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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/02/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 -9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 defines the unit of bias power to the substrate is watts/cm2 but no size or area of the substrate is defined in the specification and therefore it is indefinite and will be examined as any industry standard sizes like 12 inches or 300mm wafer/substrate in diameter to compare with.
Claims 2-9, 13 are also rejected being dependent on rejected claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments about bias power density on 10/02/2025 has been noted but maintained examiner’s position as a reference for examination purpose. An example of substrate sizes is suggested in the specification or in the following responses.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ha et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0108058 A1) in view of Gopalraja et al (US 2004/0140196 A1) and further in view of Chen et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0008823 A1)
Regarding claim 1: Ha teaches in Fig. 2B, 2C, 3 about a method for processing a substrate 214, comprising:
depositing a metal ([0021] teaches copper) buffer layer 218 on a substrate and within a feature 210 disposed in a dielectric layer 212 of the substrate using a first physical vapor deposition (PVD) process [0022] while applying less than or equal to 0.08 watts/cm2 of RF bias power density ([0025] teaches upto 1.5 Kw bias power) to the substrate at a chamber pressure less than or equal to 3 mTorr (0026] teaches 0 to about 500 mTorr);
depositing a metal liner layer 224 [0027] atop the buffer layer, wherein the liner layer is deposited using a second PVD process [0028] at a chamber pressure of less than or equal to 3 mTorr [0033] while applying greater than 0.08 watts/cm2 of RF bias power to the substrate (0032] teaches upto 5000 W bias power which is more than the bias power applied during metal buffare layer 218), wherein the feature includes a bottom and sidewalls and wherein the metal liner layer is deposited atop the metal buffer layer along the bottom of the feature (Fig. 2C); and
depositing a conductive layer 226 atop the metal liner layer to fill the feature, wherein the conductive layer is deposited via a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process, and wherein the conductive layer is a metal layer [0036].
Ha does not explicitly talk about the bias power “less than or equal to 0.08 watts/cm2” and “greater than 0.08 watts/cm2 “ for the claimed power conditions.
However Ha teaches in [0025] and [0032] about having more power in 2nd CVD process and considering a 500 wats which would be 0 to .7070 watt/cm2 (500/π 152 = 0.707 watt/cm2) considering an industry standard wafer diameter of 300 nm which is less than 0.08 watts/cm2 and which is greater than .08 watts/cm2 (therefore overlapping bias power conditions with the claimed bis power ranges) and the DC power may be varied throughout the process to facilitate selective deposition. Gopalraja also teaches in abstract and in claim 7, (b), (ii)) about 0 watts to 200 watts for 1st CVD process which would be 0 to .2829 watt/cm² (200/π 15² = 0.2829 watt/cm²) considering an industry standard wafer diameter of 300 nm which is less than 0.8 watts/cm² and in claim 7, (c), (ii)) 200 watts to 800 watts for 2nd CVD process which would be 0.2829 watt/cm² which is greater than .08 watts/cm² and therefore overlapping bias conditions with the claimed bias power ranges for two different CVD processes.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application was filed was made to have claimed ranges of pressure and substrate biasing power during two different CVD processes of forming the metal buffer layer and the metal liner layer with routine experiment and optimization since it is desirable to form interconnect features having good electrical properties and low resistances. It is also desirable to sputter deposit material in the fabrication of electrical interconnects without leaving behind high contact resistant regions. It is further desirable to sputter depositing material into features having sloped sidewalls to form electrical interconnects without damaging existing layers on the sidewalls
according to the teaching of Gopalraja ([0007]). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ha talk about wherein the conductive layer is deposited via a electrochemical deposition, or plating (ECP), or the like ([0036]) except a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) process.
Chen teaches [0051] and in Fig. 3D wherein the conductive layer is deposited via a CVD, PVD, electroless, or electroplating techniques.
Thus, it would have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to use a deposition method such as CVD in the method of forming the conductive layer (in Ha’s method) according to the teaching of Chen, since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as CVD or PVD, electroless, or electroplating techniques used to form the conductive layer, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding claim 2: Gopalraja teaches in [0058] – [[0059] wherein the buffer layer and the liner layer are composed of the same materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the materials as claimed, since 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3: Gopalraja teaches in [0058] – [[0059] wherein the buffer layer and the liner layer are composed of different materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the materials as claimed, since 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4: Gopalraja teaches in [0058] – [[0059] wherein the buffer layer is composed of cobalt, copper, molybdenum, ruthenium, tantalum, titanium, tungsten, nitrides thereof, and combinations of the foregoing, and wherein the liner layer is composed of cobalt, copper, molybdenum, ruthenium, tantalum, titanium, tungsten, nitrides thereof, and combinations of the foregoing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the materials as claimed, since 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5: Gopalraja teaches in [0058] – [[0059] wherein the buffer layer is deposited to a thickness of at least about 5 angstroms.
Regarding claim 6: Gopalraja teaches in [0058] – [[0059] wherein the liner layer is deposited to a thickness of at least about 5 angstroms.
Regarding claim 7: Gopalraja teaches in [0027] wherein the buffer layer and the liner layer are deposited in the same PVD chamber without a vacuum break.
Regarding claim 8: Gopalraja teaches in [0027] and Fig. 2 wherein the buffer layer and the liner layer are deposited in different PVD chambers.
Regarding claim 9: Gopalraja teaches in [0027] and Fig. 2 wherein the buffer layer and the liner layer are deposited in different PVD chambers without vacuum break.
Regarding claim 13: Gopalraja teaches in [0002] wherein the conductive layer is at least one of cobalt, copper, molybdenum, or tungsten.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the materials as claimed, since 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ha et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0108058 A1) in view of Gopalraja et al (US 2004/0140196 A1) and further in view of Chen et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0008823 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED SHAMSUZZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am -4 pm 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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Mohammed Shamsuzzaman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897