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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 8841769).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an interconnect structure, comprising:
a diffusion barrier layer (22) disposed on exterior surfaces of an opening (14) in a dielectric layer (12), a top surface of the diffusion barrier layer (22) being below a top surface of the opening (14) [Figs. 10 and 25];
a liner layer (23) disposed on a bottom surface and sidewalls of the diffusion barrier layer [Fig. 23];
a spacer layer (16) disposed on the top surface of the diffusion barrier layer and the liner layer and exposed sidewalls of the opening [Fig. 25];
an interconnect metal (24) disposed on the liner layer and the spacer layer, wherein a top surface at outer ends of the interconnect metal (24) is coplanar with a top surface of the spacer layer (16); [Fig. 25]; and
a metal cap (40) disposed on the interconnect metal [Fig. 25].
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses a top surface of the liner layer (23) is coplanar with the top surface of the diffusion barrier layer (22) [Fig. 25].
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses wherein a top surface of the interconnect metal (24) is coplanar with a top surface of the dielectric layer (12) [Fig. 25].
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses a dielectric cap (32) disposed on the dielectric layer (12) and over the metal cap (24) [Fig. 25].
Regarding claim 5, Park discloses wherein the diffusion barrier layer (22) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of tantalum, tantalum nitride, titanium, titanium nitride, tungsten nitride and combinations thereof [col. 6, lines 66-67].
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 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 8841769) in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0371656).
Regarding claims 6-8, Park does not disclose: wherein the liner layer comprises ruthenium and the metal cap comprises cobalt, and wherein the interconnect metal comprises copper.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Chen teaches wherein the liner layer (120) comprises ruthenium [paragraph 0025] and the metal cap comprises cobalt [paragraph 0034].
Regarding claim 7, Chen teaches wherein the interconnect metal (150) comprises copper [paragraph 0031].
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Park by including a metal cap, a liner layer comprising ruthenium, a metal cap comprising cobalt, and an interconnect metal comprising copper as taught by Chen because it helps to yield higher-performance processors [paragraph 0002]. In addition, the court has held that it is within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any of the embodiments applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In the instance case, Park discloses a different embodiment in Figure 25 that teaches all the limitations as recited in claim 1. See rejection 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE R DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1727. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at 571-270-1435. 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.
/Jose R Diaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights