46-48);
vias and metal lines e.g., left most vias and metal lines of 107 disposed in the first ILD layer 103, the vias e.g., left most vias of 107 having a via pitch e.g., via 107 spacing and the metal lines e.g., left most metal lines of 107 having a metal line pitch e.g., metal line 107 spacing (col. 5, lines 53-55); and
a second ILD layer 111, 115 disposed on the first ILD layer 103, the second ILD layer 111, 115 comprising a fluorine-doped oxide layer and interconnects 124, 125 with an interconnect pitch e.g., pitch between left most 124, 125 greater than the via pitch e.g., via 107 spacing and the metal line pitch e.g., metal line 107 spacing (col. 8, lines 8-9; col. 9, lines 39-40; col. 9, line 67; col. 10, lines 1-3),
Although Chattopadhyay shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Chattopadhyay fails to expressly teach a porous carbon-doped oxide layer and a hardness of at least about 3.2 GPa and dielectric constant of about 3.3; a fluorine-doped oxide layer with a hardness of at least 3 GPa; and wherein the second ILD layer has a hardness less than a hardness of the first ILD layer.
Ridgeway teaches a porous carbon-doped oxide layer, e.g., porous dielectric film SivOwCxHyFz, where z=0 atomic percent, having a hardness of at least about 3 GPa and a dielectric constant of about 3.2 for the purpose of utilizing a porous dielectric film with increased carbon content thereby preventing pattern collapse of fine features and integration issues when depositing subsequent layers (Para 0005, Para 0008, Para 0010).
Although Ridgeway fails to specify that the dielectric constant is about 3.3, Ridgeway does teach that the dielectric constant is about 3.2. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In this case, the dielectric constant differs by 0.1. Therefore, the properties of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer would have the same properties of the claimed invention. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon-doped oxide layer of Chattopadhyay to be a porous carbon-doped oxide layer having a hardness of at least about 3 GPa and a dielectric constant of about 3.2 (3.3) as described by Ridgeway for the purpose of utilizing a porous dielectric film with increased carbon content thereby preventing pattern collapse of fine features and integration issues when depositing subsequent layers (Para 0005).
Kumar (see, e.g., FIG. 1(c)) teaches an ILD layer 6 comprises a hardness of at least about 3.2 GPa (Para 0030, Para 0046). Cheng, on the other hand, teaches that increasing the hardness of a low-k dielectric is associated with a lower leakage current and a higher breakdown voltage (Para 0003).
The combination of Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway/Kumar further teaches that the second ILD layer 111, 115 (as taught by Chattopadhyay as modified by Kumar) has a hardness e.g., 6 GPa less than a hardness e.g., 7 GPa of the first ILD layer 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Ridgeway) (Chattopadhyay: col. 8, lines 8-9; col. 9, lines 39-40; Kumar: Para 0030, Para 0046; Ridgeway: Para 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hardness of the second ILD layer of Chattopadhyay to be at least 3.2 GPa as described by Kumar for the purpose of providing low-k dielectric layer that enables a lower leakage current and a higher breakdown voltage in a metal interconnect (Cheng: Para 0003).
Regarding claim 12, Ridgeway teaches the semiconductor device of claim 11, wherein the hardness of the first ILD layer is between about 3.2 GPa and about 7 GPa (Para 0010).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) / Kumar (see, e.g., FIG. 1(c)) teaches the semiconductor device of claim 11, wherein a dielectric constant of the second ILD layer 111, 115 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Kumar) is between about 2.9 and about 3.2 (Chattopadhyay: col. 8, lines 8-9; col. 9, lines 39-40; Kumar: Para 0046).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) / Ridgeway teaches the semiconductor device of claim 11, wherein a refractive index of the first ILD layer 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Ridgeway) is between about 1.42 and about 1.48 (col. 5, lines 44-53).
Examiner Note: The first ILD layer of Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway is of the same material as disclosed by applicant (see, e.g., Para 0025 of the disclosure as originally filed), which would result in the claimed property of the first ILD layer. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) / Ridgeway teaches semiconductor device of claim 11, wherein a density of the first ILD layer 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Ridgeway) is between about 1.6 g/cm3 and about 1.9 g/cm3 (col. 5, lines 44-53).
