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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/6/26, with respect to claims 1-5, 8-13, 16-20 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5, 8-9 have been withdrawn. Claims 10-13, 16 are stand rejected.
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 10-13 is/are stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIO et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0135640) in view of REID (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0415710), as previously applied.
Regarding to claim 10, SIO et al. teaches an interconnect structure comprising:
a first metal line (M1) in a first inter-level dielectric (ILD) layer;
multiple second metal lines (M2) in a second ILD layer above the first metal line and above the first ILD layer;
a third metal line (M3) in a third ILD layer above the multiple second metal lines and above the second ILD layer; and
a skipvia (150a) between the third metal line and the first metal line,
wherein the first, the multiple second, and the third metal lines comprise a first conductive material (Cu, M1/M2/M3) and the skipvia comprises a second conductive material, (Ru, 150a) the first conductive material being different from the second conductive material (see figure 9E, see paragraphs# 37, 61, 69).
However, the reference does not clearly teach a barrier layer directly surrounding the skipvia, the barrier layer being a layer of tantalum nitride; and a conductive liner directly lining the third metal line, and wherein the conductive liner is substantially surrounded by the barrier layer (in claim 1), the third metal line is surrounded by a conductive liner, the conductive liner being a layer of cobalt (Co) and surrounded by the barrier layer (in claim 10).
REID teaches teach a barrier layer (422) directly surrounding the skipvia, the barrier layer being a layer of tantalum nitride (see paragraph# 55), the third metal line (460) is surrounded by a conductive liner (424), the conductive liner being a layer of cobalt (Co, see paragraph# 76) and surrounded by the barrier layer (meeting claim 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form TaN barrier layer and Co liner layer in REID as taught by SIO et al. because it is known in the art to improve adhesion between the interconnect metal and the dielectric, ensuring a strong and reliable connection.
Regarding to claim 11, the first conductive material is copper (Cu) and the second conductive material is ruthenium (Ru) (see figure 9E, see paragraphs# 37, 61, 69).
Regarding to claim 12, a first contact via between one of the multiple second metal lines with the first metal line, wherein the first contact via comprises the first conductive material (see figure 9E, see paragraphs# 37, 61, 69).
Regarding to claim 13, a second contact via between the third metal line with another one of the multiple second metal lines, wherein the second contact via comprises the second conductive material (see figure 9E, see paragraphs# 37, 61, 69).
Claim 16 is/are stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SIO et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0135640) in view of REID (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0415710) as applied to claims 10-13 above in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0139821), as previously applied.
Referring to figures 2-9, SIO et al. teaches an interconnect structure comprising:
a first metal line (M1) in a first inter-level dielectric (ILD) layer (see figure 9E);
one or more second metal lines (M2) in a second ILD layer above the first metal line (M1) and above the first ILD layer (see figure 9E);
a third metal line (M3) in a third ILD layer above the one or more second metal lines (M2) and above the second ILD layer (see figure 9E); and
a skipvia (150a) connecting the third metal line (M3) with the first metal line (M1),
wherein the first, the one or more second, and the third metal lines (M1/M2/M3) are made of a first conductive material (Cu, 150a) and the skipvia is made of a second conductive material, the first conductive material being different from the second conductive material (Ru, see paragraphs# 37, 61, 69).
However, the reference does not clearly teach the third metal line includes a lowered portion, the lowered portion having a step shape and a bottom thereof being covered by the conductive liner, the conductive liner being directly on top of the skipvia.
Yang et al. teaches the third metal line (32) includes a lowered portion, the lowered portion having a step shape and a bottom thereof being covered by the conductive liner (24L), the conductive liner (24L) being directly on top of the skipvia (see figure 18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the third metal line includes a lowered portion, the lowered portion having a step shape and a bottom thereof being covered by the conductive liner, the conductive liner being directly on top of the skipvia in SIO et al. as taught by Yang et al. because it is known in the art to form a device that controlled line resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that none of the reference teaches/suggests a barrier layer directly surrounding the skipvia, the barrier layer being a layer of tantalum nitride. This is not found persuasive because Sio et al. teaches a skipvia while relies on REID to teach a barrier layer (422) directly surrounding the skipvia, the barrier layer being a layer of tantalum nitride (see paragraph# 55).
Applicant further contends that the Examiner is relying on impermissible hindsight, gleaned from Applicant's disclosure, in suggesting a first conductive material for the alleged first, one or more second, and third metal lines (M1/M2/M3) and a second and different conductive material for the alleged skipvia (150a). According to MPEP 2142, "[tjhe tendency to resort to "hindsight" based upon applicant's disclosure is often difficult to avoid due to the very nature of the examination process. However, impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art" (emphasis added). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-9 are allowed. None of the prior art teaches or suggests a barrier layer directly surrounding sidewalls and a bottom of the skipvia.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Thanh Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1695, or by Email via address Thanh.Nguyen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yara Green, can be reached on (571) 270-3035. The fax phone number for this Group 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://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to thy Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/THANH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights