DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 11/18/2025.
Currently, claims 1-13, 15-18 and 21-23 are pending. Claims 14 and 19-20 have been canceled.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
A definite article such as “the” is missing preceding “top half of the interconnect wire” in line 11 of claim 21.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tien et al. (US 2023/0387022).
In the rejections that follow, the bottom half is interpreted to be the portion in the first ILD 12 and the top half is interpreted to be the portion in the second ILD 13.
Pertaining to claim 1, Tien shows, with reference to FIG. 22, a structure, comprising:
a wafer (10);
a first interlayer dielectric (12) disposed on the wafer;
a second interlayer dielectric (13) disposed on the first interlayer dielectric; and
at least one interconnect wire (32) embedded in the first interlayer dielectric and the second interlayer dielectric,
wherein a first (lower) portion of a top half of the at least one interconnect wire has vertical sidewalls; a second (upper) portion of the top half of the at least one interconnect wire and a bottom half of the at least one interconnect wire have flared sidewalls (they both flare outward along the positive z-direction); the first portion and the second portion of the top half of the at least one interconnect wire are both horizontally surrounded by the second interlayer dielectric (FIG. 22); and the second interlayer dielectric is a layer of uniform dielectric material (FIG. 22).
Pertaining to claim 2, Tien shows the top half of the at least one interconnect wire is disposed directly on the bottom half of the at least one interconnect wire (FIG. 22).
Pertaining to claim 4, Tien shows the bottom half of the at least one interconnect wire is embedded in the first interlayer dielectric, and wherein the top half of the at least one interconnect wire is embedded in the second interlayer dielectric (FIG. 22).
Pertaining to claim 5, Tien shows a first barrier layer separating the bottom half of the at least one interconnect wire from the first interlayer dielectric; and a second barrier layer separating the top half of the at least one interconnect wire from the second interlayer dielectric (para. [0027], where both first and second barriers are parts of the taught barrier layer, or alternatively, are the taught barrier and liner layers, respectively).
Pertaining to claim 6, Tien shows the first barrier layer is present along the flared sidewalls of the bottom half of the at least one interconnect wire, and wherein the second barrier layer is present along the flared sidewalls of the top half of the at least one interconnect wire and along the vertical sidewalls of the second portion of the top half of the at least one interconnect wire (para. [0027]).
Pertaining to claim 7, Tien shows the first barrier layer and the second barrier layer each comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: tantalum nitride (TaN), hafnium nitride (HfN), tantalum hafnium nitride (TaHfN), and combinations thereof (para. [0027]).
Pertaining to claim 8, Tien shows the at least one interconnect wire comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: molybdenum (Mo), rhodium (Rh), ruthenium (Ru), tungsten (W), cobalt (Co), iridium (Ir), and combinations thereof (para. [0026]).
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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tien.
Although Tien does not explicitly show the claimed ranges of angles, such would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, the angle effects the electric field effects of the wire.
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed dimensions or of any unexpected results arising there from. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1515, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 15-18 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 11 has been amended to further recite “wherein the first barrier layer is in physical contact with the flared sidewalls of the bottom half of the at least one interconnect wire, and wherein the second barrier layer is in physical contact with the flared sidewalls of the second portion of the top half of the at least one interconnect wire and in physical contact with the vertical sidewalls of the first portion of the top half of the at least one interconnect wire”. This limitation, in combination with the previously recited limitations, is not taught by the prior art. Thus, claim 11 and claims dependent thereon recite allowable subject matter.
As indicated above, claim 21 is objected to over a minor informality, but is found to contain allowable subject matter similar to that of claim 11.
Claim 3 is 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. The prior art of record does not teach the limitations recited in claim 3 in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-10 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.
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 DANIEL M LUKE whose telephone number is (571)270-1569. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, William Kraig can be reached at (571) 272-8660. 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.
/DANIEL LUKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896