Examiner Note: The first ILD layer of Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway is of the same material as disclosed by applicant (see, e.g., Para 0017, Para 0025 of the disclosure as originally filed), which would result in the claimed property of the first ILD layer. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Regarding claim 21, Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) teaches the device of claim 1, wherein that the fluorine-doped ILD layer 111, 115 comprises a fluorine-doped silicon oxide layer (col. 8, lines 8-9; col. 9, lines 39-40).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chattopadhyay (US 8,173,537), in view of Ridgeway (US 2020/0354386), in view of Kumar (US 2004/0087133), in view of Cheng (US 2005/0124151), and further in view of Lee (US 2015/0255330).
Regarding claim 16, Chattopadhyay fails to expressly teach that the interconnect pitch is between about 28 nm and about 39 nm. However, Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) does show spacing (pitch) between the interconnects e.g., left most 124, 125. Lee, on the other hand, teaches that the via pitch 318 and the metal line pitch 310 are each less than about 40 nm (Para 0019). However, differences in pitch will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the interconnect pitch as being between about 28 nm and about 39 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pitch to be between about 28 nm and about 39 nm as taught by Lee.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed pitch being between about 28 nm and about 39 nm 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, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 17 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chattopadhyay (US 8,173,537), in view of Ridgeway (US 2020/0354386), in view of Lee (US 2015/0255330), in view of Kumar (US 2004/0087133), in view of Cheng (US 2005/0124151).
Regarding claim 17, Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) discloses a device, comprising:
a substrate e.g., semiconductor layer (not shown) (col. 5, lines 37-40);
a carbon-doped oxide layer 103 disposed on the substrate e.g., semiconductor layer (not shown) (col. 5, lines 44-53; col. 11, lines 46-48); and
a first plurality of interconnects e.g., vias and metal lines in 103 disposed in the carbon-doped oxide layer 103, the first plurality of interconnects having a first pitch e.g., spacing between conductive routes (col. 5, lines 53-55),
a fluorine-doped ILD layer 111, 115 disposed on the first plurality of interconnects e.g., vias and metal lines in 103 (col. 8, lines 8-9; col. 9, lines 39-40),
a second plurality of interconnects 124, 125 disposed in the fluorine-doped ILD layer 111, 115, the second plurality of interconnects 124, 125 having a second pitch greater than the first pitch (col. 9, line 67; col. 10, lines 1-3).
Although Chattopadhyay shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Chattopadhyay fails to expressly teach a porous carbon-doped oxide layer, the porous carbon-doped oxide layer having a hardness greater than about 3 GPa and a dielectric constant of about 3.3; the first plurality of interconnects having a first pitch less than about 40 nm; and that the fluorine-doped ILD layer having a hardness less than the hardness of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer.
Ridgeway teaches a porous carbon-doped oxide layer, e.g., porous dielectric film SivOwCxHyFz, where z=0 atomic percent, having a hardness of at least about 3 GPa and a dielectric constant of about 3.2 for the purpose of utilizing a porous dielectric film with increased carbon content thereby preventing pattern collapse of fine features and integration issues when depositing subsequent layers (Para 0005, Para 0008, Para 0010).
Although Ridgeway fails to specify that the dielectric constant is about 3.3, Ridgeway does teach that the dielectric constant is about 3.2. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In this case, the dielectric constant differs by 0.1. Therefore, the properties of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer would have the same properties of the claimed invention. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carbon-doped oxide layer of Chattopadhyay to be a porous carbon-doped oxide layer having a hardness of at least about 3 GPa and a dielectric constant of about 3.3 as described by Ridgeway for the purpose of utilizing a porous dielectric film with increased carbon content thereby preventing pattern collapse of fine features and integration issues when depositing subsequent layers (Para 0005).
Chattopadhyay fails to expressly teach that first plurality of interconnects having a first pitch less than about 40 nm. However, Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) does show spacing (pitch) between the interconnects e.g., vias and metal lines in 103. Lee, on the other hand, teaches that the via pitch 318 and the metal line pitch 310 are each less than about 40 nm (Para 0019). However, differences in pitch will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the interconnect pitch having a pitch less than about 40 nm, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pitch to be less than about 40 nm as taught by Lee.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed pitch being less than about 40 nm 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, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kumar (see, e.g., FIG. 1(c)) teaches a fluorine-doped ILD layer 6 having a hardness of 1 GPa to 6 GPa (Para 0046). Cheng, on the other hand, teaches that increasing the hardness of a low-k dielectric is associated with a lower leakage current and a higher breakdown voltage (Para 0003).
The combination of Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway/Kumar/Cheng teaches that the fluorine-doped ILD layer 111, 115 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Kumar) has a hardness e.g., 6 GPa (as taught by Kumar) less than the hardness e.g., 7 GPa of the porous carbon-doped oxide layer 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay and modified by Ridgeway) (Chattopadhyay: col. 5, lines 44-53; col. 8, lines 8-9; col. 9, lines 39-40; Ridgeway: Para 0010; Kumar: Para 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluorine-doped layer of Chattopadhyay to have the mechanical properties of the fluorine-doped layer as described by Kumar for the purpose of providing low-k dielectric layer that enables a lower leakage current and a higher breakdown voltage in a metal interconnect (Cheng: Para 0003).
Regarding claim 24, Kumar (see, e.g., FIG. 1(c)) teaches the device of claim 17, wherein the hardness of the fluorine-doped ILD layer 6 is between about 3 GPa and about 7 GPa (Para 0046).
Regarding claim 25, Kumar (see, e.g., FIG. 1(c)) teaches the device of claim 17, wherein a refractive index of the fluorine-doped ILD layer is between about 1.42 and about 1.48.
Examiner Note: The first ILD layer of Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway is of the same material as disclosed by applicant (see, e.g., Para 0025 of the disclosure as originally filed), which would result in the claimed property of the first ILD layer. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. See In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chattopadhyay (US 8,173,537), in view of Ridgeway (US 2020/0354386), in view of Lee (US 2015/0255330), in view of Kumar (US 2004/0087133), in view of Cheng (US 2005/0124151), and further in view of Lu (US 2012/0313256).
Regarding claim 18, Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) teaches that the substrate (not shown) comprises transistors (not shown) (col. 5, lines 35-41).
Although Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway/Lee/Kumar/Cheng shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Chattopadhyay fails to expressly teach that transistors are in electrical contact with the first and second pluralities of interconnects.
Lu (see, e.g., FIG. 14) teaches that transistors 21 are in electrical contact with the first and second pluralities of interconnects 48 in M1; 64, 66 in M2 for the purpose of interconnecting the integrated circuit devices as functional circuits (Para 0001, Para 0009, Para 0013, Para 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway/Lee/Kumar/Cheng to include transistors that are in electrical contact with the first and second pluralities of interconnect for the purpose of interconnecting the integrated circuit devices as functional circuits (Para 0001).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chattopadhyay (US 8,173,537), in view of Ridgeway (US 2020/0354386), in view of Lee (US 2015/0255330), in view of Kumar (US 2004/0087133), in view of Cheng (US 2005/0124151), and further in view of Wu (US 2017/0178954)
Regarding claim 19, although Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway/Lee/Kumar/Cheng show substantial features of the claimed invention, Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway/Lee/Kumar/Cheng fail to expressly teach that the substrate comprises an etch stop layer disposed under the porous carbon-doped ILD layer.
Wu (see, e.g., FIG. 1F) teaches that the substrate (not shown) comprises an etch stop layer 130 disposed under the carbon-doped ILD layer 150 for the purpose of providing a low capacitance material to improve RC delay (Para 0010, Para 0016, Para 0017, Para 0021).
The combination of Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) / Ridgeway / Wu (see, e.g., FIG. 1F) teaches etch stop layer 130 (as taught by Wu) disposed under the porous carbon-doped ILD layer 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay modified by Ridgeway).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chattopadhyay/Ridgeway/Lee/Kumar/Cheng to include the etch stop layer as described by Wu for the purpose of providing a low capacitance material to improve RC delay (Para 0017).
Regarding claim 20, combination of Chattopadhyay (see, e.g., FIG. 1E) / Wu (see, e.g., FIG. 1F) teaches the device of claim 19, wherein the first plurality of interconnects e.g., vias and metal lines in 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay) comprise vias e.g., vias in 103 that extend through the etch stop layer 130 (as taught by Wu) and, adjacent to the vias e.g., vias in 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay), metal lines e.g., metal lines in 103 (as taught by Chattopadhyay) that do not extend through the etch stop layer 130 (as taught by Wu) (Chattopadhyay: col. 5, lines 53-55; Wu: Para 0016, Para 0017).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of 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 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 ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571)270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/ANTONIO B CRITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817